Sugar and Crystalline Fructose Marketing Allotment Regulations for Fiscal Years 1992 Through 1998

SUMMARY: The purpose of this final rule is to adopt as final, with

certain changes, the interim rule published in the Federal Register on

July 6, 1993 (58 FR 36120) and to adopt as final, without any changes,

the interim rule published in the Federal Register on August 6, 1993

(58 FR 41995). This final rule sets forth regulations to implement the

provisions of sections 359 b-j of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of

1938 (the 1938 Act), as amended, regarding marketing allotments for

sugar processed from domestically produced sugarcane and sugar beets

and crystalline fructose (CF) manufactured from corn, including appeal

procedures, for the fiscal years 1992 through 1998.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 8, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert D. Barry, Director, Sweeteners

Analysis Division, Consolidated Farm Service Agency (CFSA), United

States Department of Agriculture (USDA), telephone: 202-720-3391.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Order 12866

This final rule is issued in conformance with Executive Order

12866. Based on information compiled by the USDA, it has been

determined that this final rule:

(1) Could have an annual effect on the economy of more than $100

million;

(2) Could adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector

of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment,

public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or

communities.

A Final Regulatory Impact Analysis determined that marketing

allotments would reduce the quantity of domestically produced sugar

that could be marketed in the United States but overall raise revenues

of beet and cane producers, processors, and refiners through higher

prices to users. Marketing allotments would cause supply disruptions

and affect sugar-producing sectors, States, and local communities in

different ways depending on their particular balance of sugar supply

relating to allotments and allocations.

Other than the above impacts, this rule:

(1) Would not create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere

with an action taken or planned by another agency;

(2) Would not materially alter the budgetary impact of

entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or rights and

obligations of recipients thereof; and

(3) Would not raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of

legal mandates, the President's priorities, or principles set forth in

Executive Order 12866.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

It has been determined that the Regulatory Flexibility Act is

applicable to this final rule. The Final Regulatory Impact Analysis

determined that this regulation has no significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities because the particular marketing

allotment options considered do not affect the paperwork, reporting, or

compliance burdens of the small entities in the program. The Commodity

Credit Corporation (CCC) thus certifies that the rule will have no

significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The Final Regulatory Impact Analysis describing the options considered

in developing this final rule and the impact of the implementation of

each option is available on request from the above-named individual.

Environmental Evaluation

It has been determined by an environmental evaluation that this

action will not have a significant impact on the quality of the human

environment. Therefore, neither an Environmental Assessment nor an

Environmental Impact Statement is necessary for this final rule.

Federal Assistance Program

The title and number of the Federal Assistance Program, as found in

the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, to which this final rule

applies are: Commodity Loans and Purchases--10.051.

Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection requirements for sugar beet and

sugarcane processors and raw cane sugar refiners have been approved by

the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) through March 31, 1996, and

assigned OMB no. 0560-0138.

The public reporting burden for the approved collections of

information is estimated to average 90 minutes per response, including

time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources,

gathering and maintaining the data needed, and computing and reviewing

the collection of information.

Development of information collection requirements for sugarcane

growers subject to proportionate shares has not been finalized. These

information requirements will be submitted to OMB for review under the

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 35).

Executive Order 12372 and Executive Order 12778

The program covered by this final rule is not subject to the

provisions of Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental

consultation with State and local officials. See the notice related to

7 CFR part 3015, subpart V, published at 48 FR 29115 (June 24, 1983).

This final rule has been reviewed in accordance with Executive

Order 12778. The provisions of this final rule preempt State law to the

extent such laws are inconsistent with the provisions of this final

rule. This final rule is not retroactive. Before any action may be

brought regarding the provisions of this final rule, the administrative

appeal rights set forth at 7 CFR part 780 must be exhausted.

[[Page 7698]]

Background

Title IX of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of

1990 (the 1990 Act), which was enacted on November 28, 1990, amended

the 1938 Act to provide for the establishment, under certain

circumstances, of marketing allotments for sugar and CF for fiscal

years 1992 through 1996. Section 111 of the Food, Agriculture,

Conservation, and Trade Amendments Act of 1991, which was enacted on

December 13, 1991, amended several portions of the 1938 Act's marketing

allotment provisions. Pub. L. 102-535, Certain Producers of Sugarcane,

Provision for Equitable Treatment, which was enacted on October 27,

1992, further amended provisions pertaining to penalties for producers

in Louisiana who harvest acreage in excess of proportionate shares. The

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (Pub. L. 103-66), which was

enacted on August 10, 1993, amended section 359b of the 1938 Act by:

(1) Extending the marketing allotment provisions through fiscal

year 1998,

(2) Allowing a processor of sugar beets or sugarcane to market

sugar in excess of allocation in order to facilitate the exportation of

such sugar,

(3) No longer counting sugar under loan as sugar marketed, and

(4) Imposing a civil penalty only if a processor knowingly violates

its marketing allocation limit.

Summary of Comments

An interim rule to implement the 1938 Act's provisions for sugar

marketing allotments was published July 6, 1993 (58 FR 36120) and an

interim rule to implement the appeal regulations was published August

6, 1993 (58 FR 41995). Fifteen comments were received from interested

persons regarding the interim regulations: four from cane industry

trade associations, one from an independent sugarcane grower, three

from sugar beet processing companies, two from farm bureaus, one from a

sugar beet grower organization, one from a beet sugar trade

association, one from a corn refining company, one signed by three

members of Congress, and one from a State Commissioner of Agriculture.

Discussion of Comments

1. There were 10 comments addressing the 3-factor criteria used to

establish the percentage factors for splitting the overall marketing

allotment between the cane and beet sectors.

Eight comments dealt with the weights assigned each of the

criteria. Four commenters wanted past marketings to be the predominant

or only criterion used to establish the percentage factors. Their

recommendations for weighting past marketings ranged from 66 1/3

percent to 100 percent. Three commenters endorsed CCC's use of equal

weights for all three criteria. One commenter called for flexibility in

setting weights.

One commenter suggested that, when establishing the percentage

factors, the Secretary not use the past marketing histories of defunct

processors.

One commenter urged flexibility in the definition of ``processing

capacity'' in times of drought. It was suggested that processing

capacity be defined as the greater of:

(1) The maximum production during the 1985-1989 crop year period,

or

(2) The maximum production during the immediately preceding five

crop years.

The 1938 Act requires the use of the three-factor criteria for

determining the percentage factors for overall beet and cane sugar

allotments (7 CFR 1435.511), State cane sugar allotments (7 CFR

1435.512), and beet and cane processor marketing allotment allocations

(7 CFR 1435.513). In each of these CFR sections, the regulations state:

``Each of the three criteria * * * will be weighted equally, or as

deemed appropriate by CCC for each year allotments are in effect.

CCC reaffirms its position that equal weighting for the three

factors is generally appropriate for purposes of the marketing

allotment statute, unless a different weighting is determined to be

more appropriate for a particular fiscal year in light of the

circumstances existing at such time. Equal weights were assigned to

each of the three factors when allotments were instituted in FY 1993.

An evaluation of the comments made and the effects of the FY 1993

allotments, and the experience gained during the administration of the

allotments, confirms that such flexibility is necessary in order to

avoid imposing disproportionate negative effects on a few processors,

while having no effect on other processors that have also expanded

production since the base period, or resulting in increased prices

considerably more than necessary to achieve the objectives of the no

cost price support program for sugar beets and sugarcane. CCC must

carefully evaluate the weighting of the three factors in order to

achieve the statutory goals of fairness, efficiency and equity in

allocating market shares and to avoid causing excessive prices for

consumers and industrial users of sugar. Moreover, in the abstract, it

cannot be determined that differing weights would be appropriate under

the conditions existing in each year in which the allotments might be

imposed.

CCC also believes the definition of ``processing capacity'' should

be retained. Qualifying the definition for drought opens up arguments

for other crop problems, such as premature freezes, hurricane damage,

flooding, disease problems, and so forth, and would require complicated

determinations of relative degree of damage. Finally, the 1938 Act

explicitly states that the percentage factors for establishing the

overall beet and cane sugar allotments shall consider marketings of

sugar during the 1985 through 1989 time period. Therefore, past

marketings of recently defunct processors must be included in the

calculations. Thus, the 3-factor criteria specified in the interim rule

are adopted without change.

2. Nine comments were received concerning the treatment of sugar

pledged for price-support loans when allotments were in effect.

The commenters were critical of defining marketing to include the

pledging and repledging of sugar. These concerns were addressed by the

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, which amended the previous

statute so that only loan forfeitures and sales may count against

allocations.

Thus, Secs. 1435.510, 1435.513, and 1435.528 are revised

accordingly. Also, Sec. 1435.513 is revised to require that a sale

between processors to enable the purchasing processor to fulfill its

allocation be reported to CCC within a week of the date of such sale.

The interim rule had required that such sale be reported within 2 days.

This earlier requirement resulted in an undue paperwork burden.

3. There were seven comments concerning allocations of the

marketing allotments. Three comments concerned the reassignment of

deficits. One commenter suggested that CCC set a specific timetable for

assessing the need to reassign deficits and make the timetable known to

the industry in advance. One commenter recommended reassignment of

deficits after 20 days, and another after 30 days.

CCC acknowledges the need for prompt reassignment of deficits

relative to marketing allocations, so as not to short the market.

However, it is also important to allow deficit companies reasonable

time to purchase sugar and fill the deficit. When allotments were

announced during fiscal year 1993, the first reassignments were made 26

days later and related only to the cane sector. The next reassignments,

which related to both the cane and beet sectors, [[Page 7699]] occurred

56 days later. The timing of the second reassignment was partially

impacted by delays in some processors' monthly reporting. Because the

most recent data available are crucial for determining reassignments,

and CCC cannot always be assured of timely receipt of processor data,

CCC can only ensure that reassignments will be made as soon and as

frequently as practicable.

Thus, Sec. 1435.514 is revised accordingly.

Two commenters called for allowances for new processors. CCC once

again notes that the sugar marketing allotment provisions of the 1938

Act do not provide for special treatment for new entrants. Such

processors will be unable to acquire a past marketings status but may

acquire processing capacity and the ability to market sugar.

Thus, CCC rejects the recommendation.

One commenter recommended that CCC be required to publish sugar

marketing allotments at least 2 months before the beginning of the

fiscal year, and if readjustments are needed, they should be announced

in advance of each quarter. However, the statute requires that, before

the beginning of each quarter, the CCC establish, adjust, or suspend

marketing allotments depending on its assessment of appropriate

factors. Therefore, CCC cannot impose allotments at the beginning of

each fiscal year to be subsequently adjusted or suspended as needed.

Furthermore, CCC requires flexibility in the time for announcing

allotments and readjustments, balancing the need for up-to-date

information and analysis with the need of companies for as much advance

notice as possible.

Therefore, CCC rejects the recommendation.

One commenter recommended that the allocation of a facility closing

or curtailing operations be transferred along with each grower's

production history to other processors in the same State, and if that

State cannot fulfill the allocation, to beet processors outside the

State.

CCC reiterates that under the provisions of the 1938 Act,

allocations are not made on a facility basis, but rather on a processor

basis. At the processor level, a plant closing would have no effect on

past marketings and would reduce processing capacity after five years,

if the former production by the closed facility were not offset by

increased production at other facilities owned by the processor. Once a

facility is shut down, CCC would have to assess whether the processor's

ability to market would be affected, and if the processor were placed

in a ``deficit'' due to the closure of a facility, CCC would reassign

the deficit.

Thus, CCC rejects the recommendation.

4. Three commenters questioned CCC's definition of sugar in its

various forms. Two commenters wanted liquid fructose derived from

sucrose to be excluded from the definition of sugar. CCC continues to

maintain that, based on well established definitions of sugar and

sucrose, fructose from sucrose is sugar, rather than a sugar product.

Sugar products which are not subject to allotment would consist of

products, other than sugar, whose majority content is not sucrose or

which are not suitable for human consumption. Permitting liquid

fructose derived from sucrose to be exempt from marketing allotments

would be a circumvention of the purposes of the statute.

Thus, the definition of sugar as provided in the interim rule is

adopted without change.

One commenter alleged inconsistency regarding to CCC's definitions

for molasses, cane syrup, liquid sugar, and edible molasses, and

referred to the need to conform with U.S. Customs definitions. CCC in

the interim rule adopted the Customs definition of liquid sugar but

also indicated the need to distinguish among liquid sugar, cane syrup,

and sugar syrup. Regarding molasses, the Customs definition refers only

to high-test or invert molasses which is not molasses but actually a

sugar. CCC has found no universally accepted industry definition of

molasses in terms of precise content of sucrose or sucrose-equivalent

of invert sugars. Edible molasses is considered a sugar, with a

sucrose-solids content of approximately over 60 percent. Sugar syrup

has a higher sucrose content but its precise demarcation from edible

molasses is not given. Both sugars are defined by CCC, for program

purposes, in terms of sucrose-solids content. However, CCC does agree

that the definition of sugar syrup, as contained in the interim rule,

may be further clarified by stating that it is not principally of

crystalline structure.

Thus, Sec. 1435.502 is revised accordingly.

5. Two commenters urged USDA to reconsider imposing penalties on

processors who had already exceeded their allocation prior to the

announcement of allotments/allocations. The Omnibus Reconciliation Act

of 1993 has amended the 1938 Act to exempt processors from penalties

unless they ``knowingly'' marketed sugar in excess of allocation.

Thus, Sec. 1435.528 is revised accordingly.

6. There were four comments concerning proportionate shares to

producers. One commenter wanted clarification of the circumstances

under which more than the average per acre yield for the preceding five

years would be utilized in determining the State's per acre yield goal.

The interim rule states in Sec. 1435.521 that the State's per-acre

yield goal will be at a level not less than the State average per-acre

yield for the preceding 5 years, adjusted by the State average recovery

rate. However, section 359f(b)(3)(A) of the 1938 Act actually states

that the State's average per-acre yield goal shall be at a level (not

less than the State average per-acre yield for the preceding 5 years,

as determined by the Secretary) that will ensure an adequate net return

per pound to producers, taking into consideration any available

production research data that the Secretary deems relevant. Section

359f(b)(3)(B) of the 1938 Act also states that the Secretary shall

adjust the per acre yield goal by the average recovery rate.

Thus, Sec. 1435.521 is revised accordingly.

Another commenter wanted CCC to require Louisiana farmers to

complete acreage reporting by July 1 and inform producers by August 15

of the acreage that may be planted to meet their proportionate shares

for the following crop year. However, CCC is not able to determine

whether allotments will be implemented that far in advance.

Thus, CCC rejects this recommendation.

The third comment concerned a recommendation that sugarcane acreage

certified with ASCS by July be immediately figured into a farm base

history for marketing allotment calculations for the following fiscal

year when the crop is harvested. However, the 1938 Act specifically

states that the acreage base for any farm is equal to the average of

the acreage planted or considered planted for harvest for sugar or seed

in each of the 5 crop years preceding the fiscal years that

proportionate shares will be in effect. The acreage certified in July

is considered the current crop year for the fiscal year that starts on

the following October 1. Thus, the 1938 Act does not permit CCC to use

the July data in determining proportionate shares.

The last comment concerned a request that any reduction in acreage

eligibility as a result of proportionate shares not result in any

reductions in future farm base levels. Under current policy, the

acreage certified in July is used for calculating a farm's acreage

base, [[Page 7700]] regardless of whether allotments (and proportionate

shares) are subsequently instituted.

7. There were two comments concerning reasonable ending stocks in

the trigger formula for marketing allotments. One commenter said USDA

should choose a method to define reasonable stocks in order to give

credibility to the process by which allotments are imposed. The other

commenter supported flexibility in determining reasonable carry-over

stocks, but suggested USDA use a range of stocks-to-use ratios in order

to remain consistent.

CCC has consistently rejected a mechanical formula for determining

reasonable ending stocks, and instead depends on a comprehensive

analysis of the market situation, outlook, and prices. A purely

statistical ratio cannot capture the full complexity of the sugar

market.

Thus, CCC rejects the recommendation.

8. Two commenters recommended that CCC allow swaps between beet and

quota or domestically produced sugar to facilitate exportation of

surplus sugar. The current regulations do not address this issue of

``swapping.'' Rather, this issue will have to be addressed in terms of

further rulemaking i.e., a new proposed rule, followed by a comment

period and final rule.

9. One commenter urged USDA to use the required monthly data

submitted by the industry under section 359a of the 1938 Act for

calculating all phases of allotments and allocations because these are

the best data available. CCC agrees with the need to use the best

available data for determining allotments and allocations. However, the

rule is not changed for this comment because the data published by the

World Outlook and Situation Board and the National Agricultural

Statistics Service are deemed as ``official'' USDA estimates.

10. One commenter wanted the term ``U.S. Market Value'' for

sugarcane to be defined as ``the daily New York No. 14 contract

settlement price for the nearest month less prevailing discounts for

raw sugar.''

CCC does not agree with this proposal because discounts to the No.

14 contract price vary continually over time and among the different

refiners.

11. One commenter reiterated a previous contention that CF is a

premium product to sugar, does not compete with sugar, and has value

based on qualities lacking in sugar. The commenter wanted the

calculation of CF equivalence to be revised to give CF credit for

qualities that sugar does not possess. CCC maintains that if CF is a

premium product to sugar, then less (not more) of CF would be

equivalent to the sugar quantity of 200,000 tons. Furthermore, the

price premium of CF depends not just on the inherent quality of CF

relative to sugar but on transient market conditions, including

variable competitive relationships among alternative sweeteners.

Thus, CCC rejects the recommendation.

12. The following comments are considered to be outside the limits

of this rulemaking, or are clearly contrary to the provisions of the

1938 Act:

(1) Proportionate shares should be established for Florida

independent growers,

(2) Imports of sugar from Canada should be reduced to traditional

levels, and

(3) Allotments and allocations cannot be justified for fiscal 1994.

Thus, CCC does not address these matters.

13. No comments were received regarding appeal regulations

published August 6, 1993 (58 FR 41995).

Thus, 7 CFR 1435.530 is adopted as provided in the interim rule.

Additional Changes

14. Two additional sections of the interim rule are revised to

include the specific wording of the 1938 Act.

First, Sec. 1435.507(a) is revised to say that CCC will make

quarterly re-estimates ``no later than the beginning'' of each of the

second through fourth quarters of the fiscal year, rather than ``before

the beginning of each quarter''. This will bring the regulations into

conformance with section 359b(2) of the 1938 Act.

Second, Sec. 1435.520(b) is revised to say that a processor's

allocation will be shared among producers in ``a fair and equitable

manner which adequately reflects'' each producer's production history,

rather than in ``a fair and adequate manner''. This will bring the

regulations into conformance with section 359f(a) of the 1938 Act.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1435

Administrative practice and procedures, Appeals, Loan programs/

agriculture, Marketing allotments, Price support programs, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements, Sugar.

Accordingly, the interim rule amending 7 CFR part 1435, which was

published on August 6, 1993, (58 FR 41995) is adopted as final without

any changes, and the interim rule amending 7 CFR part 1435 which was

published on July 6, 1993, (58 FR 36120) is adopted as final with the

following changes:

PART 1435--SUGAR

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 1435 continues to read as

follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1359aa-1359jj, 1421, 1423, 1446g; 15 U.S.C.

714b and 714c.

2. In Sec. 1435.500, paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) are revised to

read as follows:

Sec. 1435.500 Applicability.

(a) * * *

(1) The marketing by processors, during fiscal years 1992 through

1998, of sugar processed from domestically produced sugarcane and sugar

beets;

(2) The marketing by manufacturers, during fiscal years 1992

through 1998, of crystalline fructose manufactured from corn;

* * * * *

3. In Sec. 1435.502, the definition of ``sugar syrup'' is revised

to read as follows:

Sec. 1435.502 Definitions.

* * * * *

Sugar syrup means a direct-consumption sugar, which is not

principally of crystalline structure, that has a sucrose or sucrose-

equivalent invert sugar content of less than 94 percent of the total

soluble solids.

* * * * *

4. In Sec. 1435.507, paragraph (a) introductory text is revised to

read as follows:

Sec. 1435.507 Annual estimates and quarterly re-estimates.

(a) Before the beginning of each of the fiscal years 1993 through

1998, CCC will estimate, and no later than the beginning of each of the

second through fourth quarters of such fiscal years, CCC will re-

estimate, for such fiscal year:

* * * * *

5. In Sec. 1435.510, paragraph (d) is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 1435.510 Adjustment of overall allotment quantity.

* * * * *

(d) If the overall allotment quantity is reduced under paragraph

(a)(1) of this section and the quantity of sugar and sugar products

marketed, at the time of the reduction, exceeds the processors' reduced

allocation, the quantity of excess sugar or sugar products marketed

will be deducted from the processor's next allocation of an allotment,

if any. The exceptions provided for in Sec. 1435.513 shall be

applicable in determining whether a processor has exceeded a reduced

allocation.

* * * * *

6. In Sec. 1435.513:

A. Paragraph (f) is revised,

B. Paragraph (g) is removed, and [[Page 7701]]

C. Paragraph (h) is redesignated as paragraph (g) and redesignated

paragraph (g) is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 1435.513 Allocation of marketing allotments to processors.

* * * * *

(f) During any fiscal year in which marketing allotments are in

effect and allocated to processors, the total of the quantity of sugar

and sugar products marketed by a processor shall not exceed the

quantity of the allocation of the allotment made to the processor.

(g) Paragraph (f) of this section shall not apply to any sale of

sugar by a processor to another processor that is made to enable the

purchasing processor to fulfill the purchasing processor's allocation

of an allotment. Such sales shall be reported to CCC within a week of

the date of any such sale.

7. In Sec. 1435.514, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 1435.514 Reassignment of deficits.

(a) From time to time in each fiscal year that marketing allotments

are in effect, CCC will determine whether processors of sugar beets or

sugarcane will be able to market sugar covered by the portions of the

allotments allocated to them. These determinations will be made giving

due consideration to current inventories of sugar, estimated production

of sugar, expected marketings, and any other pertinent factors. These

determinations will be made as soon and as frequently as practicable.

* * * * *

8. In Sec. 1435.520, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 1435.520 Sharing processors' allocations with producers.

* * * * *

(b) Whenever allocations of a marketing allotment are established

or adjusted, every sugar beet processor and sugarcane processor must

provide to CCC such adequate assurances as are required to ensure that

the processor's allocation will be shared among producers served by the

processor in a fair and equitable manner which adequately reflects each

producer's production history.

* * * * *

9. In Sec. 1435.521, paragraph (c) (1) is revised to read as

follows:

Sec. 1435.521 Proportionate shares for producers of sugarcane.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(1) Establish the State's per-acre yield goal at a level (not less

than the average per-acre yield in the State for the preceding 5 years)

that will ensure an adequate net return per pound to producers in the

State, taking into consideration any available production research data

considered relevant;

* * * * *

10. In Sec. 1435.528, paragraphs (a) and (b) are revised to read as

follows:

Sec. 1435.528 Penalties and assessments.

(a) In accordance with section 359b(d)(3) of the Agricultural

Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1359bb(d)(3)), any sugar

beet processor or sugarcane processor who knowingly markets sugar or

sugar products in excess of the processor's allocation in violation of

Sec. 1435.513 shall be liable to CCC for a civil penalty in an amount

equal to 3 times the U.S. market value, at the time the violation was

committed, of that quantity of sugar involved in the violation.

(b) In accordance with section 359b(d)(3) of the Agricultural

Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1359bb(d)(3)), any

manufacturer of CF who knowingly markets CF in excess of the

manufacturer's marketing allotment shall pay to CCC a civil penalty in

an amount equal to 3 times the U.S. market value, at the time the

violation was committed, of that quantity of CF involved in the

violation.

* * * * *

Signed at Washington, DC, on February 2, 1995.

Grant Buntrock,

Acting Executive Vice President,

Commodity Credit Corporation.

[FR Doc. 95-3288 Filed 2-8-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-05-P