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.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

59759

Vol. 65, No. 195

Friday, October 6, 2000

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Commodity Credit Corporation

7 CFR Part 1412

RIN 0560–AF79

Contract Violations and Diminution in

Payments: Fruits and Vegetable

Planting Payment Reduction

AGENCY: Commodity Credit Corporation,

USDA.

ACTION: Proposed rule with request for

comments.

SUMMARY: Federal Agriculture

Improvement and Reform Act of 1996

(1996 Act) prohibited, with exceptions,

the planting of fruits or vegetables on

land enrolled in a Production Flexibility

Contract (PFC). If a producer planted

fruits or vegetables on acreage covered

by a PFC and one of the exceptions in

the 1996 Act did not apply, the

producer violated the PFC. If the degree

of the violation did not warrant

termination of the contract, future PFC

payments were reduced in accordance

with the respective regulations. The

Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC)

published an advance notice of

proposed rulemaking in May of 1999,

seeking public comment on this issue.

This proposed rule seeks additional

public comment on the payment

reductions applicable to a PFC when

there has been a violation due to the

planting of fruits or vegetables.

DATES: Comments must be received by

November 6, 2000 to be assured

consideration.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments to:

Rebecca Davis, Production, Emergencies

and Compliance Division (PECD), Farm

Service Agency (FSA), USDA, STOP

0517, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, DC 20250–0517, telephone

(202) 720–9882, e-mail Rebecca_Davis

@wdc.fsa.usda.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Rebecca Davis at (202) 720–9882.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Order 12866

This proposed rule has been

determined to be significant and was

reviewed by the Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) under Executive

Order 12866.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

It has been determined that

Regulatory Flexibility Act is not

applicable to this proposed rule because

FSA is not required by 5 U.S.C. 553 or

any other provisions of the law to

publish a notice of proposed rule

making.

Environmental Evaluation

It has been determined by an

environmental evaluation that this

action will have no significant impact

on the quality of the human

environment. Therefore, neither an

Environmental Assessment nor an

Environmental Impact Statement is

needed.

Executive Order 12988

This rule has been reviewed in

accordance with Executive Order 12988.

The provisions of this proposed rule

preempt State laws to the extent such

laws are inconsistent with the

provisions of this rule. The provisions

of this rule are retroactive.

Executive Order 12372

This activity 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).

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of

1995

This rule contains no Federal

mandates under the provisions of Title

II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform

Act of 1995 (UMRA) for State, local, and

tribal governments or the private sector.

Thus, this rule is not subject to the

requirements of sections 202 and 205 of

UMRA.

Paperwork Reduction Act

Information collected in this rule has

been approved by OMB and assigned

OMB Control Number 0560–0092. This

rule does not contain any new

information collection requirements.

Executive Order 12612

It has been determined that this rule

does not have sufficient Federalism

implications to warrant the preparation

of a Federalism Assessment. The

provisions contained in this rule will

not have a substantial direct effect on

States or their political subdivisions, or

on the distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of Government.

Discussion of the Proposed Rule

The Federal Agriculture Improvement

and Reform Act of 1996 (the 1996 Act)

provided producers the opportunity to

enter into a Production Flexibility

Contract (PFC) but generally prohibited

the planting of fruits or vegetables on

PFC acreage except as provided by three

specific exceptions in the Statute. See 7

U.S.C. 7218. Two of the exceptions in

the 1996 Act require that the PFC

payment applicable to an acre to be

reduced for each acre on which fruits or

vegetables were planted.

When the exceptions do not apply,

the planting of a fruit or vegetable on

PFC acreage is a violation of the PFC. In

such cases, the 1996 Act provides that

the PFC shall be terminated on each

farm in which that producer has an

interest, except that if the Secretary,

through designated representatives,

determines that termination of the

contract is not warranted, reductions in

PFC payments may be applied in lieu of

termination. Regulations addressing

those reductions are found at 7 CFR

1412.401.

Under the current regulations, if the

Farm Service Agency (FSA) county

committee determines that a planting

violation involving fruits or vegetables

does not warrant termination of the

PFC, a reduction may be made in the

current or future PFC payments equal to

the market value of the fruits or

vegetables planted on contract acreage.

This reduction is in addition to an acrefor-acre payment reduction for each acre

of fruits or vegetables planted on

contract acres. Acre-for-acre reductions

are calculated starting with the contract

commodity with the lowest contract

payment rate per acre and proceeding to

the contract commodity with the next

lowest contract payment rate per acre

until the PFC payment has been reduced

for each acre of fruits or vegetables

planted on contract acres. The planting

violation payment reduction is applied

59760 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 195 / Friday, October 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules

to current PFC payments and any future

PFC payments for the farm on which the

violation occurred and any other farm in

which the producers who share in PFC

payments on the violating farm have an

interest.

A producer who violates this

provision can simply, instead, accept

the termination remedy, in which case

the producer must refund with interest

all payments otherwise payable at the

time of the violation and forfeit all

future payments. Nonetheless, the nontermination and payment reduction now

allowed is viewed by some to be out of

proportion to the severity of the fruit or

vegetable planting violation. In the past,

some producers have accepted the

payment reduction in lieu of

termination, while others have chosen

to terminate their PFC.

In the interim, a conference report

accompanying the Agriculture, Rural

Development, Food and Drug

Administration, and Related Agencies

Appropriations Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–

277), addressed this issue and ‘‘urged

[the Secretary] to exercise reasonable

treatment of producers to avoid harmful

consequences.’’ 144 Cong. Rec. H 11301

(daily ed. Oct. 19, 1998).

Because of this concern and in order

to provide a full discussion of this issue,

advance notices of proposed rule

making were published in the Federal

Register on May 5, 1999 (64 FR 24091),

and June 25, 1999 (64 FR 34154),

seeking comments on the fruits and

vegetables payment reduction

provisions. More than 100 responses

were received within the comment

periods. Based on a review of the

comments received, CCC has decided to

proceed with the proposed rule set out

in this notice and to seek additional

public comment. This proposed rule, if

adopted, would amend 7 CFR 1412.401

to change the payment reduction for

both prior and future violations. Under

the proposed rule, where termination is

determined not to be warranted, in

addition to the acre-for-acre payment

reduction, the reduction for the planting

violation would be calculated as

follows: (1) For the initial offense for the

producer, twice the payment rate for

each acre on which the violation

occurred, not to exceed the market value

the producer could have expected to

receive when planting the fruits or

vegetables on the acreage; and (2) For

subsequent violations, the expected

market value of the fruits or vegetables

planted on each contract acre.

Generally, the result for first-time

violators is that the payment reduction

will be three times the lowest payment

rates applicable to the number of acres

in violation. The result for subsequent

violations is that the payment reduction

will be the loss of the lowest payment

rates applicable to the number of acres

in violation and the expected market

value of the fruit or vegetable planted in

violation of the contract. The rationale

for this provision is that in all cases

where a producer plants fruits or

vegetables on contract acreage, the

contract acreage should not earn a

contract payment. The 1996 Act

provides that in permissive cases of

planting fruits or vegetables there is an

acre-for-acre payment reduction, such

that, at a minimum, contract violators

should have the acre-for-acre payment

reduction apply in all circumstances so

as to not end up in a better position than

permissive planters. Because some

producers qualify for PFC payments

based on different historical rates, the

acres with the lowest payment rates will

be used in determining the payment

reduction.

This rule should, for first offenses

involving fruits or vegetables, result in

a lower payment reduction because the

total impact of the violation on the

producer would now be no greater than

three times the applicable per-acre PFC

payment rate, whereas under the current

rule the loss can be equal to the per-acre

payment plus the total expected value of

the crop. This will allow for a uniform

and less onerous payment reduction. At

the same time, the payment reduction

will be significant enough to avoid the

possibility that the leniency would be

an invitation to attempt to circumvent

the policy of the PFC to the detriment

of traditional producers of fruits or

vegetables whose interests are protected

by the limitation.

Producers have an obligation to make

themselves aware of program

restrictions and to abide by those

restrictions. For second offenses, and

additional offenses that might occur,

where the seriousness of the matter

would be beyond doubt and where a

misunderstanding would not appear

plausible, the sanction under the

proposed rule would be the same as it

is now—namely, the full value of the

crop would be taken into account, as

well as eliminating a payment amount

on the land equal to the payment rate

for the lowest contract commodity.

In order to provide even greater

uniformity in the administration of the

sanctions, the proposed rule would

allow refunds, or claim reductions, to

those producers who on their first

offenses had the current payment

reduction applied. To the extent that a

refund will be paid, however, no

interest will be paid on such sums as

the original charge was valid (given that

the producer was, in fact, in violation of

the contract). Any payments earned due

to this recalculation are not payments

for a past-due debt, but simply reflect a

change in policy.

Likewise, the rule only addresses

changes in the monetary implications

for fruit and vegetables violations.

Farmers with prior violations who chose

to terminate the contract will not be

allowed to re-enroll the land in the

program. Compliance cannot be

performed retroactively and, as to future

performance, re-enrollment of the

property is contrary to the very limited

enrollment window allowed by the 1996

Act. Furthermore, while those farmers

who did opt for termination might have,

in some cases, been influenced by the

size of the alternative payment

reduction sanction for their violation,

determining the significance of that

factor would be very difficult. In any

event, those producers choose to cease

participation in this program in which

their production would have been

limited over the life of the full PFC

period. Accordingly, those producers

did achieve a flexibility which those

that remained in PFC did not have and

which is not consistent with the longterm commitments except for continued

benefits under the program.

Refunds made under the rule, if

adopted, would not count against the

producer’s payment limitations for the

current year, but will be applied to the

program year for which the original

payment was reduced. These payments,

moreover, will have only a limited effect

on current payments to other producers

as the amounts involved are small;

moreover, those reductions that were

made in payments in prior years for

fruit or vegetable violations were added

into the PFC payments made in

subsequent years to other producers.

Accordingly, overall, there is no net

effect on other farmers involved with

the PFC program though the results with

individual producers could be impacted

in a very minor way.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1412

Contract acreage, Contract payments,

Cotton, Feed grains, Price support

programs, Rice, Wheat.

PART 1412—PRODUCTION

FLEXIBILITY CONTRACTS FOR

WHEAT, FEED GRAINS, RICE, AND

UPLAND COTTON.

1. The authority citation for part l412

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7201 et seq; 15 U.S.C.

714b, 714c; Sec. 734, Pub. L. 105–86; Pub. L.

105–228; Sec 727, Pub. L. 105–277; Secs.

727, 811, Pub. L. 106–78, 113 Stat. 1181.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 195 / Friday, October 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules 59761

2. Revise § 1412.401 to read as

follows:

§ 1412.401 Contract violations.

(a) Except as provided further in this

section, if a producer subject to a

contract violates a requirement of the

contract the Deputy Administrator shall

terminate the contract with respect to

the producer on each farm in which the

producer has an interest. Upon such

termination, the producer shall forfeit

all rights to receive future contract

payments on each farm in which the

producer has an interest and shall

refund all contract payments received

by the producer during the period of

violation, plus interest with respect to

the contract payments as determined in

accordance with part 1403 of this

chapter.

(b) Except for violations of § 1412.206,

if the county committee determines that

a violation is not serious enough to

warrant termination of the contract, the

county committee may in lieu of

termination allow the contract to

continue subject to a reduction in

contract payments for the period of the

violation.

(c) If there is a violation of § 1412.206,

and the county committee determines

that the violation is not serious enough

to warrant termination of the contract

the County Committee may in lieu of

termination allow the contract to

continue but reduce the contract

payments as set forth below.

(1) For the initial violation for the

producer, the contract payment will be

reduced by an amount that is twice the

payment rate on the acre or acres found

to be in violation, but not to exceed the

market value the producer could have

expected to receive when planting the

fruits or vegetables on the acreage, as

determined by the State committee.

(2) For subsequent violations for the

producer, the contract payment will be

reduced by an amount that is equal to

the market value the producer could

have expected to receive when planting

the fruits or vegetables on the acreage,

as determined by the State committee.

(d) The standard rule applicable to

acreage planted to fruits or vegetables

which provides for an acre-for-acre

reduction will apply in addition to the

payment reductions in paragraph (c) of

this section.

(e) If the county committee

determines not to terminate the

contract, the producer shall be required

as a condition of contract continuance

to refund to CCC that part of the

contract payment received by the

producer during the period of the

violation, plus interest determined in

accordance with part 1403 of this

chapter.

(f) Payment reductions will be applied

in ascending order beginning with the

acreage with the lowest contract

payment rate.

(g) For producers who violated

§ 1412.206 in 1997, 1998, 1999, or 2000,

and had their payments reduced under

§ 1412.401(b) in effect on January 1,

2000, payment reductions will be

calculated under the new formula now

provided in § 1412.401. Refunds will be

issued to those producers as appropriate

but without the payment of interest or

other fees. Acreage affected by any

contract termination cannot be reenrolled in the program.

(h) Refunds made under the rule

would not count against the producer’s

payment limitations for the current year,

but rather will be applied to the

program year for which the original

payment was reduced.

(i) Producers who do not plant a crop

on contract acreage must protect any

such land from weeds and erosion,

including providing sufficient cover if

determined necessary by the county

committee. The first violation of this

provision by a producer will result in a

reduction in the producer’s payment for

the farm by an amount equal to three

times the cost of maintenance of the

acreage, but not to exceed 50 percent of

the payment for the farm for that fiscal

year. The second violation of this

provision will result in a reduction in

the payment for the farm by an amount

equal to three times the cost of

maintenance of the acreage, not to

exceed the payment for the farm for that

fiscal year.

Signed at Washington, D.C., on October 2,

2000.

Keith Kelly,

Executive Vice President, Commodity Credit

Corporation.

[FR Doc. 00–25665 Filed 10–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–05–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy

10 CFR Part 430

[Docket Number EE–RM/STD–00–550]

RIN 1904–AB08

Energy Conservation Standards for

Distribution Transformers

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy, Department of

Energy.

ACTION: Notice of public workshop and

availability of the Framework Document

for Distribution Transformer Efficiency

Standards.

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy

(DOE or Department) will hold an

informal public workshop to discuss

and receive comments on issues it will

address and the process it will follow in

considering the adoption of energy

conservation standards for electric

distribution transformers. The

Department also encourages written

comments on these subjects. To

facilitate this process, the Department

prepared a Framework Document, a

draft of which was made available on

October 2, 2000.

DATES: The public workshop will be

held on Wednesday, November 1, 2000,

from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Written

comments should be submitted by

December 1, 2000.

ADDRESSES: The workshop will be held

at the U.S. Department of Energy,

Forrestal Building, Room 1E–245, 1000

Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, DC 20585. (Please note that

foreign nationals visiting DOE

Headquarters are subject to advance

security screening procedures. If you are

a foreign national and wish to

participate in the workshop, please

inform DOE of this fact as soon as

possible by contacting Ms. Brenda

Edwards-Jones at (202) 586–2945 so that

the necessary procedures can be

completed.)

On October 2, 2000, the draft

Framework Document was placed on

the DOE website at: http://

www.eren.doe.gov/buildings/

codes_standards/applbrf/

dist_transformer.html.

Written comments are welcome,

especially following the workshop.

Please submit written comments to: Ms.

Brenda Edwards-Jones, U.S. Department

of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency

and Renewable Energy, ‘‘Energy

Conservation Program for Consumer

Products: Energy Conservation

Standards for Distribution Transformers,

Docket No. EE–RM/STD–00–550’’, EE–

41, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, DC 20585–0121.

Telephone: (202) 586–2945; Telefax:

(202) 586–4617. You should label

comments both on the envelope and on

the documents, and submit them for

DOE receipt by December 1, 2000.

Please submit one signed copy and a

computer diskette (WordPerfect 8) or 10

copies (no telefacsimiles). The

Department will also accept

electronically-mailed comments, e-mail

to Brenda.Edwards-Jones@ee.doe.gov,