Sugar Program; Feedstock Flexibility Program for Bioenergy Producers, 64839-64844 [2011-26974]
Download as PDF
64839
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
Vol. 76, No. 202
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains notices to the public of the proposed
issuance of rules and regulations. The
purpose of these notices is to give interested
persons an opportunity to participate in the
rule making prior to the adoption of the final
rules.
Background
CCC proposes to establish new
regulations for the sugar inventory
disposition program and FFP for
bioenergy producers mandated by Title
IX of the 2008 Farm Bill (Pub. L. 110–
246).
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Commodity Credit Corporation
7 CFR Part 1435
RIN 0560–AH86
Sugar Program; Feedstock Flexibility
Program for Bioenergy Producers
Commodity Credit Corporation,
USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Commodity Credit
Corporation (CCC) proposes regulations
with respect to general sugar inventory
disposition and the establishment of a
new Feedstock Flexibility Program
(FFP) that requires the Secretary to
purchase sugar to produce bioenergy as
a means to avoid forfeitures of sugar
loan collateral under the sugar loan
program. These regulations are as
required by the Food Security and Rural
Investment Act of 2002 (the 2002 Farm
Bill), as amended by the Food,
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008
(the 2008 Farm Bill).
DATES: We will consider comments that
we receive by December 19, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are
invited to submit comments on this
proposed rule. In your comment,
include the volume, date, and page
number of this issue of the Federal
Register. You may submit comments by
any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
online instructions for submitting
comments.
• Fax: (202) 690–1480.
• Mail: Barbara Fecso, Dairy and
Sweeteners Analysis Group, Economic
Policy and Analysis Staff, USDA, FSA,
Stop 0516, 1400 Independence Ave.,
SW., Washington, DC 20250–0516.
• Hand Delivery or Courier: USDA
FSA Economic Policy and Analysis
Staff, Stop 0516, 1400 Independence
Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20250–0516.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Barbara Fecso, phone: (202) 720–4146;
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:22 Oct 18, 2011
Jkt 226001
fax: (202) 690–1480. 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:
Sugar Program
The sugar program is designed to
support the price of sugar above a
legislatively specified threshold that has
been established by successive Farm
Bills. In adding FFP as a new element
of the sugar program, it is helpful to
understand certain aspects of the
existing program and how certain
components would relate to FFP. In the
sugar program, the level of price support
is determined by the sugar loan
program. Sugar loans from CCC can be
satisfied by repaying the loan or by
giving CCC title to the loan collateral,
also known as a ‘‘forfeiture’’ of
collateral. The sugar program is
required, to the maximum extent
possible, to operate at no cost to the
Federal government by avoiding
forfeitures to CCC. To avoid forfeitures,
the sugar program limits the domestic
sugar supply through a program of
marketing allocations and tariff-rate
quotas, thereby usually resulting in
higher domestic sugar prices than the
floor created by the sugar loan program.
Sugar Inventory Disposition
CCC proposes new general sugar
inventory disposition regulations that
are required by the 2008 amendments to
7 U.S.C. 8110. The 2008 amendments
restrict the methods CCC may use to
dispose of its sugar inventory in nonemergency situations. The purpose of
the restrictions is to ensure that
disposed inventory only goes to nonfood uses (for example, bioenergy
production) and does not disrupt the
market for sugar for human
consumption. If there is an emergency
shortage of sugar for human
consumption, the Secretary can dispose
of the inventory to fill that shortage.
CCC proposes to add a new subpart E
on General Disposition of CCC
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Inventory to 7 CFR 1435 to implement
the 2008 amendments. Subpart E would
apply to sugar in inventory that CCC
acquired by means other than FFP, such
as sugar obtained from forfeited loan
collateral.
General Disposition of CCC Inventory
(Proposed New Subpart E)
Section 9001 of the 2008 Farm Bill
amends section 9010 of the 2002 Farm
Bill establishing the methods CCC may
use to manage inventory acquired by
forfeiture or other authorities. Unless
CCC has determined that there is an
emergency shortage of sugar in the
domestic market caused by war, flood,
hurricane, other natural disaster, or
similar event, CCC can only dispose of
its sugar inventory using outlets that do
not increase the net supply of sugar
available for human consumption in the
United States.
The 2008 amendments specifically
list methods of disposition as sales
under FFP (proposed new Subpart G),
the Processor Payment-In-Kind Program
(Subpart F in the current regulations),
and buybacks of Certificates of Quota
Eligibility (identified in the 2008
amendments as certificates of quota
entry) issued by the Office of the U.S.
Trade Representative, as set forth in 15
CFR part 2011. The 2008 amendments
do not limit CCC’s ability to dispose of
its sugar for nonfood use (or uses that
do not increase the supply of sugar for
human consumption) under any
authority. This is a change from the
2002 Farm Bill (Pub. L. 107–171) as
originally enacted and the regulations
implementing the 2002 Farm Bill,
which allowed CCC to dispose of
surplus sugar into the domestic market,
including the market for human
consumption. Therefore, we are
proposing new regulations to specify
how CCC would dispose of sugar
inventory. The existing Payment in
Kind program, specified in subpart F, is
one authority CCC uses to dispose of
inventory. This proposed rule would
not change subpart F.
New subpart E would include general
provisions for disposition of inventory
that is not acquired through FFP. For
example, subpart E would apply to
disposition of sugar acquired through
forfeiture of sugar loan collateral.
Subpart E would specify the options
CCC would use to dispose of inventory
E:\FR\FM\19OCP1.SGM
19OCP1
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
64840
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules
in both normal and emergency shortage
situations.
The 2008 amendments to section 9010
of the 2002 Farm Bill also specify the
methods CCC may use to manage
inventory acquired by forfeiture under
the sugar loan program or other
authorities. Unless, as specified in the
2008 Farm Bill, CCC has determined
that ‘‘there is an emergency shortage of
sugar for human consumption in the
United States market that is caused by
a war, flood, hurricane, or other natural
disaster, or other similar event,’’ CCC
can only dispose of its sugar inventory
by methods that do not increase the net
supply of sugar available for human
consumption in the United States. There
should not be much inventory subject to
this provision because the main sugar
surplus management strategy in the
recently amended statute is the removal
of sugar surpluses through CCC sugar
purchases and disposal through
conversion to bioenergy.
CCC can sell sugar for human
consumption if an emergency shortage
condition exists, and the event is caused
by a war, flood, hurricane, or other
natural disaster, or other similar event.
By including the universe of causes—
manmade, natural, and ‘‘other similar
event,’’ CCC has great discretion in
determining the cause triggering an
emergency shortage. Therefore, the only
practical limitation on CCC’s ability to
sell sugar for human consumption
depends on what constitutes the
‘‘existence of an emergency shortage.’’
This concept is important because CCC
is required under the sugar marketing
allotment program and Harmonized
Tariff Schedule to ensure an adequate
supply of sugar for domestic
consumption. Additionally, the sugar
tariff-rate quota management provisions
of the 2008 amendments require USDA
to increase sugar supplies if an
emergency shortage exists.
CCC is requesting comment from the
public on establishing a definition of an
emergency shortage. Webster’s
Dictionary defines an emergency as a
sudden or unexpected occurrence
demanding prompt action. Some recent
examples of unexpected manmade or
natural occurrences that reduced
domestic refined sugar supplies are the
late sugar beet crop of 2005, Hurricane
Katrina, and the Imperial refinery
explosion in Savannah, Georgia in
February 2008. CCC determined that the
delayed beet crop and Katrina resulted
in sudden shortages that could not be
resolved by redistributing available
domestic supplies and took immediate
action to increase supply. However,
with respect to the February 2008
refinery explosion, CCC delayed action
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:22 Oct 18, 2011
Jkt 226001
until the following August when it
contemplated the threat of a refined
shortage, in recognition that shortages
are most likely to occur in the August–
September period when domestic sugar
stocks are at their yearly lowest point.
The law directs USDA to take action to
increase supplies when an emergency
shortage ‘‘exists,’’ not when it is
‘‘contemplated.’’ CCC could define an
emergency shortage as a supply failure
affecting sugar deliveries and disrupting
the ongoing operations of sugar product
manufacturers, i.e., defaults or force
majeure on contracts affecting 10
percent of average monthly deliveries.
Alternatively, CCC could determine an
emergency shortage exists when sugar
prices spike a certain percentage, i.e., 50
percent above the loan level, or 10 cents
above the loan level. Alternatively, CCC
could also leave the term undefined so
as to maintain maximum flexibility in
meeting the needs of the domestic sugar
market.
Feedstock Flexibility Program
(Proposed New Subpart G)
Section 9001 of the 2008 Farm Bill
amends section 9010 of the 2002 Farm
Bill to require CCC to implement FFP to
control the domestic sugar supply and
avoid forfeitures. Under this program,
CCC is required to buy surplus sugar as
needed to avoid forfeitures of sugar loan
collateral and sell that surplus sugar to
bioenergy producers. Bioenergy, as
defined by section 9001 of the 2008
amendments, means fuel grade ethanol
and other biofuel. The 2008
amendments require the Secretary to
annually notify eligible bioenergy sugar
sellers and producers of the quantity of
sugar to be made available for purchase
and sale in the crop year following the
date of that notification. The 2008
amendments also require quarterly
revised estimates and notification.
CCC proposes to add a new subpart G
to establish general provisions for
operating FFP. Through FFP, CCC
would buy and sell sugar for bioenergy
production, based on predictions of
sugar surplus conditions months into
the future, a process that involves
unavoidable uncertainty and risk. CCC
proposes general provisions that are
intended to provide flexibility in
program administration. CCC requests
comments on alternative methods to
administer the program while meeting
the requirements of the 2008
amendments.
FFP will be administered through
contracts for the purchase and sale of
sugar, and products that yield sugar,
when CCC determines that sugar loan
collateral is likely to be forfeited under
the sugar loan program. The contracts
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
will include the specific terms and
conditions associated with each
purchase and sale. CCC expects to
amend its contract terms through time
as it learns how to most effectively
facilitate the diversion of sugar to
ethanol and other bioenergy production.
Surplus Determination
As required by the 2008 amendments,
each year CCC will estimate the
likelihood of sugar forfeitures by
September 1, for the following fiscal
year, and announce the quantity of
sugar to be purchased and sold for
bioenergy production. In addition, CCC
will make quarterly announcements of
revised estimates. Quarterly revised
estimates will be important because the
USDA annual estimate reported on
September 1 for the following fiscal
year’s sugar market will potentially be
subject to significant error due to
uncertainties in making the estimate.
The sugarcane and sugar beet harvest for
making sugar in the following fiscal year
does not normally begin until after
September 1 of the prior year. Very little
is known about the condition of the
crop on September 1, when USDA is
required by the 2008 amendments to
make its annual estimate of sugar
surplus. The harvest for sugar in Mexico
begins in December; therefore, the
uncertainties are aggravated by the
effect of Mexican imports on the U.S.
sugar market. Another major source of
potential error is the fact that the
current fiscal year is not over by
September 1. Any changes to the current
year automatically alter the current
year’s ending stocks, and the next year’s
beginning stocks and supply. CCC’s
purchase and sale plans would be
affected by the large degree of
uncertainty in USDA’s sugar market
projections on September 1.
CCC requests comments on how CCC
should calculate a sugar market surplus,
particularly for the estimate by
September 1, when uncertainties are
greatest. For example, CCC could
calculate the surplus by comparing the
World Agricultural Supply and Demand
Estimate (WASDE) ending stocks to the
ending stocks for an adequately
supplied market. In the past, an ending
stock of 14.5 percent of expected annual
use was considered to predict adequate
supply for the following year.
Alternatively, CCC could compare
WASDE stocks to the stock level
expected to result in forfeitures and
declare any projected stocks above these
amounts to be surplus. However, this
method is inadequate for determining
surplus by type of sugar, raw versus
refined, because the WASDE is an
amalgamation of both sugars. Certainly,
E:\FR\FM\19OCP1.SGM
19OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
current WASDE tight ending stocks-touse ratios do not reflect the current raw
sugar surplus.
There are two possible types of errors
with surplus determination: (1) Overestimating the surplus and buying and
selling sugar for bioenergy that results
in market shortages later in the year or
(2) under-estimating the surplus
resulting in excess supply later in the
year. The consequences of these two
types of errors are different. Sugar used
to make bioenergy cannot be recovered
to be marketed for human consumption
if needed later; however, sugar not sold
early in the year can later be sold for
bioenergy production. The first type of
risk, that of over-estimating the surplus,
has more serious consequences and
costs than the second type. CCC
proposes to reduce the over-estimation
risk by staggering purchases of sugar for
bioenergy purchases, rather than making
one purchase for the entire year. CCC
plans to be more conservative in
purchasing sugar for bioenergy early in
the year than later in the year, when
market factors are better known. CCC
would calculate the surplus for the
whole year as required by the 2008
amendments, but then only tender a
percentage of the estimated surplus for
bid immediately. The percentage could
change with each quarterly revised
estimate. CCC would not retract
accepted bids.
CCC requests comments on
appropriate methods to estimate the
likelihood of forfeitures and to
determine the quantity of sugar to be
purchased in each quarter. How should
CCC calculate the annual sugar market
surplus and update that estimate?
Should a minimum percentage of the
expected surplus be tendered for bid
each quarter, and should that minimum
be set in the regulations?
Eligible Sugar
CCC is required to purchase raw,
refined, or in-process sugar for FFP that
would otherwise have been marketed
for human consumption in the United
States or could otherwise have been
used for the extraction of sugar
marketed for human consumption. The
2008 amendments define all these forms
of sugar as eligible commodities for FFP.
For example, in-process sugar products
such as beet thick juice or cane syrup
are eligible. Since the program objective
is to reduce forfeitures of CCC sugar
loan collateral, CCC proposes that the
in-process sugar products would be
evaluated in terms of refined crystalline
sugar yield in determining CCC’s unit
purchase price. For example, if
processing the thick juice would yield
70 percent sugar for human
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:22 Oct 18, 2011
Jkt 226001
consumption, then CCC would only
consider 70 percent of the sugar in the
thick juice in evaluating the per unit
price. Likewise, raw sugar would be
evaluated in terms of its refined
equivalent to determine a sales price per
unit. This reduction in price is not
required by the 2008 amendments, but
it is consistent with the 2008
amendments’ goal of buying sugar for
FFP to manage the market for sugar for
human consumption. CCC requests
comments on and proposed alternatives
to this provision.
CCC proposes that for FFP, it will
only purchase sugar products that are
eligible to be placed under loan with the
federal sugar loan program. Sugar
eligible to be placed under loan must be
processed in the United States from
domestically-grown sugarcane, sugar
beets, in-process sugars, or molasses. As
an alternative, CCC could allow FFP to
purchase sugar products from all
sources, including imported sugar and
sugar products from eligible domestic
sellers. Forfeitures are expected to occur
when the total sugar supply for human
consumption is greater than the level
that can support domestic sugar prices
above the price support loan proceeds.
That surplus could be caused in part by
Mexican imports or by sugar made
domestically from non-domestic
sources. CCC requests comments on
whether eligible sugar for FFP should be
limited to sugar located within the
United States and derived from
domestically produced sugarcane or
sugar beets.
Eligible Sugar Sellers and Buyers
The 2008 amendments require that
the entity selling sugar to CCC be
located in the United States and that
eligible buyers be bioenergy producers.
The 2008 amendments define eligible
sellers as entities located in the United
States, but do not require that eligible
buyers be located in the United States.
CCC proposes to limit eligible buyers to
those bioenergy producers who will use
the purchased sugar to produce
bioenergy in their facilities in United
States. This restriction is intended to
ensure that the increase in energy
supplies from the program will benefit
the American public paying for FFP.
CCC requests comments on whether to
include bioenergy producers located
outside the United States as eligible
buyers.
Competitive Procedures
CCC proposes to announce offers (also
referred to as tenders) to the public
outlining the terms and conditions of
the sugar purchase and sale contracts.
CCC also proposes to negotiate contracts
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
64841
directly with sellers or buyers if CCC
determines that such negotiation will
result in either reduced likelihood of
forfeited sugar compared to alternative
means or reduced costs of removing
sugar from the market, which will
reduce the likelihood of sugar forfeited
to CCC. CCC proposes to try several
contracting strategies to discover the
most efficient and cost-effective strategy
to subsidize the production of bioenergy
with surplus sugar, given the
restrictions specified in the 2002 Farm
Bill. CCC requests comments on
alternative contracting strategies and on
whether those strategies should be
specified in the regulation.
CCC is required by the 2008
amendments to store the sugar for no
more than 30 days after CCC purchases
the sugar. Realistically, this means that
the purchasing bioenergy producer must
be identified before CCC purchases
surplus sugar. CCC does not propose
specifically how it would do that,
although CCC proposes to specify that
the buyer must take delivery of the
sugar within 30 days of purchase. CCC
could identify (pre-qualify) bioenergy
producers willing to take sugar or sugar
products under specific terms (price,
amount, type of sugar, etc.).
Alternatively, CCC could require the
sugar seller to identify the purchasing
bioenergy producer and incorporate a
contract of sale between CCC and the
bioenergy producer specifying terms,
including price, in their offer to sell
sugar to CCC. CCC proposes to use both
these strategies and evaluate which is
more effective. CCC requests comments
on alternative strategies.
The 2008 amendments prohibit, to the
maximum extent possible, CCC from
paying storage fees under FFP.
Therefore, as a condition of bid
acceptance into FFP, CCC would not
pay any storage fees.
Sugar To Be Used for Bioenergy
Production
CCC expects that the selling price for
sugar, with the restriction that it only be
used for making bioenergy, will be
considerably below the market price for
sugar that can be used for human
consumption. This price differential
could create an incentive for FFP sugar
to leak into the domestic human
consumption market. Therefore, CCC
will monitor the contracts to ensure that
the FFP sugar is only being used for
bioenergy production. CCC proposes to
include an audit clause in the contracts
to purchase sugar for bioenergy
production. The auditors would view
the records upon request, as specified in
the contract, to verify that sugar
E:\FR\FM\19OCP1.SGM
19OCP1
64842
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
purchased for bioenergy production was
only used for bioenergy production.
In addition to auditing records, CCC
would send an auditor to the bioenergy
factory purchasing surplus sugar under
FFP to verify that the quantity
purchased is physically entering the
factory as an input in accordance with
the contract. Examination could be
performed for every event or by random
checks. In any case, substantial
liquidated damages, to be determined,
could be imposed for willfully
furnishing false information to CCC.
CCC requests comment on the auditing
or monitoring methods that should be
used. For example:
• Are there alternative processes that
CCC should use to ensure that the FFP
sugar is not sold for human
consumption?
• What kinds of documentation,
audits, and monitoring would be
appropriate?
• Should the methods of proof be
specified in the rule, or in the contract
between CCC and the bioenergy
producer?
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory
Planning and Review,’’ and Executive
Order 13563, ‘‘Improving Regulation
and Regulatory Review,’’ direct agencies
to assess all costs and benefits of
available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select
regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits (including potential
economic, environmental, public health
and safety effects, distributive impacts,
and equity). Executive Order 13563
emphasized the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits, of
reducing costs, of harmonizing rules,
and of promoting flexibility.
The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) initially designated this
proposed rule as economically
significant under Executive Order 12866
and, therefore, OMB reviewed this
proposed rule. Due to increases in sugar
prices since the initial designation the
current cost benefit analysis shows the
annual regulatory impact to be less than
the threshold of $100 million, therefore
the rule is a significant regulatory
action, but is no longer considered an
economically significant regulatory
action. A summary of the cost-benefit
analysis of this rule is provided below
and is available at https://
www.regulations.gov and from the
contact listed above.
Clarity of the Regulation
Executive Order 12866, as
supplemented by Executive Order
13563, requires each agency to write all
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:22 Oct 18, 2011
Jkt 226001
rules in plain language. In addition to
your substantive comments on these
proposed rules, we invite your
comments on how to make them easier
to understand. For example:
• Are the requirements in the rule
clearly stated? Are the scope and intent
of the rule clear?
• Does the rule contain technical
language or jargon that is not clear?
• Is the material logically organized?
• Would changing the grouping or
order of sections or adding headings
make the rule easier to understand?
• Could we improve clarity by adding
tables, lists, or diagrams?
• Would more, but shorter, sections
be better? Are there specific sections
that are too long or confusing?
• What else could we do to make the
rule easier to understand?
Summary of Costs and Benefits
FFP, along with the impact of higher
sugar loan rates than in the 2002 Farm
Bill, is expected to cost an average of
$8.7 million per year for the next 10
years. Because of uncertainty about
future sugar markets and trade flows,
the $8.7 million average annual cost of
FFP is the composite of two scenarios
which differ in their assumptions about
the Mexican sugar market. The first
scenario (with a 75 percent probability)
assumes that Mexican sugarcane acreage
does not increase and that high fructose
corn syrup (HFCS) use in Mexico
continues to be strong (but not as strong
as in the second scenario), resulting in
no FFP costs. The second scenario (with
a 25 percent likelihood) assumes larger
Mexican sugarcane acreage (partly due
to higher U.S. sugar loan rates under the
2008 Farm Bill) and lower Mexican
sugar demand compared to the first
scenario. With the resulting larger sugar
shipments to the U.S., and lower U.S.
sugar prices, this second scenario
results in FFP activation and FFP costs.
These additional costs are due to two
factors. First, the higher U.S. sugar loan
rates under the 2008 Farm Bill may
encourage increased Mexican sugarcane
acreage, as described in the second
scenario above, and also mean that if
surplus sugar is purchased to prevent
forfeitures, the price at which it must be
purchased is higher than previously.
Second, the returns to the CCC
associated with selling sugar for
ethanol, if FFP is activated, are
significantly lower than if sales could be
made for human consumption (a prior
mechanism for disposal of sugar
inventory that was used but is no longer
authorized). Increased sugar program
loan rates account for $35.4 million and
restricted CCC disposal options for
surplus sugar account for $26.1 million
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
of the total $61.5 million increase in
over what disposal of excess sugar
inventory would cost if the 2002 Farm
Bill were still in effect.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
In accordance with the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, the Agency
has determined that there will not be a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
The entities that would be affected by
this rule are sugar producers and sugar
bioenergy producers. The sugar
producers are not small businesses
according to the North American
Industry Classification System and the
U.S. Small Business Administration.
There are currently no commercial
bioenergy producers in the United
States who use sugar as a feedstock. The
bioenergy producers in the United
States who use other commodities as a
feedstock and might be expected to
purchase sugar as a feedstock in the
future are not small businesses.
Environmental Review
The environmental impacts of this
rule have been considered in a manner
consistent with the provisions of the
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4347), the
regulations of the Council on
Environmental Quality (40 CFR parts
1500–1508), and Farm Service Agency
(FSA) regulations for compliance with
NEPA (7 CFR part 799). The changes to
the sugar program required by Title IX
of the 2008 amendments identified in
this proposed rule are considered nondiscretionary. Therefore, FSA has
determined that NEPA does not apply to
this proposed rule and no
environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement will be
prepared.
Executive Order 12372
This program is not subject to
Executive Order 12372,
‘‘Intergovernmental Review of Federal
Programs,’’ which requires consultation
with State and local officials. See the
notice related to 7 CFR part 3015,
subpart V, published in the Federal
Register on June 24, 1983 (48 FR 29115).
Executive Order 12988
This rule has been reviewed under
Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice
Reform.’’ The provisions of this
proposed rule will not have preemptive
effect with respect to any State or local
laws, regulations, or policies that
conflict with such provision or which
otherwise impede their full
implementation. The rule will not have
retroactive effect. Before any judicial
E:\FR\FM\19OCP1.SGM
19OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules
E-Government Act Compliance
action may be brought regarding the
provisions of this rule, the
administrative appeal provisions of 7
CFR parts 11 and 780 must be
exhausted.
Executive Order 13132
This rule has been reviewed under
Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism.’’
The policies contained in this rule will
not have any substantial direct effect on
States, the relationship between the
Federal government and the States, or
the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government. Nor would this
proposed rule impose substantial direct
compliance costs on State and local
governments. Therefore, consultation
with the States is not required.
Executive Order 13175
This proposed rule has been reviewed
for compliance with Executive Order
13175, ‘‘Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments.’’ The
policies in this rule do not have Tribal
implications that preempt Tribal law.
Unfunded Mandates
Title II of the Unfunded Mandate
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA, Pub. L.
104–4) requires Federal agencies to
assess the effects of their regulatory
actions on State, local, or Tribal
governments or the private sector.
Agencies generally must prepare a
written statement, including a cost
benefit analysis, for proposed and final
rules with Federal mandates that may
result in expenditures of $100 million or
more in any 1 year for State, local, or
Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or
to the private sector. UMRA generally
requires agencies to consider
alternatives and adopt the more cost
effective or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule.
This rule contains no Federal mandates
under the regulatory provisions of Title
II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (UMRA, Pub. L. 104–4) for
State, local, and Tribal government or
the private sector. Therefore, this rule is
not subject to the requirements of
sections 202 and 205 of UMRA.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection for FFP is
currently approved under OMB control
number 0560–0177. We anticipate that
fewer than 10 sugar producers will
participate in the bioenergy program in
the next three years. Therefore, there are
no changes to the current information
collection as approved by OMB.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:22 Oct 18, 2011
Jkt 226001
CCC is committed to complying with
the E-Government Act, to promote the
use of the Internet and other
information technologies to provide
increased opportunities for citizen
access to Government information and
services, and for other purposes.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1435
Loan programs—agriculture,
Penalties, Price support programs,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sugar.
For the reasons discussed above, FSA
proposes to amend 7 CFR part 1435 as
follows:
PART 1435—SUGAR PROGRAM
1. Revise the authority citation for
part 1435 to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1359aa–1359jj, 7272,
and 8110; 15 U.S.C. 714b and 714c.
2. Add subpart E to read as follows:
Subpart E—Disposition of CCC Inventory
Sec.
1435.400 General statement.
1435.401 CCC sugar inventory disposition.
Subpart E—Disposition of CCC
Inventory
§ 1435.400
General statement.
(a) This subpart will be applicable in
the event that an eligible commodity is
owned and held in CCC inventory and
not acquired through the Feedstock
Flexibility Program as set forth in
subpart G of this part.
(b) An eligible commodity is raw,
refined, or in-process sugar that is
eligible to be marketed in the United
States for human consumption or to be
used for the extraction of sugar for
human consumption.
§ 1435.401 CCC sugar inventory
disposition.
(a) CCC will dispose of inventory in
the following manner, if CCC has not
determined there is an emergency
shortage of sugar for human
consumption in the domestic market:
(1) By sale to bioenergy producers
under the Feedstock Flexibility Program
as set forth in subpart G of this part,
(2) By transfer to sugarcane and sugar
beet processors under the Processor
Sugar Payment-In-Kind Program as set
forth in subpart F of this part,
(3) Buyback of certificates of quota
eligibility, or
(4) Using any other authority for the
disposition of CCC-owned sugar that
does not increase the net quantity of
sugar available for human consumption
in the United States.
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
64843
(b) CCC may use any authority for the
disposition of CCC-owned sugar, if CCC
has determined there is an emergency
shortage of sugar for human
consumption in the domestic market
caused by war, flood, hurricane, or other
natural disaster, or similar event, as
determined by CCC.
3. Add subpart G to read as follows:
Subpart G—Feedstock Flexibility Program
Sec.
1435.600 General statement.
1435.601 Sugar surplus determination and
public announcement.
1435.602 Eligible commodity to be
purchased by CCC.
1435.603 Eligible sugar seller.
1435.604 Eligible sugar buyer.
1435.605 Competitive procedures.
1435.606 Miscellaneous.
1435.607 Appeals.
Subpart G—Feedstock Flexibility
Program
§ 1435.600
General statement.
(a) This subpart will be applicable to
any sugar seller located in the United
States and any bioenergy producer
located in the United States who
contracts with CCC to sell or purchase
surplus sugar, which may be sold in the
United States for the production of
bioenergy as set forth in this subpart or
other purposes as set forth in subpart E
of this part, when CCC determines that
such action will reduce forfeitures of
sugar pledged as collateral for CCC
sugar loans.
(b) [Reserved]
§ 1435.601 Sugar surplus determination
and public announcement.
(a) The Secretary will estimate the
quantity of sugar likely to be forfeited to
CCC in the following fiscal year by
September 1.
(b) Not later than the January 1, April
1, and July 1 of the fiscal year, the
Secretary will re-estimate the quantity
of sugar likely to be forfeited to CCC in
the fiscal year.
(c) The Secretary will announce by
press release for the above dates a
purchase and sale strategy, which
includes the quantity and timing of the
sugar to be purchased and sold to
bioenergy producers, and that reflects
the estimate of sugar likely to be
forfeited to CCC and the uncertainty
surrounding the estimate.
§ 1435.602 Eligible commodity to be
purchased by CCC.
(a) CCC will only purchase raw sugar,
refined sugar, or in-process sugar that is
eligible to be used as collateral in the
federal Sugar Loan Program.
(1) Sugar may not have been
processed from imported sugarcane,
E:\FR\FM\19OCP1.SGM
19OCP1
64844
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules
sugar beets, in-process sugars, or
molasses; and
(2) Sugar must have been processed in
the United States.
(b) Sugar or in-process sugar
purchased directly from any domestic
sugar beet and sugarcane processor that
made the sugar or in-process sugar must
be credited against its sugar marketing
allocation to be eligible for purchase
under this program.
(c) CCC will purchase sugar located in
the United States.
(d) CCC will only purchase an eligible
commodity if the purchased commodity
would reduce the likelihood of
forfeitures of CCC sugar loans, as
determined by CCC.
(e) CCC will evaluate an offer to sell
an eligible commodity to CCC based
upon CCC’s estimate of the reduction in
refined sugar supply available for
human consumption due to the
purchase. For example, if processing the
thick juice would yield 70 percent sugar
for human consumption, then CCC will
only consider 70 percent of the sugar in
the thick juice in evaluating the per unit
sales price.
§ 1435.603
Eligible sugar seller.
Eligible sugar buyer.
(a) To be considered an eligible sugar
buyer, the bioenergy producer must
produce bioenergy products, including
fuel grade ethanol or other biofuels.
(b) The bioenergy producer and its
production facilities that use CCC sugar
or in-process sugar must be located in
the United States.
§ 1435.605
Competitive procedures.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
(a) CCC will generally submit tenders
for bids, before entering into contracts
with any eligible sugar seller and buyer
that minimize CCC net outlays.
(b) CCC may, at times, negotiate
contracts directly with sellers or buyers,
if CCC determines that such negotiation
will result in either reduced likelihood
of forfeited sugar under the CCC sugar
loan program or reduced costs of
removing sugar from the market, which
will reduce the likelihood of sugar
forfeited to CCC.
§ 1435.606
Miscellaneous.
(a) As a sugar buyer, the bioenergy
producer must take possession of the
sugar or in-process sugar no more than
30 days from the date of CCC’s
purchase.
(b) CCC, to the maximum extent
practicable, will not pay storage fees for
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:22 Oct 18, 2011
Jkt 226001
14 CFR Part 39
Examining the AD Docket
§ 1435.607
Appeals.
(a) The administrative appeal
regulations of parts 11 and 780 of this
title apply to this part.
(b) [Reserved]
Signed at Washington, DC, on October 13,
2011.
Bruce Nelson,
Executive Vice President, Commodity Credit
Corporation.
[FR Doc. 2011–26974 Filed 10–18–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–05–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
[Docket No. FAA–2010–0068; Directorate
Identifier 2010–NE–05–AD]
RIN 2120–AA64
(a) To be considered an eligible sugar
seller, the sugar seller must be located
in the United States.
(b) [Reserved]
§ 1435.604
Federal Aviation Administration
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Fax: 202–493–2251.
• Mail: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations,
M–30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
• Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail
address above between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
For service information identified in
this AD, contact General Electric
Company, GE-Aviation, Room 285, 1
Neumann Way, Cincinnati, OH 45215,
phone: 513–552–3272; e-mail:
geae.aoc@ge.com. You may review
copies of the referenced service
information at the FAA, Engine &
Propeller Directorate, 12 New England
Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For
information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call 781–238–7125.
sugar or in-process sugar purchased
under this program.
(c) Each bioenergy producer that
purchases sugar through FFP must
provide proof to CCC that the sugar has
been used in the bioenergy factory for
the production of bioenergy.
Airworthiness Directives; General
Electric Company Turbofan Engines
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
AGENCY:
We propose to supersede two
existing airworthiness directives (ADs)
that apply to General Electric Company
(GE) CF6–45 and CF6–50 series turbofan
engines with certain low-pressure
turbine (LPT) rotor stage 3 disks
installed. The existing ADs currently
require inspections of high pressure
turbine (HPT) and LPT rotors, engine
checks, and surveys. Since we issued
those ADs, GE has determined that the
low-cycle fatigue (LCF) lives of the LPT
rotor stage 3 disks affected by those ADs
are below the current published engine
manual life limits and has introduced a
new LPT rotor stage 3 disk part number.
This proposed AD would establish a
new lower life limit for the LPT rotor
stage 3 disks. We are proposing this AD
to prevent critical life-limited rotating
engine part failure, which could result
in an uncontained engine failure and
damage to the airplane.
DATES: We must receive comments on
this proposed AD by December 5, 2011.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments,
using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following
methods:
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
You may examine the AD docket on
the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the
Docket Management Facility between
9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD
docket contains this proposed AD, the
regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The
street address for the Docket Office
(phone: 800–647–5527) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be
available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Tomasz Rakowski, Aerospace Engineer,
Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine
& Propeller Directorate, 12 New England
Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803;
phone: 781–238–7735; fax: 781–238–
7199; e-mail: tomasz.rakowski@faa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
We invite you to send any written
relevant data, views, or arguments about
this proposed AD. Send your comments
to an address listed under the
ADDRESSES section. Include ‘‘Docket No.
FAA–2010–0068; Directorate Identifier
2010–NE–05–AD’’ at the beginning of
your comments. We specifically invite
comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy
aspects of this proposed AD. We will
consider all comments received by the
closing date and may amend this
proposed AD because of those
comments.
We will post all comments we
receive, without change, to https://
E:\FR\FM\19OCP1.SGM
19OCP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 202 (Wednesday, October 19, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 64839-64844]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-26974]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2011 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 64839]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Commodity Credit Corporation
7 CFR Part 1435
RIN 0560-AH86
Sugar Program; Feedstock Flexibility Program for Bioenergy
Producers
AGENCY: Commodity Credit Corporation, USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) proposes regulations
with respect to general sugar inventory disposition and the
establishment of a new Feedstock Flexibility Program (FFP) that
requires the Secretary to purchase sugar to produce bioenergy as a
means to avoid forfeitures of sugar loan collateral under the sugar
loan program. These regulations are as required by the Food Security
and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (the 2002 Farm Bill), as amended by
the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (the 2008 Farm Bill).
DATES: We will consider comments that we receive by December 19, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on this
proposed rule. In your comment, include the volume, date, and page
number of this issue of the Federal Register. You may submit comments
by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
Fax: (202) 690-1480.
Mail: Barbara Fecso, Dairy and Sweeteners Analysis Group,
Economic Policy and Analysis Staff, USDA, FSA, Stop 0516, 1400
Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20250-0516.
Hand Delivery or Courier: USDA FSA Economic Policy and
Analysis Staff, Stop 0516, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC
20250-0516.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Fecso, phone: (202) 720-4146;
fax: (202) 690-1480. 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:
Background
CCC proposes to establish new regulations for the sugar inventory
disposition program and FFP for bioenergy producers mandated by Title
IX of the 2008 Farm Bill (Pub. L. 110-246).
Sugar Program
The sugar program is designed to support the price of sugar above a
legislatively specified threshold that has been established by
successive Farm Bills. In adding FFP as a new element of the sugar
program, it is helpful to understand certain aspects of the existing
program and how certain components would relate to FFP. In the sugar
program, the level of price support is determined by the sugar loan
program. Sugar loans from CCC can be satisfied by repaying the loan or
by giving CCC title to the loan collateral, also known as a
``forfeiture'' of collateral. The sugar program is required, to the
maximum extent possible, to operate at no cost to the Federal
government by avoiding forfeitures to CCC. To avoid forfeitures, the
sugar program limits the domestic sugar supply through a program of
marketing allocations and tariff-rate quotas, thereby usually resulting
in higher domestic sugar prices than the floor created by the sugar
loan program.
Sugar Inventory Disposition
CCC proposes new general sugar inventory disposition regulations
that are required by the 2008 amendments to 7 U.S.C. 8110. The 2008
amendments restrict the methods CCC may use to dispose of its sugar
inventory in non-emergency situations. The purpose of the restrictions
is to ensure that disposed inventory only goes to non-food uses (for
example, bioenergy production) and does not disrupt the market for
sugar for human consumption. If there is an emergency shortage of sugar
for human consumption, the Secretary can dispose of the inventory to
fill that shortage.
CCC proposes to add a new subpart E on General Disposition of CCC
Inventory to 7 CFR 1435 to implement the 2008 amendments. Subpart E
would apply to sugar in inventory that CCC acquired by means other than
FFP, such as sugar obtained from forfeited loan collateral.
General Disposition of CCC Inventory (Proposed New Subpart E)
Section 9001 of the 2008 Farm Bill amends section 9010 of the 2002
Farm Bill establishing the methods CCC may use to manage inventory
acquired by forfeiture or other authorities. Unless CCC has determined
that there is an emergency shortage of sugar in the domestic market
caused by war, flood, hurricane, other natural disaster, or similar
event, CCC can only dispose of its sugar inventory using outlets that
do not increase the net supply of sugar available for human consumption
in the United States.
The 2008 amendments specifically list methods of disposition as
sales under FFP (proposed new Subpart G), the Processor Payment-In-Kind
Program (Subpart F in the current regulations), and buybacks of
Certificates of Quota Eligibility (identified in the 2008 amendments as
certificates of quota entry) issued by the Office of the U.S. Trade
Representative, as set forth in 15 CFR part 2011. The 2008 amendments
do not limit CCC's ability to dispose of its sugar for nonfood use (or
uses that do not increase the supply of sugar for human consumption)
under any authority. This is a change from the 2002 Farm Bill (Pub. L.
107-171) as originally enacted and the regulations implementing the
2002 Farm Bill, which allowed CCC to dispose of surplus sugar into the
domestic market, including the market for human consumption. Therefore,
we are proposing new regulations to specify how CCC would dispose of
sugar inventory. The existing Payment in Kind program, specified in
subpart F, is one authority CCC uses to dispose of inventory. This
proposed rule would not change subpart F.
New subpart E would include general provisions for disposition of
inventory that is not acquired through FFP. For example, subpart E
would apply to disposition of sugar acquired through forfeiture of
sugar loan collateral. Subpart E would specify the options CCC would
use to dispose of inventory
[[Page 64840]]
in both normal and emergency shortage situations.
The 2008 amendments to section 9010 of the 2002 Farm Bill also
specify the methods CCC may use to manage inventory acquired by
forfeiture under the sugar loan program or other authorities. Unless,
as specified in the 2008 Farm Bill, CCC has determined that ``there is
an emergency shortage of sugar for human consumption in the United
States market that is caused by a war, flood, hurricane, or other
natural disaster, or other similar event,'' CCC can only dispose of its
sugar inventory by methods that do not increase the net supply of sugar
available for human consumption in the United States. There should not
be much inventory subject to this provision because the main sugar
surplus management strategy in the recently amended statute is the
removal of sugar surpluses through CCC sugar purchases and disposal
through conversion to bioenergy.
CCC can sell sugar for human consumption if an emergency shortage
condition exists, and the event is caused by a war, flood, hurricane,
or other natural disaster, or other similar event. By including the
universe of causes--manmade, natural, and ``other similar event,'' CCC
has great discretion in determining the cause triggering an emergency
shortage. Therefore, the only practical limitation on CCC's ability to
sell sugar for human consumption depends on what constitutes the
``existence of an emergency shortage.'' This concept is important
because CCC is required under the sugar marketing allotment program and
Harmonized Tariff Schedule to ensure an adequate supply of sugar for
domestic consumption. Additionally, the sugar tariff-rate quota
management provisions of the 2008 amendments require USDA to increase
sugar supplies if an emergency shortage exists.
CCC is requesting comment from the public on establishing a
definition of an emergency shortage. Webster's Dictionary defines an
emergency as a sudden or unexpected occurrence demanding prompt action.
Some recent examples of unexpected manmade or natural occurrences that
reduced domestic refined sugar supplies are the late sugar beet crop of
2005, Hurricane Katrina, and the Imperial refinery explosion in
Savannah, Georgia in February 2008. CCC determined that the delayed
beet crop and Katrina resulted in sudden shortages that could not be
resolved by redistributing available domestic supplies and took
immediate action to increase supply. However, with respect to the
February 2008 refinery explosion, CCC delayed action until the
following August when it contemplated the threat of a refined shortage,
in recognition that shortages are most likely to occur in the August-
September period when domestic sugar stocks are at their yearly lowest
point. The law directs USDA to take action to increase supplies when an
emergency shortage ``exists,'' not when it is ``contemplated.'' CCC
could define an emergency shortage as a supply failure affecting sugar
deliveries and disrupting the ongoing operations of sugar product
manufacturers, i.e., defaults or force majeure on contracts affecting
10 percent of average monthly deliveries. Alternatively, CCC could
determine an emergency shortage exists when sugar prices spike a
certain percentage, i.e., 50 percent above the loan level, or 10 cents
above the loan level. Alternatively, CCC could also leave the term
undefined so as to maintain maximum flexibility in meeting the needs of
the domestic sugar market.
Feedstock Flexibility Program (Proposed New Subpart G)
Section 9001 of the 2008 Farm Bill amends section 9010 of the 2002
Farm Bill to require CCC to implement FFP to control the domestic sugar
supply and avoid forfeitures. Under this program, CCC is required to
buy surplus sugar as needed to avoid forfeitures of sugar loan
collateral and sell that surplus sugar to bioenergy producers.
Bioenergy, as defined by section 9001 of the 2008 amendments, means
fuel grade ethanol and other biofuel. The 2008 amendments require the
Secretary to annually notify eligible bioenergy sugar sellers and
producers of the quantity of sugar to be made available for purchase
and sale in the crop year following the date of that notification. The
2008 amendments also require quarterly revised estimates and
notification.
CCC proposes to add a new subpart G to establish general provisions
for operating FFP. Through FFP, CCC would buy and sell sugar for
bioenergy production, based on predictions of sugar surplus conditions
months into the future, a process that involves unavoidable uncertainty
and risk. CCC proposes general provisions that are intended to provide
flexibility in program administration. CCC requests comments on
alternative methods to administer the program while meeting the
requirements of the 2008 amendments.
FFP will be administered through contracts for the purchase and
sale of sugar, and products that yield sugar, when CCC determines that
sugar loan collateral is likely to be forfeited under the sugar loan
program. The contracts will include the specific terms and conditions
associated with each purchase and sale. CCC expects to amend its
contract terms through time as it learns how to most effectively
facilitate the diversion of sugar to ethanol and other bioenergy
production.
Surplus Determination
As required by the 2008 amendments, each year CCC will estimate the
likelihood of sugar forfeitures by September 1, for the following
fiscal year, and announce the quantity of sugar to be purchased and
sold for bioenergy production. In addition, CCC will make quarterly
announcements of revised estimates. Quarterly revised estimates will be
important because the USDA annual estimate reported on September 1 for
the following fiscal year's sugar market will potentially be subject to
significant error due to uncertainties in making the estimate. The
sugarcane and sugar beet harvest for making sugar in the following
fiscal year does not normally begin until after September 1 of the
prior year. Very little is known about the condition of the crop on
September 1, when USDA is required by the 2008 amendments to make its
annual estimate of sugar surplus. The harvest for sugar in Mexico
begins in December; therefore, the uncertainties are aggravated by the
effect of Mexican imports on the U.S. sugar market. Another major
source of potential error is the fact that the current fiscal year is
not over by September 1. Any changes to the current year automatically
alter the current year's ending stocks, and the next year's beginning
stocks and supply. CCC's purchase and sale plans would be affected by
the large degree of uncertainty in USDA's sugar market projections on
September 1.
CCC requests comments on how CCC should calculate a sugar market
surplus, particularly for the estimate by September 1, when
uncertainties are greatest. For example, CCC could calculate the
surplus by comparing the World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimate
(WASDE) ending stocks to the ending stocks for an adequately supplied
market. In the past, an ending stock of 14.5 percent of expected annual
use was considered to predict adequate supply for the following year.
Alternatively, CCC could compare WASDE stocks to the stock level
expected to result in forfeitures and declare any projected stocks
above these amounts to be surplus. However, this method is inadequate
for determining surplus by type of sugar, raw versus refined, because
the WASDE is an amalgamation of both sugars. Certainly,
[[Page 64841]]
current WASDE tight ending stocks-to-use ratios do not reflect the
current raw sugar surplus.
There are two possible types of errors with surplus determination:
(1) Over-estimating the surplus and buying and selling sugar for
bioenergy that results in market shortages later in the year or (2)
under-estimating the surplus resulting in excess supply later in the
year. The consequences of these two types of errors are different.
Sugar used to make bioenergy cannot be recovered to be marketed for
human consumption if needed later; however, sugar not sold early in the
year can later be sold for bioenergy production. The first type of
risk, that of over-estimating the surplus, has more serious
consequences and costs than the second type. CCC proposes to reduce the
over-estimation risk by staggering purchases of sugar for bioenergy
purchases, rather than making one purchase for the entire year. CCC
plans to be more conservative in purchasing sugar for bioenergy early
in the year than later in the year, when market factors are better
known. CCC would calculate the surplus for the whole year as required
by the 2008 amendments, but then only tender a percentage of the
estimated surplus for bid immediately. The percentage could change with
each quarterly revised estimate. CCC would not retract accepted bids.
CCC requests comments on appropriate methods to estimate the
likelihood of forfeitures and to determine the quantity of sugar to be
purchased in each quarter. How should CCC calculate the annual sugar
market surplus and update that estimate? Should a minimum percentage of
the expected surplus be tendered for bid each quarter, and should that
minimum be set in the regulations?
Eligible Sugar
CCC is required to purchase raw, refined, or in-process sugar for
FFP that would otherwise have been marketed for human consumption in
the United States or could otherwise have been used for the extraction
of sugar marketed for human consumption. The 2008 amendments define all
these forms of sugar as eligible commodities for FFP. For example, in-
process sugar products such as beet thick juice or cane syrup are
eligible. Since the program objective is to reduce forfeitures of CCC
sugar loan collateral, CCC proposes that the in-process sugar products
would be evaluated in terms of refined crystalline sugar yield in
determining CCC's unit purchase price. For example, if processing the
thick juice would yield 70 percent sugar for human consumption, then
CCC would only consider 70 percent of the sugar in the thick juice in
evaluating the per unit price. Likewise, raw sugar would be evaluated
in terms of its refined equivalent to determine a sales price per unit.
This reduction in price is not required by the 2008 amendments, but it
is consistent with the 2008 amendments' goal of buying sugar for FFP to
manage the market for sugar for human consumption. CCC requests
comments on and proposed alternatives to this provision.
CCC proposes that for FFP, it will only purchase sugar products
that are eligible to be placed under loan with the federal sugar loan
program. Sugar eligible to be placed under loan must be processed in
the United States from domestically-grown sugarcane, sugar beets, in-
process sugars, or molasses. As an alternative, CCC could allow FFP to
purchase sugar products from all sources, including imported sugar and
sugar products from eligible domestic sellers. Forfeitures are expected
to occur when the total sugar supply for human consumption is greater
than the level that can support domestic sugar prices above the price
support loan proceeds. That surplus could be caused in part by Mexican
imports or by sugar made domestically from non-domestic sources. CCC
requests comments on whether eligible sugar for FFP should be limited
to sugar located within the United States and derived from domestically
produced sugarcane or sugar beets.
Eligible Sugar Sellers and Buyers
The 2008 amendments require that the entity selling sugar to CCC be
located in the United States and that eligible buyers be bioenergy
producers. The 2008 amendments define eligible sellers as entities
located in the United States, but do not require that eligible buyers
be located in the United States. CCC proposes to limit eligible buyers
to those bioenergy producers who will use the purchased sugar to
produce bioenergy in their facilities in United States. This
restriction is intended to ensure that the increase in energy supplies
from the program will benefit the American public paying for FFP. CCC
requests comments on whether to include bioenergy producers located
outside the United States as eligible buyers.
Competitive Procedures
CCC proposes to announce offers (also referred to as tenders) to
the public outlining the terms and conditions of the sugar purchase and
sale contracts. CCC also proposes to negotiate contracts directly with
sellers or buyers if CCC determines that such negotiation will result
in either reduced likelihood of forfeited sugar compared to alternative
means or reduced costs of removing sugar from the market, which will
reduce the likelihood of sugar forfeited to CCC. CCC proposes to try
several contracting strategies to discover the most efficient and cost-
effective strategy to subsidize the production of bioenergy with
surplus sugar, given the restrictions specified in the 2002 Farm Bill.
CCC requests comments on alternative contracting strategies and on
whether those strategies should be specified in the regulation.
CCC is required by the 2008 amendments to store the sugar for no
more than 30 days after CCC purchases the sugar. Realistically, this
means that the purchasing bioenergy producer must be identified before
CCC purchases surplus sugar. CCC does not propose specifically how it
would do that, although CCC proposes to specify that the buyer must
take delivery of the sugar within 30 days of purchase. CCC could
identify (pre-qualify) bioenergy producers willing to take sugar or
sugar products under specific terms (price, amount, type of sugar,
etc.). Alternatively, CCC could require the sugar seller to identify
the purchasing bioenergy producer and incorporate a contract of sale
between CCC and the bioenergy producer specifying terms, including
price, in their offer to sell sugar to CCC. CCC proposes to use both
these strategies and evaluate which is more effective. CCC requests
comments on alternative strategies.
The 2008 amendments prohibit, to the maximum extent possible, CCC
from paying storage fees under FFP. Therefore, as a condition of bid
acceptance into FFP, CCC would not pay any storage fees.
Sugar To Be Used for Bioenergy Production
CCC expects that the selling price for sugar, with the restriction
that it only be used for making bioenergy, will be considerably below
the market price for sugar that can be used for human consumption. This
price differential could create an incentive for FFP sugar to leak into
the domestic human consumption market. Therefore, CCC will monitor the
contracts to ensure that the FFP sugar is only being used for bioenergy
production. CCC proposes to include an audit clause in the contracts to
purchase sugar for bioenergy production. The auditors would view the
records upon request, as specified in the contract, to verify that
sugar
[[Page 64842]]
purchased for bioenergy production was only used for bioenergy
production.
In addition to auditing records, CCC would send an auditor to the
bioenergy factory purchasing surplus sugar under FFP to verify that the
quantity purchased is physically entering the factory as an input in
accordance with the contract. Examination could be performed for every
event or by random checks. In any case, substantial liquidated damages,
to be determined, could be imposed for willfully furnishing false
information to CCC. CCC requests comment on the auditing or monitoring
methods that should be used. For example:
Are there alternative processes that CCC should use to
ensure that the FFP sugar is not sold for human consumption?
What kinds of documentation, audits, and monitoring would
be appropriate?
Should the methods of proof be specified in the rule, or
in the contract between CCC and the bioenergy producer?
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review,'' and
Executive Order 13563, ``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,''
direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available
regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select
regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential
economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive
impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasized the importance
of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of
harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) initially designated this
proposed rule as economically significant under Executive Order 12866
and, therefore, OMB reviewed this proposed rule. Due to increases in
sugar prices since the initial designation the current cost benefit
analysis shows the annual regulatory impact to be less than the
threshold of $100 million, therefore the rule is a significant
regulatory action, but is no longer considered an economically
significant regulatory action. A summary of the cost-benefit analysis
of this rule is provided below and is available at https://www.regulations.gov and from the contact listed above.
Clarity of the Regulation
Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563,
requires each agency to write all rules in plain language. In addition
to your substantive comments on these proposed rules, we invite your
comments on how to make them easier to understand. For example:
Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated? Are the
scope and intent of the rule clear?
Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that is
not clear?
Is the material logically organized?
Would changing the grouping or order of sections or adding
headings make the rule easier to understand?
Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or
diagrams?
Would more, but shorter, sections be better? Are there
specific sections that are too long or confusing?
What else could we do to make the rule easier to
understand?
Summary of Costs and Benefits
FFP, along with the impact of higher sugar loan rates than in the
2002 Farm Bill, is expected to cost an average of $8.7 million per year
for the next 10 years. Because of uncertainty about future sugar
markets and trade flows, the $8.7 million average annual cost of FFP is
the composite of two scenarios which differ in their assumptions about
the Mexican sugar market. The first scenario (with a 75 percent
probability) assumes that Mexican sugarcane acreage does not increase
and that high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) use in Mexico continues to be
strong (but not as strong as in the second scenario), resulting in no
FFP costs. The second scenario (with a 25 percent likelihood) assumes
larger Mexican sugarcane acreage (partly due to higher U.S. sugar loan
rates under the 2008 Farm Bill) and lower Mexican sugar demand compared
to the first scenario. With the resulting larger sugar shipments to the
U.S., and lower U.S. sugar prices, this second scenario results in FFP
activation and FFP costs.
These additional costs are due to two factors. First, the higher
U.S. sugar loan rates under the 2008 Farm Bill may encourage increased
Mexican sugarcane acreage, as described in the second scenario above,
and also mean that if surplus sugar is purchased to prevent
forfeitures, the price at which it must be purchased is higher than
previously. Second, the returns to the CCC associated with selling
sugar for ethanol, if FFP is activated, are significantly lower than if
sales could be made for human consumption (a prior mechanism for
disposal of sugar inventory that was used but is no longer authorized).
Increased sugar program loan rates account for $35.4 million and
restricted CCC disposal options for surplus sugar account for $26.1
million of the total $61.5 million increase in over what disposal of
excess sugar inventory would cost if the 2002 Farm Bill were still in
effect.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601,
the Agency has determined that there will not be a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The entities that
would be affected by this rule are sugar producers and sugar bioenergy
producers. The sugar producers are not small businesses according to
the North American Industry Classification System and the U.S. Small
Business Administration. There are currently no commercial bioenergy
producers in the United States who use sugar as a feedstock. The
bioenergy producers in the United States who use other commodities as a
feedstock and might be expected to purchase sugar as a feedstock in the
future are not small businesses.
Environmental Review
The environmental impacts of this rule have been considered in a
manner consistent with the provisions of the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347), the regulations of the Council
on Environmental Quality (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), and Farm Service
Agency (FSA) regulations for compliance with NEPA (7 CFR part 799). The
changes to the sugar program required by Title IX of the 2008
amendments identified in this proposed rule are considered non-
discretionary. Therefore, FSA has determined that NEPA does not apply
to this proposed rule and no environmental assessment or environmental
impact statement will be prepared.
Executive Order 12372
This program is not subject to Executive Order 12372,
``Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs,'' which requires
consultation with State and local officials. See the notice related to
7 CFR part 3015, subpart V, published in the Federal Register on June
24, 1983 (48 FR 29115).
Executive Order 12988
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, ``Civil
Justice Reform.'' The provisions of this proposed rule will not have
preemptive effect with respect to any State or local laws, regulations,
or policies that conflict with such provision or which otherwise impede
their full implementation. The rule will not have retroactive effect.
Before any judicial
[[Page 64843]]
action may be brought regarding the provisions of this rule, the
administrative appeal provisions of 7 CFR parts 11 and 780 must be
exhausted.
Executive Order 13132
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 13132,
``Federalism.'' The policies contained in this rule will not have any
substantial direct effect on States, the relationship between the
Federal government and the States, or the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Nor would this
proposed rule impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and
local governments. Therefore, consultation with the States is not
required.
Executive Order 13175
This proposed rule has been reviewed for compliance with Executive
Order 13175, ``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments.'' The policies in this rule do not have Tribal
implications that preempt Tribal law.
Unfunded Mandates
Title II of the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA, Pub. L.
104-4) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their
regulatory actions on State, local, or Tribal governments or the
private sector. Agencies generally must prepare a written statement,
including a cost benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with
Federal mandates that may result in expenditures of $100 million or
more in any 1 year for State, local, or Tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or to the private sector. UMRA generally requires agencies
to consider alternatives and adopt the more cost effective or least
burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. This
rule contains no Federal mandates under the regulatory provisions of
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA, Pub. L.
104-4) for State, local, and Tribal government or the private sector.
Therefore, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202
and 205 of UMRA.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection for FFP is currently approved under OMB
control number 0560-0177. We anticipate that fewer than 10 sugar
producers will participate in the bioenergy program in the next three
years. Therefore, there are no changes to the current information
collection as approved by OMB.
E-Government Act Compliance
CCC is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote
the use of the Internet and other information technologies to provide
increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information
and services, and for other purposes.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1435
Loan programs--agriculture, Penalties, Price support programs,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sugar.
For the reasons discussed above, FSA proposes to amend 7 CFR part
1435 as follows:
PART 1435--SUGAR PROGRAM
1. Revise the authority citation for part 1435 to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1359aa-1359jj, 7272, and 8110; 15 U.S.C.
714b and 714c.
2. Add subpart E to read as follows:
Subpart E--Disposition of CCC Inventory
Sec.
1435.400 General statement.
1435.401 CCC sugar inventory disposition.
Subpart E--Disposition of CCC Inventory
Sec. 1435.400 General statement.
(a) This subpart will be applicable in the event that an eligible
commodity is owned and held in CCC inventory and not acquired through
the Feedstock Flexibility Program as set forth in subpart G of this
part.
(b) An eligible commodity is raw, refined, or in-process sugar that
is eligible to be marketed in the United States for human consumption
or to be used for the extraction of sugar for human consumption.
Sec. 1435.401 CCC sugar inventory disposition.
(a) CCC will dispose of inventory in the following manner, if CCC
has not determined there is an emergency shortage of sugar for human
consumption in the domestic market:
(1) By sale to bioenergy producers under the Feedstock Flexibility
Program as set forth in subpart G of this part,
(2) By transfer to sugarcane and sugar beet processors under the
Processor Sugar Payment-In-Kind Program as set forth in subpart F of
this part,
(3) Buyback of certificates of quota eligibility, or
(4) Using any other authority for the disposition of CCC-owned
sugar that does not increase the net quantity of sugar available for
human consumption in the United States.
(b) CCC may use any authority for the disposition of CCC-owned
sugar, if CCC has determined there is an emergency shortage of sugar
for human consumption in the domestic market caused by war, flood,
hurricane, or other natural disaster, or similar event, as determined
by CCC.
3. Add subpart G to read as follows:
Subpart G--Feedstock Flexibility Program
Sec.
1435.600 General statement.
1435.601 Sugar surplus determination and public announcement.
1435.602 Eligible commodity to be purchased by CCC.
1435.603 Eligible sugar seller.
1435.604 Eligible sugar buyer.
1435.605 Competitive procedures.
1435.606 Miscellaneous.
1435.607 Appeals.
Subpart G--Feedstock Flexibility Program
Sec. 1435.600 General statement.
(a) This subpart will be applicable to any sugar seller located in
the United States and any bioenergy producer located in the United
States who contracts with CCC to sell or purchase surplus sugar, which
may be sold in the United States for the production of bioenergy as set
forth in this subpart or other purposes as set forth in subpart E of
this part, when CCC determines that such action will reduce forfeitures
of sugar pledged as collateral for CCC sugar loans.
(b) [Reserved]
Sec. 1435.601 Sugar surplus determination and public announcement.
(a) The Secretary will estimate the quantity of sugar likely to be
forfeited to CCC in the following fiscal year by September 1.
(b) Not later than the January 1, April 1, and July 1 of the fiscal
year, the Secretary will re-estimate the quantity of sugar likely to be
forfeited to CCC in the fiscal year.
(c) The Secretary will announce by press release for the above
dates a purchase and sale strategy, which includes the quantity and
timing of the sugar to be purchased and sold to bioenergy producers,
and that reflects the estimate of sugar likely to be forfeited to CCC
and the uncertainty surrounding the estimate.
Sec. 1435.602 Eligible commodity to be purchased by CCC.
(a) CCC will only purchase raw sugar, refined sugar, or in-process
sugar that is eligible to be used as collateral in the federal Sugar
Loan Program.
(1) Sugar may not have been processed from imported sugarcane,
[[Page 64844]]
sugar beets, in-process sugars, or molasses; and
(2) Sugar must have been processed in the United States.
(b) Sugar or in-process sugar purchased directly from any domestic
sugar beet and sugarcane processor that made the sugar or in-process
sugar must be credited against its sugar marketing allocation to be
eligible for purchase under this program.
(c) CCC will purchase sugar located in the United States.
(d) CCC will only purchase an eligible commodity if the purchased
commodity would reduce the likelihood of forfeitures of CCC sugar
loans, as determined by CCC.
(e) CCC will evaluate an offer to sell an eligible commodity to CCC
based upon CCC's estimate of the reduction in refined sugar supply
available for human consumption due to the purchase. For example, if
processing the thick juice would yield 70 percent sugar for human
consumption, then CCC will only consider 70 percent of the sugar in the
thick juice in evaluating the per unit sales price.
Sec. 1435.603 Eligible sugar seller.
(a) To be considered an eligible sugar seller, the sugar seller
must be located in the United States.
(b) [Reserved]
Sec. 1435.604 Eligible sugar buyer.
(a) To be considered an eligible sugar buyer, the bioenergy
producer must produce bioenergy products, including fuel grade ethanol
or other biofuels.
(b) The bioenergy producer and its production facilities that use
CCC sugar or in-process sugar must be located in the United States.
Sec. 1435.605 Competitive procedures.
(a) CCC will generally submit tenders for bids, before entering
into contracts with any eligible sugar seller and buyer that minimize
CCC net outlays.
(b) CCC may, at times, negotiate contracts directly with sellers or
buyers, if CCC determines that such negotiation will result in either
reduced likelihood of forfeited sugar under the CCC sugar loan program
or reduced costs of removing sugar from the market, which will reduce
the likelihood of sugar forfeited to CCC.
Sec. 1435.606 Miscellaneous.
(a) As a sugar buyer, the bioenergy producer must take possession
of the sugar or in-process sugar no more than 30 days from the date of
CCC's purchase.
(b) CCC, to the maximum extent practicable, will not pay storage
fees for sugar or in-process sugar purchased under this program.
(c) Each bioenergy producer that purchases sugar through FFP must
provide proof to CCC that the sugar has been used in the bioenergy
factory for the production of bioenergy.
Sec. 1435.607 Appeals.
(a) The administrative appeal regulations of parts 11 and 780 of
this title apply to this part.
(b) [Reserved]
Signed at Washington, DC, on October 13, 2011.
Bruce Nelson,
Executive Vice President, Commodity Credit Corporation.
[FR Doc. 2011-26974 Filed 10-18-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-05-P