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

76582

Vol. 65, No. 236

Thursday, December 7, 2000

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service

7 CFR Part 301

[Docket No. 00–037–2]

RIN 0579–AB15

Citrus Canker; Payments for Recovery

of Lost Production Income

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: We are proposing to amend

our citrus canker regulations to establish

provisions under which eligible owners

of commercial citrus groves could,

subject to the availability of

appropriated funds, receive payments to

recover production income lost as a

result of the removal of commercial

citrus trees to control citrus canker.

These proposed lost production

payments, which would serve to

complement our October 16, 2000,

interim rule that provides for the

payment of tree replacement funds to

eligible owners of commercial citrus

groves, would help to reduce the

economic effects of the citrus canker

quarantine on affected commercial

citrus growers.

DATES: We invite you to comment on

this docket. For comments on all

portions of this proposed rule except the

rule’s information collection and

recordkeeping requirements that are

subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act,

consideration will be given only to

comments received on or before January

8, 2001. For comments on the

Paperwork Reduction Act requirements

of this proposed rule, consideration will

be given only to comments received on

or before February 5, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Please send four copies of

your comment (an original and three

copies) to: Docket No. 00–037–2,

Regulatory Analysis and Development,

PPD, APHIS, Suite 3C03, 4700 River

Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737–

1238. Please state that your comment

refers to Docket No. 00–037–2.

You may read any comments that we

receive on this docket in our reading

room. The reading room is located in

room 1141 of the USDA South Building,

14th Street and Independence Avenue

SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading

room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, except

holidays. To be sure someone is there to

help you, please call (202) 690–2817

before coming.

APHIS documents published in the

Federal Register, and related

information, including the names of

organizations and individuals who have

commented on APHIS dockets, are

available on the Internet at http://

www.aphis.usda.gov/ppd/rad/

webrepor.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Stephen Poe, Operations Officer,

Program Support Staff, PPQ, APHIS,

4700 River Road Unit 134, Riverdale,

MD 20737–1236; (301) 734–8247.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Citrus canker is a plant disease that

affects plants and plant parts, including

fresh fruit, of citrus and citrus relatives

(Family Rutaceae). Citrus canker can

cause defoliation and other serious

damage to the leaves and twigs of

susceptible plants. It can also cause

lesions on the fruit of infected plants

that render the fruit unmarketable, and

can cause infected fruit to drop from the

trees before reaching maturity. The

aggressive A (Asiatic) strain of citrus

canker can infect susceptible plants

rapidly and lead to extensive economic

losses in commercial citrus-producing

areas.

The regulations to prevent the

interstate spread of citrus canker are

contained in 7 CFR 301.75–1 through

301.75–15 (referred to below as the

regulations). The regulations restrict the

interstate movement of regulated

articles from and through areas

quarantined because of citrus canker

and provide conditions under which

regulated fruit may be moved into,

through, and from quarantined areas for

packing. The regulations currently list

parts of Broward, Collier, Dade, Hendry,

Hillsborough, and Manatee Counties,

FL, as quarantined areas for citrus

canker.

On October 16, 2000, we published in

the Federal Register (65 FR 61077–

61080, Docket No. 00–037–1) an interim

rule that amended the regulations by

adding a new section (§ 301.75–15) to

provide for the payment of tree

replacement funds to eligible owners of

commercial citrus groves who have had

citrus trees destroyed because of citrus

canker. In that interim rule, we noted

that we anticipated that additional

funds would be made available to allow

us to provide payments to the owners of

commercial citrus groves for losses in

production income resulting from the

destruction of trees due to citrus canker.

In this document, we are proposing to

amend the regulations by adding

another new section, § 301.75–16, that

would address the payment of funds to

recover income from production that

was lost as the result of the removal of

commercial citrus trees to control citrus

canker. That proposed new section is

explained in detail below.

Definitions (Section 301.75–1)

We are proposing to amend § 301.75–

1, ‘‘Definitions,’’ by adding a definition

for the term ACC coverage, which

would be used in proposed new

§ 301.75–16. We would define ACC

coverage as ‘‘the crop insurance

coverage against Asiatic citrus canker

(ACC) provided under the Florida Fruit

Tree Pilot Crop Insurance Program

authorized by the Federal Crop

Insurance Corporation’’ (FCIC). This

crop insurance pilot covers 29 Florida

counties, including the 6 counties that

currently contain citrus canker

quarantined areas, and allows growers

to insure covered citrus tree varieties

against both standard perils (losses

resulting from freezes, wind, and excess

moisture) and losses due to citrus

canker (referred to by FCIC as Asiatic

citrus canker or ACC). Eligibility for the

two sets of perils (standard and ACC) is

determined separately; thus, an insured

grower may qualify for coverage against

the standard perils but not against ACC.

While growers located in counties that

do not contain quarantined areas qualify

for ACC coverage automatically, growers

located in counties that do contain

quarantined areas are required to obtain

an ACC underwriting certification,

which describes the status of citrus trees

with respect to citrus canker, from

APHIS or from the Florida Department

of Food and Consumer Services’

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 236 / Thursday, December 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules 76583

1The expected productive life of a lime grove is

25 years; for other varieties of citrus, the expected

productive life of a grove is 36 years. The age of

the trees destroyed to date has been mixed, even

within individual groves; based on available

information, we have determined that the average

(mean) age of the trees that have been destroyed

was 14 years for grapefruit, 12 years for tangelos,

Valencia oranges, and navel oranges, and 4 years for

limes.

Division of Plant Industry (DPI). If a

grower’s trees are certified by APHIS or

DPI as being infected with or exposed to

citrus canker, the trees are not eligible

for ACC coverage under the crop

insurance pilot.

Payments for the Recovery of Lost

Production Income (Proposed Section

301.75–16)

The introductory text of proposed

§ 301.75–16 would provide that our

ability to make payments to commercial

citrus producers to recover income from

production that was lost as the result of

the removal of commercial citrus trees

to control citrus canker is contingent

upon the availability of funds

appropriated for that purpose. Because

the Secretary of Agriculture has not

found it necessary to declare an

extraordinary emergency with respect to

citrus canker in Florida, the Animal and

Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)

does not have the authority under the

Plant Protection Act to establish a

compensation program to cover losses

associated with the current citrus canker

outbreak in that State. Therefore, we

may provide payments for the recovery

of lost production income only if

appropriated funds are made available

for that purpose. Such funds have been

made available in section 203(e) of the

Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000

(Pub. L. 106–224), which provides that

$25 million shall be used by the

Secretary to compensate commercial

growers for losses due to Pierce’s

disease, plum pox, and citrus canker. In

additional, $58 million were made

available for payments to commercial

citrus and lime producers in Florida in

the Department’s fiscal year (FY) 2001

appropriation. Specifically, paragraphs

(a) through (e) of section 810 of the

Agriculture, Rural Development, Food

and Drug Administration, and Related

Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001

(Pub. L. 106–387) state the following:

(a) The Secretary of Agriculture shall pay

Florida commercial citrus and lime growers

$26 for each commercial citrus or lime tree

removed to control citrus canker in order to

allow for tree replacement and associated

business costs. Payments under this

subsection shall be capped in accordance

with the following trees per acre limitations:

(1) In the case of grapefruit, 104 trees per

acre;

(2) In the case of valencias, 123 trees per

acre;

(3) In the case of navels, 118 trees per acre;

(4) In the case of tangelos, 114 trees per

acre;

(5) In the case of limes, 154 trees per acre;

and

(6) in the case of other or mixed citrus, 104

trees per acre.

(b) The Secretary of Agriculture shall

compensate Florida commercial citrus and

lime growers for lost production, as

determined by the Secretary of Agriculture,

with respect to trees removed to control

citrus canker.

(c) To receive assistance under this section,

a tree referred to in subsection (a) or (b) must

have been removed after January 1, 1986, and

before September 30, 2001.

(d) In the case of a removed tree that was

covered by a crop insurance tree policy,

compensation for lost production under

subsection (b) with respect to such a tree

shall be reduced by the indemnity received

with respect to such a tree. In the case of a

removed tree that was not covered by a crop

insurance tree policy, although such

insurance was available for the tree,

compensation for lost production under

subsection (b) with respect to such a tree

shall be reduced by 5 percent.

(e) The Secretary of Agriculture shall use

$58,000,000 of the funds of the Commodity

Credit Corporation to carry out this section,

to remain available until expended.

Eligibility

Under paragraph (a) of proposed

§ 301.75–16, the owner of a commercial

citrus grove would be eligible to receive

payments to recover net income from

production that was lost as the result of

the removal of commercial citrus trees

to control citrus canker if the trees were

removed pursuant to a public order

between 1986 and 1990 or on or after

September 28, 1995. Although the

current citrus canker infestation was

detected in Florida on September 28,

1995, the State of Florida has identified

five commercial citrus groves in

Manatee and Highlands Counties that

were destroyed to control citrus canker

during a limited outbreak of the disease

that occurred between 1986 and 1990.

The proposed eligibility period would

ensure that lost production payments

could be made to those growers affected

during that limited outbreak in Manatee

and Highlands Counties as well as those

growers affected during the current

outbreak.

Per-Acre Payments

Proposed § 310.75–16(b)(1) would

provide the per-acre amounts that

would be paid to the owners of eligible

commercial citrus groves. The amount

that would be paid per acre of destroyed

commercial citrus groves would vary,

depending on the type of citrus trees

that constituted a particular grove.

The per-acre payments that we are

proposing in this document are based

on the estimated per-acre loss in value

of the destroyed groves. This loss in

value is the difference between the net

present value (NPV) of the original

(destroyed) grove before it was infected

with or exposed to citrus canker minus

the NPV of the replanted grove for its

entire productive life.1 To calculate the

NPV of a grove (both original and

replanted groves), we used discounted

cash flow analysis, which takes into

account the quantity, variability, and

duration of the forecasted income

stream over a specified income

projection period. Each year’s net

income is discounted back to a present

worth figure at the appropriate, marketderived discount rate. The valuation

model can be expressed in the following

equation form, where Y = net income,

r = discount rate, and n = number of

years in the discount period:

NPV Y

r

Y

r

Y

r

Y

r

n

n = +

+

+

+

+

+ +

+

1

1

2

2

3

3 ()() () 111 1 ... ( )

To calculate NPV using the above

equation, we had to determine net

income, the discount rate, and the

number of years in the discount period.

Each of these inputs is discussed below.

A more detailed analysis may be

obtained from the person listed under

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Net income. To determine the peracre net income for each variety of fruit,

we multiplied the yield (number of

boxes) per tree by the price per box,

then subtracted the production cost per

tree to arrive at the cash flow per tree;

the cash flow per tree was then

multiplied by the number of trees per

acre to determine per-acre net income.

The values used for the variables in our

calculations, which are based on

information obtained from the Florida

76584 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 236 / Thursday, December 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules

Agricultural Statistics Service and the

University of Florida’s Institute of Food

and Agricultural Services, are as

follows:

GRAPEFRUIT *

Yield (88-lb. boxes per tree) .................... Years 1–2

0.00

Years 3–5

1.95

Years 6–8

3.19

Years 9–13

4.20

Years 14–19

4.91

Years 20–36

5.28

Price per box ............................................ $3.58

Production costs ...................................... Year 1 Year 2 Years 3–36

$10.16 per tree $3.79 per tree $1.852 per box

Trees per acre ......................................... 104

* In our October 16, 2000, interim rule, this category was referred to as ‘‘Grapefruit, red seedless.’’ It is referred to as ‘‘Grapefruit’’ in this proposed rule to conform with the language used in Sec. 810 of Public Law 106–387.

ORANGE, VALENCIA

Yield (88-lb. boxes per tree) .................... Years 1–2

0.00

Years 3–5

1.18

Years 6–8

2.09

Years 9–13

2.30

Years 14–19

3.64

Years 20–36

4.38

Price per box ............................................ $5.29

Production costs ...................................... Year 1 Year 2 Years 3–36

$10.16 per tree $3.79 per tree $2.134 per box

Trees per acre ......................................... 123

ORANGE, NAVEL **

Yield (88-lb. boxes per tree) .................... Years 1–2

0.00

Years 3–5

1.23

Years 6–8

2.69

Years 9–13

3.56

Years 14–19

4.71

Years 20–36

5.67

Price per box ............................................ $4.14

Production costs ...................................... Year 1 Year 2 Years 3–36

$10.16 per tree $3.79 per tree $1.853 per box

Trees per acre ......................................... 118

** In our October 16, 2000, interim rule, this category of oranges was referred to as ‘‘Orange, early/midseason/navel.’’ It is referred to as ‘‘Orange, navel’’ in this proposed rule to conform with the language used in Sec. 810 of Public Law 106–387.

TANGELO

Yield (88-lb. boxes per tree) .................... Years 1–2

0.00

Years 3–5

0.87

Years 6–8

1.90

Years 9–13

2.51

Years 14–19

3.32

Years 20–36

4.00

Price per box ............................................ $3.88

Production costs ...................................... Year 1 Year 2 Years 3–36

$10.16 per tree $3.79 per tree $1.852 per box

Trees per acre ......................................... 114

LIME

Yield (88-lb. boxes per tree) ............. Year 1

0.16

Year 2

0.60

Year 3

1.07

Year 4

1.38

Year 5

1.83

Year 6

2.11

Year 7

2.48

Yrs 8–25

2.61

Price per box ..................................... $9.11

Production costs ................................ Year 1 Year 2 Years 3–25

$12.57 per tree $7.79 per tree $6.55 per box

Trees per acre ................................... 154

Discount rate. The discount rate used

in the equation differed for original

groves and replanted groves. Based on

information provided by extension

economists in Florida and citrus

industry economists, we have applied

the following discount rates when

calculating the NPV of replanted groves,

as replanting would not be expected to

occur until the production area is free

from citrus canker: 14 percent for

grapefruit; 14.5 percent for tangelos and

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 236 / Thursday, December 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules 76585

Valencia and navel oranges; and 13.5

percent for limes. Based on the discount

rates applied to production in areas free

from citrus canker, we estimated that

the following discount rates would be

appropriate for income that could be

earned from a grove in an area where

citrus canker is present: 15 percent for

grapefruit; 15.5 percent for tangelos and

Valencia and navel oranges; and 14.5

percent for limes. These higher discount

rates reflect the increased risk that

would be associated with citrus

production in an area known to have

citrus canker.

Number of years in discount period.

The NPV was calculated using a life

cycle approach.

The revenues and costs were

calculated over a period equal to the

expected productive life of a replanted

grove, which, as noted previously, is 25

years for lime groves and 36 years for

other varieties of citrus.

Based on the recommendations of

extension economists and sources

within the citrus industry, payments for

the recovery of lost production income

would be made on a per-acre basis,

rather than on a per-tree basis, because

output per acre is approximately the

same, regardless of the number of trees

per acre. Paying on a per-tree basis

would likely result in underpayments to

growers with older groves, which

normally have fewer, but larger and

more productive, trees, and in

overpayments to growers with newer

groves, which normally have more trees

that are smaller and produce less fruit

per tree than the larger trees. The trend

in the industry is to plant more trees per

acre; smaller trees allow for easier

harvesting, making it easier to find

workers willing to do this type of work.

Using the information and

methodology set forth in the preceding

paragraphs, we have calculated the peracre NPV for each variety of citrus

considered in this proposed rule. The

NPV includes the lost production

component considered in this proposed

rule as well as the tree replacement

component addressed in our October 16,

2000, interim rule that established

§ 301.75–15, ‘‘Funds for the replacement

of commercial citrus trees.’’ Because the

regulations in § 301.75–15 already

provide for tree replacement payments,

we have subtracted those tree

replacement payments (i.e., $26 times

the number of trees per acre) from the

NPV to arrive at the proposed per-acre

lost production payments presented in

the following table:

Citrus variety Trees

per acre*

Per-tree

payment*

Tree

replacement

payment

(per acre)*

Lost

production

payment

(per acre)

NPV

(per acre)

Grapefruit ............................................................................. 104 $26 $2,704 $2,925 $5,629

Orange, Valencia ................................................................. 123 26 3,198 5,729 8,927

Orange, navel ...................................................................... 118 26 3,068 5,693 8,761

Tangelo ................................................................................ 114 26 2,964 1,666 4,630

Lime ..................................................................................... 154 26 4,004 4,829 8,833

Other or mixed citrus** ........................................................ 104 26 2,704 2,925 5,629

* Trees per acre, pre-tree payment, and tree replacement payment per acre reflect the limitations established in Sec. 810(a) of Public Law

106–387.

** Records provided by the State of Florida list approximately 32 acres of ‘‘other, unidentified’’ citrus trees as having been destroyed due to citrus canker before December 31, 1999. Under this proposed rule, the payment for those ‘‘other, unidentified’’ citrus trees would be the same as

that for grapefruit. Since the time those initial records were provided by Florida, we have been able to determine that the ‘‘other, unidentified’’

category of citrus groves is a mix of trees not conveniently categorized. The mix of trees may include grapefruit, oranges, and specialty crops.

Based on the fact that 82 percent of the acreage destroyed before December 31, 1999, consisted of grapefruit, APHIS used grapefruit production

and cost data to estimate the value of the ‘‘other, unidentified’’ groves.

Payment Adjustments

Paragraph (b)(2) of proposed § 301.75–

16 would provide for adjustments to be

made to the per-acre payments

discussed above in those cases where

ACC coverage had been available for the

destroyed trees. Specifically, under

proposed § 301.75–16(b)(2)(i), if the

owner of a commercial citrus grove had

obtained ACC coverage for trees in his

or her grove and had received crop

insurance payments following the

destruction of the insured trees, the

payment provided for under paragraph

(b)(1) of this section will be reduced by

the total amount of the crop insurance

payments received by the commercial

citrus grove’s owner for the insured

trees. This proposed adjustment would

enable us to deduct any indemnity for

destroyed trees that may have been

received by a grower through crop

insurance, thus ensuring that the grove

owner did not receive two payments for

the same destroyed trees.

If the owner of a commercial citrus

grove had been eligible to obtain ACC

coverage for the trees in his or her grove,

but that owner had not obtained the

available coverage, proposed § 301.75–

16(b)(2)(ii) would provide that the peracre lost production payment would be

reduced by 5 percent, as required by

Sec. 810(d) of Public Law 106–387. This

would respond to concerns that if

APHIS provided full lost production

payments to insurance-eligible

commercial growers who elected not to

obtain ACC coverage against citrus

canker losses, those full payments

would likely undermine the intent and

effectiveness of the Federal crop

insurance program by making it appear

that crop insurance was not necessary.

How To Apply

Paragraph (c) of proposed § 301.75–16

would provide information on how to

apply for lost production payments.

This paragraph would state that the

form necessary to apply for payments

could be obtained from any local citrus

canker program office or from the USDA

Citrus Canker Eradication Project office

in Miami, FL. Completed claim forms

would have to be sent to the USDA

Citrus Canker Eradication Project office

in Winter Haven, FL, which is where

the DPI records necessary to validate

claims are located. This paragraph

would also state that an applicant

should, when submitting a completed

application, include with the form a

copy of the public order that directed

the destruction of the trees, the order’s

accompanying inventory that describes

the acreage, number, and variety of trees

removed, and documentation verifying

that the destruction of trees had been

completed and the date of that

destruction. Claims for losses

attributable to the destruction of trees

on or before the effective date of the

final rule implementing the provisions

of this proposed rule would have to be

received within 60 days after the

effective date of the final rule. Claims

for losses attributable to the destruction

of trees after the effective date of the

76586 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 236 / Thursday, December 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules

2We believe that figure provided in the table for

limes—2,929 acres—accounts for all lime acreage

destroyed by November 15, 2000, so the presently

unidentified acreage can be expected to consist of

a mix of grapefruit, Valencia and navel oranges, and

tangelos, which collectively account for

approximately 3,650 acres in the table. Of that 3,650

acres, grapefruit accounts for 87.6 percent, Valencia

oranges for 1.6 percent, navel oranges for 10.4

percent, and tangelos for 0.4 percent. Applying

those same percentages to the 1,806.38 acres of

currently unidentified citrus would translate to lost

production claims of about $5.876 million for that

acreage, which would result in total lost production

claims for acreage destroyed by November 15, 2000,

of about $31.993 million.

final rule would have to be received

within 60 days after the destruction of

the trees.

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory

Flexibility Act

This proposed rule has been reviewed

under Executive Order 12866. The rule

has been determined to be significant

for the purposes of Executive Order

12866 and, therefore, has been reviewed

by the Office of Management and

Budget.

The following economic analysis

provides a cost-benefit analysis as

required by Executive Order 12866 and

an analysis of the potential economic

effects on small entities as required by

the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

This proposed rule would amend the

citrus canker regulations to establish

provisions under which eligible owners

of commercial citrus groves could,

subject to the availability of

appropriated funds, receive payments to

recover production income lost as a

result of the removal of commercial

citrus trees to control citrus canker.

These proposed lost production

payments, which would serve to

complement our October 16, 2000,

interim rule that provides for the

payment of tree replacement funds to

eligible owners of commercial citrus

groves, would help to reduce the

economic effects of the citrus canker

quarantine on affected commercial

citrus growers.

As shown in the table below, the

United States produced approximately

16,990 tons of oranges, grapefruit, limes,

tangerines, and tangelos worth $2.25

billion in 1998, with Florida producing

nearly half of that total.

Fruit

1998

U.S.

production

(tons)

Value of U.S.

production

(millions)

Florida

production

(tons)

Value of

Florida

production

(millions)

Florida

share of

production

(%)

Oranges ............................................................................... 13,857 $1,930.5 6,051 $843.0 43.67

Tangerines ........................................................................... 360 96.1 228 61.0 63.41

Grapefruit ............................................................................. 2,626 211.9 2,001 161.4 76.20

Limes .................................................................................... 19 4.3 14 3.1 72.72

Tangelos .............................................................................. 128 11.7 128 11.7 100.00

Total .............................................................................. 16,990 2,254.5 8,422 1,080.2 ........................

Source: USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Agricultural Statistics, 1999.

Removing the infected and exposed

trees protects a substantial investment

in other citrus groves. While the entire

value of citrus produced is not at risk

immediately from citrus canker, the

disease would, if left unchecked,

continue to spread. In time, the entire

industry would be at risk.

According to the data provided to

APHIS by the State of Florida,

approximately 8,418 acres of

commercial citrus trees have been

destroyed to control citrus canker by

November 15, 2000. This figure includes

an estimated 7,814 acres of commercial

citrus that have been destroyed since

the current citrus canker outbreak was

detected in September 1995, as well as

approximately 604 acres of grapefruit

trees from 5 groves in Manatee and

Highlands Counties that were destroyed

between 1986 and 1990 to control citrus

canker during a limited outbreak of the

disease during that period.

As shown in the following table,

which was prepared using the acreage

estimates provided by the State of

Florida and the proposed per-acre

payments contained in this proposed

rule, lost production payments for

commercial citrus trees destroyed by

November 15, 2000, would total

between about $29.1 to $36.5 million.

The uncertainty in this estimate is

attributable to the fact that, of the 8,418

acres estimated to have been destroyed

by November 15, 2000, there are about

1,806 acres that have not yet been

broken out by variety in the data

available to us. To account for that

acreage, we have multiplied the acreage

(1,806.38) by the lowest ($1,666) and

highest ($5,729) of the proposed peracre payments to identify the entire

range of possible total claims.2

Variety

Estimated

acreage destroyed by

11/15/00

Proposed peracre payment

Estimated lost

production

claims

Grapefruit ..................................................................................................................................... 3,201.00 $2,925 $9,362,925

Oranges, Valencia ....................................................................................................................... 58.30 5,729 334,001

Oranges, navel ............................................................................................................................ 380.22 5,693 2,164,592

Tangelos ...................................................................................................................................... 11.13 1,666 18,543

Limes ........................................................................................................................................... 2,929.00 4,829 14,144,141

Other or mixed citrus ................................................................................................................... 31.97 2,925 93,512

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................. 6,611.62 ........................ 26,117,714

Variety not yet identified .............................................................................................................. 1,806.38 1,666–5,729 3,009,429–

10,348,751

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 236 / Thursday, December 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules 76587

Variety

Estimated

acreage destroyed by

11/15/00

Proposed peracre payment

Estimated lost

production

claims

Total ...................................................................................................................................... 8,418 ........................ 29,127,143–

$36,466,465

Effects on Small Entities

This proposed rule would establish

provisions under which eligible owners

of commercial citrus groves could,

subject to the availability of

appropriated funds, receive payments to

recover production income lost as a

result of the removal of commercial

citrus trees to control citrus canker.

Therefore, the entities who would be

affected by this proposed rule would be

citrus growers. The Regulatory

Flexibility Act requires that the Agency

specifically consider the economic

effects of its rules on small entities. The

Small Business Administration (SBA)

defines a firm engaged in agriculture as

‘‘small’’ if it has less than $500,000 in

annual receipts. While the majority of

citrus growers in Florida would be

considered small entities under those

SBA guidelines, those growers who

would not be classified as small entities

account for the majority of the citrusgrowing acreage in the State. Based on

available information, it appears that

most of the citrus canker-related losses

in Florida have been incurred by those

larger citrus producers. Regardless of

the size of the entities affected, we

expect that this proposed rule would

benefit those commercial citrus growers

who are eligible for lost production

payments by helping to defray some of

the losses and expenses that they have

incurred as a result of the ongoing State

and Federal efforts to eradicate citrus

canker in Florida.

Under these circumstances, the

Administrator of the Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service has

determined that this action would not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

Executive Order 12372

This program/activity is listed in the

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

under No. 10.025 and is subject to

Executive Order 12372, which requires

intergovernmental consultation with

State and local officials. (See 7 CFR part

3015, subpart V.)

Executive Order 12988

This proposed rule has been reviewed

under Executive Order 12988, Civil

Justice Reform. If this proposed rule is

adopted: (1) All State and local laws and

regulations that are inconsistent with

this rule will be preempted; (2) no

retroactive effect will be given to this

rule; and (3) administrative proceedings

will not be required before parties may

file suit in court challenging this rule.

Paperwork Reduction Act

In accordance with section 3507(d) of

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the information

collection or recordkeeping

requirements included in this proposed

rule have been submitted for approval to

the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB). Please send written comments

to the Office of Information and

Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attention:

Desk Officer for APHIS, Washington, DC

20503. Please state that your comments

refer to Docket No. 00–037–2. Please

send a copy of your comments to: (1)

Docket No. 00–037–2, Regulatory

Analysis and Development, PPD,

APHIS, suite 3C03, 4700 River Road

Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737–1238,

and (2) Clearance Officer, OCIO, USDA,

room 404–W, 14th Street and

Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, DC 20250. A comment to

OMB is best assured of having its full

effect if OMB receives it within 30 days

of publication of this proposed rule.

This proposed rule would amend the

citrus canker regulations to establish

provisions under which eligible owners

of commercial citrus groves could,

subject to the availability of

appropriated funds, receive payments to

recover production income lost as a

result of the removal of commercial

citrus trees to control citrus canker.

Implementing this program would

necessitate the use of an information

collection activity in the form of an

application for funds.

We are soliciting comments from the

public concerning our information

collection and recordkeeping

requirements. These comments will

help us:

(1) Evaluate whether the information

collection is necessary for the proper

performance of our agency’s functions,

including whether the information will

have practical utility;

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our

estimate of the burden of the

information collection, including the

validity of the methodology and

assumptions used;

(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and

clarity of the information to be

collected; and

(4) Minimize the burden of the

information collection on those who are

to respond (such as through the use of

appropriate automated, electronic,

mechanical, or other technological

collection techniques or other forms of

information technology; e.g., permitting

electronic submission of responses).

Estimate of burden: Public reporting

burden for this collection of information

is estimated to average 0.16 hours per

response.

Respondents: Eligible commercial

citrus grove owners in Florida.

Estimated annual number of

respondents: 65.

Estimated annual number of

responses per respondent: 1.

Estimated annual number of

responses: 65.

Estimated total annual burden on

respondents: 10 hours.

(Due to rounding, the total annual

burden hours may not equal the product

of the annual number of responses

multiplied by the average reporting

burden per response.)

Copies of this information collection

can be obtained by calling Mrs. Celeste

Sickles, APHIS’ Information Collection

Coordinator, at (301) 734–7477.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 301

Agricultural commodities, Plant

diseases and pests, Quarantine,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Transportation.

Accordingly, we propose to amend 7

CFR part 301 as follows:

PART 301—DOMESTIC QUARANTINE

NOTICES

1. The authority citation for part 301

would be revised to read as follows:

Authority: Title IV, Pub. L. 106–224, 114

Stat. 438, 7 U.S.C. 7701–7772; 7 U.S.C. 166;

7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.

Section 301.75–15 also issued under Sec.

204, Title II, Pub. L. 106–113, 113 Stat.

1501A-293; sections 301.75–15 and 301.75–

16 also issued under Sec. 203, Title II, Pub.

L. 106–224, 114 Stat. 400.

2. Section 301.75–1 would be

amended by adding a definition of ACC

coverage to read as follows:

76588 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 236 / Thursday, December 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules

§ 301.75–1 Definitions.

ACC coverage. The crop insurance

coverage against Asiatic citrus canker

(ACC) provided under the Florida Fruit

Tree Pilot Crop Insurance Program

authorized by the Federal Crop

Insurance Corporation.

* * * * *

3. In Subpart—Citrus Canker, a new

§ 301.75–16 would be added to read as

follows:

§ 301.75–16 Payments for the recovery of

lost production income.

Subject to the availability of

appropriated funds, the owner of a

commercial citrus grove may be eligible

to receive payments in accordance with

the provisions of this section to recover

income from production that was lost as

the result of the removal of commercial

citrus trees to control citrus canker.

(a) Eligibility. The owner of a

commercial citrus grove may be eligible

to receive payments to recover income

from production that was lost as the

result of the removal of commercial

citrus trees to control citrus canker if the

trees were removed pursuant to a public

order between 1986 and 1990 or on or

after September 28, 1995.

(b) Calculation of payments. (1) The

owner of a commercial citrus grove who

is eligible under paragraph (a) of this

section to receive payments to recover

lost production income will, upon

approval of an application submitted in

accordance with paragraph (c) of this

section, receive a payment calculated

using the following rates:

Citrus variety Payment

(per acre)

Grapefruit ................................ $2,925

Orange, Valencia .................... 5,729

Orange, navel ......................... 5,693

Tangelo ................................... 1,666

Lime ........................................ 4,829

Other or mixed citrus .............. 2,925

(2) Payment adjustments.

(i) In cases where the owner of a

commercial citrus grove had obtained

ACC coverage for trees in his or her

grove and received crop insurance

payments following the destruction of

the insured trees, the payment provided

for under paragraph (b)(1) of this section

will be reduced by the total amount of

the crop insurance payments received

by the commercial citrus grove’s owner

for the insured trees.

(ii) In cases where ACC coverage was

available for trees in a commercial citrus

grove but the owner of the grove had not

obtained ACC coverage for his or her

insurable trees, the per-acre payment

provided for under paragraph (b)(1) of

this section will be reduced by 5

percent.

(c) How to apply for lost production

payments. The form necessary to apply

for lost production payments may be

obtained from any local citrus canker

eradication program office in Florida, or

from the USDA Citrus Canker Project,

10300 SW 72nd Street, Suite 150,

Miami, FL 33173. The completed

application should be accompanied by a

copy of the public order directing the

destruction of the trees and its

accompanying inventory that describes

the acreage, number, and the variety of

trees removed. Your completed

application must be sent to the USDA

Citrus Canker Eradication Project, Attn:

Lost Production Payments Program, c/o

Division of Plant Industry, 3027 Lake

Alfred Road, Winter Haven, FL 33881.

Claims for losses attributable to the

destruction of trees on or before [the

effective date of this rule] must be

received within 60 days after [the

effective date of this rule]. Claims for

losses attributable to the destruction of

trees after [the effective date of this rule]

must be received within 60 days after

the destruction of the trees.

Done in Washington, DC, this 1st day of

December 2000.

Bobby R. Acord,

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service.

[FR Doc. 00–31142 Filed 12–4–00; 11:17 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Immigration and Naturalization Service

8 CFR Part 208

[INS No. 2092–00; AG Order No. 2339–

2000]

RIN 1115–AF92

Asylum and Withholding Definitions

AGENCY: Immigration and Naturalization

Service, Justice.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This rule proposes to amend

the Immigration and Naturalization

Service (Service) regulations that govern

establishing asylum and withholding

eligibility. This rule provides guidance

on the definitions of ‘‘persecution’’ and

‘‘membership in a particular social

group,’’ as well as what it means for

persecution to be ‘‘on account of’’ a

protected characteristic in the definition

of a refugee. It restates that gender can

form the basis of a particular social

group. It also establishes principles for

interpretation and application of the

various components of the statutory

definition of ‘‘refugee’’ for asylum and

withholding cases generally, and, in

particular, will aid in the assessment of

claims made by applicants who have

suffered or fear domestic violence. The

Service believes these issues require

further examination after the Board of

Immigration Appeals (Board) decision

in In re R–A–, Interim Decision 3403

(BIA 1999). Further, the rule clarifies

that the factors considered in cases in

the Court of Appeals for the Ninth

Circuit regarding membership in a

particular social group are not

determinative. Finally, the rule clarifies

procedural handling of asylum and

withholding claims in which past

persecution has been established. This

proposed rule has been prepared and is

published in conjunction with the final

rule on asylum procedures, which

incorporates both the interim rule

amending the Department of Justice

(Department) regulations to implement

the Illegal Immigration Reform and

Immigrant Responsibility Act, 62 FR

10312 (1997), and the proposed past

persecution rule, 63 FR 31945 (1998).

DATES: Written comments must be

submitted on or before January 22, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Please submit written

comments in triplicate to the Director,

Policy Directives and Instructions

Branch, Immigration and Naturalization

Service, 425 I Street, NW., Room 4034,

Washington, DC 20536. To ensure

proper handling, please reference INS

No. 2092–00 on your correspondence.

Comments are available for public

inspection at the above address by

calling (202) 514–3048 to arrange for an

appointment.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dorothea Lay, 425 I Street, NW,

Washington, D.C. 20536, telephone

number (202) 514–2895.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The purpose of this rule is to provide

guidance on certain issues that have

arisen in the context of asylum and

withholding adjudications. The 1951

Geneva Convention relating to the

Status of Refugees (1951 Convention)

contains the internationally accepted

definition of a refugee. United States

immigration law incorporates an almost

identical definition of a refugee as a

person outside his or her country of

origin ‘‘who is unable or unwilling to

return to, and is unable or unwilling to

avail himself or herself of the protection

of, that country because of persecution

or a well-founded fear of persecution on

account of race, religion, nationality,