DOCSLIB.ORG

Sugar from the European Union, and Sugar from Belgium, France, and Germany

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Sugar from the European Union, and Sugar from Belgium, France, and Germany Sugar From The European Union, and Sugar From Belgium, France, and Germany Investigation No.104-TAA-7 (Second Review) and Investigation Nos. AA1921-198-200 (Second Review) Publication 3793 August 2005 U.S. International Trade Commission COMMISSIONERS Stephen Koplan, Chairman Deanna Tanner Okun, Vice Chairman Jennifer A. Hillman Charlotte R. Lane Daniel R. Pearson Shara L. Aranoff* Robert A. Rogowsky Director of Operations Staff assigned Jai Motwane, Investigator Falan Yinug, Investigator Douglas Newman, Industry Analyst Clark Workman, Economist Justin Jee, Accountant Karl von Schriltz, Attorney Steve Hudgens, Statistician Diane Mazur, Supervisory Investigator * Commissioner Shara L. Aranoff was sworn in on September 6, 2005. Commissioner Marcia Miller participated in these investigations. Address all communications to Secretary to the Commission United States International Trade Commission Washington, DC 20436 U.S. International Trade Commission Washington, DC 20436 www.usitc.gov Sugar From The European Union, and Sugar From Belgium, France, and Germany Investigation No.104-TAA-7 (Second Review) and Investigation Nos. AA1921-198-200 (Second Review) Publication 3793 August 2005 CONTENTS Page Determinations.................................................................. 1 Views of the Commission ......................................................... 3 Separate and additional views of Vice Chairman Deanna Tanner Okun and Commissioner Charlotte R. Lane................................................. 33 Separate views of Commissioner Daniel R. Pearson..................................... 35 Dissenting views of Commissioner Marcia E. Miller .................................... 37 Part I: Introduction and overview ................................................... I-1 Background .................................................................. I-1 Statutory criteria and organization of the report...................................... I-1 Summary data................................................................ I-3 The original investigations...................................................... I-3 The first five-year reviews ...................................................... I-7 Related investigations.......................................................... I-7 Commerce’s results of expedited and full reviews.................................... I-8 Commerce’s administrative reviews............................................... I-8 Distribution of Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act funds ....................... I-9 The subject product ............................................................ I-10 Description and uses ........................................................ I-11 Manufacturing process ...................................................... I-11 Channels of distribution...................................................... I-13 U.S. sugar program............................................................ I-13 History................................................................... I-13 1996-2002 ................................................................ I-13 2002-present .............................................................. I-14 Tariff-rate quotas on U.S. imports ................................................ I-17 Raw cane sugar ............................................................ I-17 Refined sugar.............................................................. I-20 Sugar-containing products .................................................... I-20 Safeguards................................................................... I-20 The domestic like product ....................................................... I-21 U.S. market participants........................................................ I-24 Introduction ............................................................... I-24 Sugar beet growers ......................................................... I-24 Sugar beet processors ....................................................... I-25 Sugar cane growers......................................................... I-28 Sugar cane millers .......................................................... I-29 Cane sugar refiners ......................................................... I-31 U.S. importers............................................................. I-32 Apparent U.S. consumption and market shares ...................................... I-33 Part II: Conditions of competition in the U.S. market ................................... II-1 Overview.................................................................... II-1 U.S. market segments, channels of distribution, and market structure..................... II-1 U.S. supply: domestic production for the U.S. market ................................ II-2 i CONTENTS–Continued Page Part II: Conditions of competition in the U.S. market–Continued U.S. supply: the potential of subject imports to supply U.S. market ...................... II-3 U.S. supply: nonsubject imports ................................................. II-3 U.S. demand................................................................. II-3 Demand characteristics ...................................................... II-3 Substitute products ......................................................... II-4 Cost share ................................................................ II-4 Substitutability issues .......................................................... II-4 Factors affecting purchasing decisions .......................................... II-5 Comparisons of domestic products and subject imports ............................. II-5 Comparisons of domestic products and nonsubject imports .......................... II-7 Subject vs. nonsubject imports ................................................ II-7 Elasticity estimates............................................................ II-8 U.S. supply elasticity ........................................................ II-8 U.S. demand elasticity....................................................... II-8 Substitution elasticity ....................................................... II-8 Part III: Condition of the U.S. industry ............................................... III-1 U.S. producers’ capacity, production, and capacity utilization .......................... III-1 Sugar beet and sugar cane growers............................................. III-1 Processors and refiners ...................................................... III-3 U.S. processors’ domestic shipments, company transfers, and export shipments ............ III-6 U.S. processors’ inventories ..................................................... III-8 U.S. processors’ purchases ...................................................... III-8 U.S. processors’ employment, wages, and productivity ................................ III-8 Financial experience of U.S. producers ............................................ III-9 Background ............................................................... III-9 Operations of sugar processors/refiners .......................................... III-10 Capital expenditures and research and development expenses (processors/refiners) ....... III-12 Assets and return on investment (processors/refiners) .............................. III-12 Operations of sugar millers ................................................... III-13 Capital expenditures and research and development expenses (millers) ................. III-15 Assets and return on investment (millers) ........................................ III-15 Operations of sugar growers .................................................. III-16 Capital expenditures and research and development expenses (growers) ................ III-17 Assets and return on investment (growers) ....................................... III-17 Part IV: U.S. imports and the foreign industry ......................................... IV-1 U.S. imports ................................................................. IV-1 Cumulation considerations...................................................... IV-8 The industry in the European Union ............................................... IV-8 The European Union sugar program............................................ IV-8 Subject producers’ capacity, production, and shipments ............................. IV-13 EU export markets .......................................................... IV-17 EU export policy ........................................................... IV-25 ii CONTENTS–Continued Page Part IV: U.S. imports and the foreign industry–Continued Nonsubject territories.......................................................... IV-27 U.S. free trade agreements ...................................................... IV-27 Mexico................................................................... IV-32 Part V: Pricing and related information .............................................. V-1 Factors affecting pricing........................................................ V-1 Raw material costs.......................................................... V-1 Inland transportation costs.................................................... V-1 Transportation costs to the U.S. market.......................................... V-1 Wholesale and retail margins .................................................. V-1 Exchange rates............................................................. V-1 Pricing practices.............................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • K&K International
    an eerie lunar landscape inside the Raw PhiladelphiatBaltimoretWilmington, DEtRichmondtHampton RoadstMorehead City Sugar Shed. The shed can hold 65 million ServingWilmington, theNCtSavannah U.S. tEastBrunswick andtJacksonville Gulf tCoastsFernandina pounds of raw sugar, enough to fi ll Oriole Park at Camden Yards to a depth of two feet. As true today as it was 90 years ago, the central location of the Port of Baltimore is key to the plant’s success. Sugar was once made by hand in small sugar shacks, and only the wealthy could afford to pay for the diffi cult process, while the poor depended on honey or molasses. That changed in New York City in 1807 when William and Frederick Havermeyer Ship Agents And Brokers established a refi nery and fi gured out how Baltimore to mechanize the tedious process. Their descendents later changed the name to the “your HOST on the waterfront since 1923” American Sugar Refi ning Company, Domino Sugar’s parent company. The company also 2200 Broening Highway, Suite 102 was innovative in branding its product, Baltimore, Maryland 21224 steering consumers from bulk sugar to Telephone: (410) 633-4666 prepackaged sugar, including cubes that Fax: (410) 633-2993 resembled the playing tiles of dominoes, Telex: 6734714 HOSTMD hence the name. e-mail: [email protected] Baltimore was chosen as a site for a Website: www.tparkerhost.com new factory because of its proximity to Philadelphia and the Chesapeake Bay, as well as its rail access. In the early days, the plant was fi red by coal, which was brought in by rail. Today, railroad tanker cars are fi lled with liquid sugar.
    [Show full text]
  • In the United States District Court for the District of Maryland
    Case 1:10-cv-01378-WMN Document 20 Filed 09/27/11 Page 1 of 23 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND MICHAEL A. ATWELL * * v. * Civil Action WMN-10-1378 * AMERICAN SUGAR REFINING, INC. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * MEMORANDUM Pending before this Court is Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 12. The parties have fully briefed the motion, and it is ripe for review. Upon consideration of the pleadings, facts and applicable law, the Court determines that no hearing is necessary, Local Rule 105.6, and Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment will be granted for the reasons set forth below. I. BACKGROUND This is a case that involves claims of discrimination and retaliation. Plaintiff Michael Atwell, an African-American man, was employed by Defendant American Sugar Refining, Inc. (“ASR”) as a Packaging Maintenance Foreman at the Domino Sugar Plant in Baltimore from February 26, 2007, to October 16, 2008.1 His primary duty was to supervise the mechanics responsible for maintaining and repairing the conveyer belts and other high 1 The facts recited herein are the “undisputed facts” as stated in Defendant’s memorandum. Plaintiff did not dispute the facts or offer his own recounting, beyond his own affidavit, in his Response to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. As such the facts as stated by Defendant and as contained in Plaintiff’s affidavit, are assumed to be true for purposes of this motion. Case 1:10-cv-01378-WMN Document 20 Filed 09/27/11 Page 2 of 23 speed machinery used in the plant’s packaging operations.
    [Show full text]
  • Modification: U.S. V. the American Sugar Refining Company, Et
    IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. In Equity No.7-8. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PETITIONER, vs. THE AMERICAN SUGAR REFINING COMPANY, THE NATIONAL SUGAR REFINING COMPANY OF NEW JERSEY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS. ORDER ON PETITION TO MODIFY FINAL DECREE. This cause having come on for hearing before this Court consisting of three Circuit Judges of the Second Judicial Circuit sitting in the District Court under the provisions of the Act of Congress of February 11, 1903, known as the Expediting Act, on the final decree herein dated May 9, 1922, and upon the petition, verified Feb­ ruary 19, 1927, of The National Sugar Refining Company of New Jersey and Warner Sugar Corporation for a modification of said final decree, the answer of The United States of America to said petition and the affidavits filed by said petitioners and by The United States of America in support respectively of the said petition and of the answer thereto, and said Warner Sugar Corporation having been, with the consent of The United States of America endorsed on said petition, permitted to intervene in this cause by an order filed herein on February 24, 1927; and the said final decree, petition, answer to the petition and affidavits having been duly considered by this Court, it is now on this 25th day of February, 1927, by said Court ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED AS FOLLOWS: First: That the carrying out according to its terms and provisions of the agreement in writing, dated January 24, 1927, between The National Sugar Refining Company
    [Show full text]
  • Louisiana Sugar: a Geohistorical Perspective Elizabeth Vaughan Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College
    Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Doctoral Dissertations Graduate School 2003 Louisiana sugar: a geohistorical perspective Elizabeth Vaughan Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_dissertations Part of the Social and Behavioral Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Vaughan, Elizabeth, "Louisiana sugar: a geohistorical perspective" (2003). LSU Doctoral Dissertations. 3693. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_dissertations/3693 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized graduate school editor of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please [email protected]. LOUISIANA SUGAR: A GEOHISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in The Department of Geography and Anthropology by Elizabeth Vaughan B.A., University of California, Berkeley 1973 M.A., San Francisco State University, 1994 May, 2003 @Copyright 2003 Elizabeth Vaughan All Rights Reserved ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Numerous individuals have contributed to my life-experiences that eventually led to the study of geography and, finally, to the completion of this project. My first acknowledgment is extended to the intellectual legacy of Carl Sauer, whose writing first attracted me to the geographic view. His introduction was made by the faculty of San Francisco State University where Nancy Wilkinson, Hans Mierhoefer, Barbara Holzman, and fellow students Andy Bradon and Steve Wollmer remain an important part of an early geography family.
    [Show full text]
  • Sugar and Sweeteners Outlook
    Electronic Outlook Report from the Economic Research Service United States Department www.ers.usda.gov of Agriculture SSS-245 Jan. 31, 2006 Sugar and Sweeteners Outlook Stephen Haley, David Kelch, and Andy Jerardo Increased Sugar Imports Compensate for Sugar Production Downturn Contents On January 12, 2006, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) published its latest U.S. Sugar sugar supply and utilization projections for the 2006 fiscal year (FY) in the World Mexican Sugar Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates (WASDE) report. Beet sugar production & HFCS was projected at 4.435 million short tons, raw value (STRV), an increase of 79,000 European Union-25 STRV over the projection in the November WASDE. This increase was due to better Sugar Policy expected recovery in the Upper Midwest and the Pacific Far West. Cane sugar Maple Syrup production was projected at 3.158 million STRV. Both Florida and Louisiana have U.S. Coffee and Tea had difficult harvest seasons after major hurricanes. Florida’s production was Consumption projected at 1.455 million, the lowest level since FY 1990. Louisiana’s production At-A-Glance was projected at 1.263 million STRV, actually a slight improvement after last year’s Contact & Links disappointing season. Overall, FY 2006 production is projected to be 283,000 less than in FY 2005. Tables U.S. sugarbeet crop Beet sugar processors’ Sugar imports were projected at 2.77 million STRV, an increase of 674,000 STRV Sugar tariff-rate quota over FY 2005 imports and 590,000 STRV over FY 2006 imports projected in U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • The Origins and Development of the U.S. Sugar Program, 1934-1959
    The Origins and Development of the U.S. Sugar Program, 1934-1959 Richard Sicotte University of Vermont [email protected] Alan Dye Barnard College, Columbia University [email protected] Preliminary draft. Please do not cite. Paper prepared for the 14th International Economic History Conference August 21-25, 2006 1 Recent trade talks in the WTO indicate that the powerful US sugar lobby continues to be a roadblock to agricultural liberalization. It calls attention to a need for better understanding of the complex quota-based regulations that have governed the US sugar trade for so long. In 1934 the United States shifted its sugar protection policy from emphasizing the tariff to a comprehensive system of quotas. It was revised in 1937. After its suspension for much of World War II, a new Sugar Act was passed in 1948, and further revised in 1951 and 1956. It has been in almost continuous operation since 1934. This paper examines the origins and development of the Sugar Program from 1934 to 1959. Why did the United States adopt sugar quotas? What were the rules set up to implement and govern the policy? How did they function? The sugar quota was adopted after the U.S. government determined that the long-standing policy using the tariff to protect the domestic industry was failing. A principal reason was that the tariff was not raising the price of sugar because, by diminishing the imports of Cuban sugar, it was causing severe decline in wages and costs on that island. In turn, Cuban sugar was being offered at ever lower prices.
    [Show full text]
  • ? a History of Sugar Marketing Through 1974
    s- > ? A HISTORY OF SUGAR MARKETING THROUGH 1974 U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE / ECONOMICS, STATISTICS, AND COOPERATIVES SERVICE AGRICULTURAL ECONOMIC REPORT NO. 382 ABSTRACT The quota system of regulating the production, importation, and marketing of sugar in the United States through 1974 was an outgrowth of Government regulation of the sugar trade dating from colonial times. Similar systems have developed in most other countries, particu- larly those which import sugar. The U.S. Sugar Quota System benefited domestic sugar pro- ducers by providing stable prices at favorable levels. These prices also encouraged the produc- tion and use of substitute sweeteners, particularly high fructose and glucose sirup and crystalline dextrose in various industries. But sugar is still the most widely used sweetener in the United States, although its dominant position is being increasingly threatened. KEYWORDS: Sugar, quota, preference, tariff, refined, raw, sweeteners, corn sweeteners. world trade. PREFACE This report was written in 1975 by Roy A. Ballinger, formerly an agricultural economist in the Economic Research Service. It supersedes A History of Sugar Marketing, AER-197, also by Ballinger, issued in February 1971 and now out of print. On January 1, 1978, three USDA agencies—the Economic Research Service, the Statistical Reporting Service, and the Farmer Cooperative Service—merged into a new organization, the Economics, Statistics, and Cooperatives Service. Washington, DC. 20250 March 1978 CONTENTS Page Summary j¡ Introduction 1 Sugar Before the Discovery of America 1 The Colonial Period in the Americas 2 Sugar from 1783 to 1864 5 Developments in the Latter 19th Century g Changes in U.S. Sugar Trade Following the Spanish-American War and During 1900-15 15 Sugar During World War I 20 Price Fluctuations and Higher Tariffs 23 Sugar Quotas Prior to World War II 32 Sugar During World War II 39 U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Sugar Vegan? an Update on Sugar Processing Practices by Jeanne Yacoubou, MS
    Is Your Sugar Vegan? An Update on Sugar Processing Practices By Jeanne Yacoubou, MS N 1997, THE VEGETARIAN RESOURCE GROUP Savannah Foods, said his company is seriously looking published an article on sugar refining, focusing into overhauling its filtering system at a price tag of $25 in particular on the char derived from cow bones million because there have been recent improvements Ithat is used as a filter to whiten cane sugar during the in ion exchange filter technology. refining process. In this report, The VRG revisits the In 1997, The VRG reported that Refined Sugars, issue of bone char use in the sugar industry, examines Inc., maker of Jack Frost sugar, used granular carbon emerging practices for refining sugar, and discusses instead of bone char. Refined Sugars was one of the alternatives to sugar refined with bone char. companies bought out by Domino, which uses bone char for most of its sugars. (See the table on page 18 WHERE THE SUGAR INDUSTRY STANDS for the names of Domino’s non-organic and organic TODAY brands that are not filtered through bone char.) Jack The sugar industry’s practices haven’t changed much Frost sugar is still being produced at their Yonkers plant. over the past decade. The same large American cane It is available in New York and northern Pennsylvania sugar companies that were operating then are still in and constitutes approximately 0.5 percent of Domino’s business and have bought out smaller operations in total sugar production. the United States. There are a few small cane sugar Imperial Sugar produces a turbinado sugar that has companies, but there are really only two large cane not been processed through bone char.
    [Show full text]
  • The American Sugar Bulletir •<~ .!.~
    The American Sugar BulletiR •<~ .!.~. Q~ ,.~, ;.,·~ ; \' .•..-~ ,,~ ._,.;..,.:! ~ l.: Published Weekly by October IS, 1918 Edited by Merrick P. Willett 'The American SugarRefining Company 117 Wall StreelJ G~ !'&k l~~f The Franklin Sugar Refining Company Volume III-Number 42 Telephone Hanover 980 ===============================================~~~•W"'~~· ~,F~ ~~:: ---....~."'11!~.., THE NEW YORK MARKET ANNOUNCEMENTS OF Tf&' ITED STATES FOOD ADMINISTRAT RAWS-Since we went to press on ----- Friday last arrangements have been made for shipping "Washington, D. C., October 11, 1918. north some 302,250 bags of Cuban, 49,900 bags of Porto Rican and 36,700 bags of Santo Domingo sugar. These WHOLESALERS' LIMITATION ON shipments include the first amounts to come forward in SUGAR SALES November. The Santo Domingo sugars are for Canada, To all Federal Food Administrators: via New York. The Sugar Distribution Division Prices paid by the Sugar Equaliza- has received several inquiries of late regarding the limi­ tion Board continue unchanged at 6.055c. per pound for tation in the sale of sugar from wholesalers to retailer-s 96 test sugar, duty paid, New York basis, equivalent to to 1,000 pounds at one time. 6.055c. per pound for Porto Rico and St. Croix sugars, In view of the fact that our present 4.985c. for Cubas c. & f., and 4.799c. for San Domingoes Certificate Distribution Plan gives you control over the and other full duty paying sugars. retail stocks by the issuance to retailers of certificates for not more than a thirty clays' supply, the above limi­ Refiners pay the Sugar Equaliza­ tation has automatically ceased to be of further service.
    [Show full text]
  • Health Promotion in Early Childhood Education Settings: Rapid Evidence Review
    Health promotion in early childhood education settings Rapid evidence review Prepared for the Early Childhood Health Promoter, Communities Team by the Information Team Community & Public Health June 2018 The information contained in this document may be derived from a number of sources. Although the CDHB has taken reasonable steps to ensure that the information is accurate, it accepts no liability or responsibility for any acts or omissions, done or omitted in reliance in whole or in part, on the information. Further, the contents of the document should be considered in relation to the time of its publication, as new evidence may have become available since publication. The Canterbury District Health Board accepts no responsibility for the manner in which this information is subsequently used. © Canterbury District Health Board, 2018 Executive summary Background Development during early childhood lays the foundation for health, education, social, employment and economic outcomes throughout the life course. Many young New Zealand children spend time in early childhood education (ECE) settings, making them an ideal location for health promotion. A settings-based approach to health promotion is also more promising in terms of addressing health inequities as it focuses on modifying the wider environmental aspects of a setting; not solely educating individuals within that setting. Methods This rapid evidence review presents evidence from recently-published reviews on the effectiveness of health promotion interventions in several areas - sun safety, physical activity, oral health, nutrition, social and emotional wellbeing, and hand hygiene - delivered in ECE settings. Literature from New Zealand is included where relevant. Several limitations must be taken into account when interpreting the findings of this review.
    [Show full text]
  • Agricultural Reforms, Land Distribution, and Non-Sugar Agricultural Production in Cuba
    https://doi.org/10.7896/j.1817 Studies in Agricultural Economics 121 (2019) 13-20 Mario A. GONZALEZ-CORZO* Agricultural Reforms, Land Distribution, and Non-Sugar Agricultural Production in Cuba Since 2007, the Cuban government has introduced a series of agricultural reforms to increase non-sugar agricultural produc- tion and reduce the country’s dependency on food and agricultural imports. The most important agricultural reforms imple- mented in Cuba (so far) include: (a) increases in the prices paid by the state for selected agricultural products, (b) restructuring the Ministry of Agriculture (MINAGRI) and the Ministry of the Sugar Industry (MINAZ), (c) a new agricultural tax system, (d) the authorisation of direct sales and commercialisation of selected agricultural products, (e) micro-credits extended by state- owned banks to private farmers and usufructuaries, and (f) the expansion of usufruct farming. These reforms have contributed to the redistribution of Cuba’s agricultural land from the state to the non-state sector, notable reductions in idle (non-productive) agricultural land, and mixed results in terms of agricultural output. However, they have not been able to sufficiently incentiv- ise output and reduce the country’s high dependency on agricultural and food imports to satisfy the needs of its population. Achieving these long-desired objectives requires the implementation of more profound structural reforms in this vital sector of the Cuban economy. Keywords: Agricultural reforms, Cuban agriculture, Cuban economy, transition economies JEL classifications: Q15, Q18 * Lehman College, The City University of New York, School of Natural and Social Sciences, Department of Economics and Business, Carman Hall, 382, 250 Bedford Park Boulevard West, Bronx, NY 10468.
    [Show full text]
  • 07DCP094K: Domino Sugar Project – TM 0051
    TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM CEQR Number 07DCP094K: Domino Sugar Project – TM 0051 May 13, 2020 I. INTRODUCTION The Applicant (Domino Site A and Domino Site B LLC) is seeking a minor modification of the CPC approved plans for the Domino Sugar Large-Scale General Development (C 140132 ZSK), to facilitate the construction of a fourteen-story glass barrel-vaulted building, with a mechanical penthouse, within, and set back from, the historic facades of the former Domino factory (“Modified Refinery Building”). On October 16, 2019, the NYC Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) approved the design of the Modified Refinery Building when it issued Certificate of Appropriateness COFA-20-02358. The purpose of this Technical Memorandum is to determine whether the proposed change to the massing of the Refinery Building would result in any significant adverse environmental impacts that were not previously identified in the May 2010 Domino Sugar Rezoning Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and subsequent Technical Memoranda dated June 4th, 2010, July 10th, 2010, October 31, 2013, and March 5, 2014 (CEQR No. 07DCP094K). As discussed below, this technical memorandum concludes that there would be no additional significant adverse impacts in any of the analyzed CEQR technical areas as a result of the proposed modification. II. BACKGROUND The Domino Sugar project originally proposed in 2010 (the “2010 Project”) was intended to revitalize and reactivate a vacant waterfront industrial site (see Figure 1 for site location) with publicly accessible open space, a restored and adaptively reused historic building, and new residential buildings. As part of the 2010 Project, the landmarked building along the waterfront known as the Refinery Building was to be adaptively reused.
    [Show full text]