This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains regulatory documents having general

applicability and legal effect, most of which

are keyed to and codified in the Code of

Federal Regulations, which is published under

50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by

the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of

new books are listed in the first FEDERAL

REGISTER issue of each week.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

32713

Vol. 66, No. 117

Monday, June 18, 2001

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service

7 CFR Part 301

[Docket No. 00–037–4]

RIN 0579–AB15

Citrus Canker; Payments for Recovery

of Lost Production Income

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: We are amending our citrus

canker regulations to establish

provisions under which eligible owners

of commercial citrus groves may, 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 lost production payments

are intended to help reduce the

economic effects of the citrus canker

quarantine on affected commercial

citrus growers.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 18, 2001.

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 December 7, 2000, we published

in the Federal Register (65 FR 76582–

76588, Docket No. 00–037–2) a

proposed rule to amend the 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.

We solicited comments concerning

our proposal for 30 days ending on

January 8, 2001. We received a total of

30 comments by that date. They were

from citrus growers, packers, and

shippers, farm credit lenders, a grove

care company, a nursery, and growers

associations and cooperatives.

Three commenters offered unqualified

support for the proposed rule, while six

others offered support but requested a

specific change in the proposed rule’s

provisions. One commenter opposed the

proposed rule based on the grounds that

the proposed payments were calculated

incorrectly. The remaining commenters

suggested changes to the proposed rule

or simply urged us to consider the most

up-to-date information available to

recalculate the payments presented in

the proposed rule. The issues raised by

those who opposed the rule or offered

suggestions are discussed below, by

topic.

Payment Recipients

Several commenters recommended

that any payments be made jointly

payable to both the grower and lender.

Some of these commenters suggested

that APHIS conduct a lien search and

make any lost production payments

jointly payable to the grove owner and

any lienholders of record. One

commenter added that ‘‘condemnation

and insurance payments related to

government takings or damage to

improvements are routinely made

payable jointly to the parties in

interest.’’

Another commenter reported that in

July 2000, more than 4,000

containerized citrus trees had been

seized from a Miami, FL, nursery by the

State citrus canker eradication program.

The commenter stated that as of January

2001, he had yet to receive any

additional information from State or

Federal authorities regarding the status

of the seized trees or possibility of

compensation being paid for the trees.

The commenter urged APHIS to make

compensation available to nursery

owners who have suffered losses as a

result of the State/Federal citrus canker

eradication program.

Still another commenter stated that

the proposed rule should have provided

for additional payments to be made to

commercial lime growers who packed

their limes in their own packinghouses

or in affiliated packinghouses (i.e.,

‘‘vertically integrated’’ growers/

packers). This commenter stated that the

removal of commercial lime trees has

not only resulted in the production

income losses addressed in the

proposed rule, but has also destroyed

the economic usefulness of these

growers’ packinghouse assets, which are

specifically designed to handle limes.

The commenter suggested, based on

packinghouse cash data supplied with

his comment, that additional payments

of $6,054 per acre be made to

commercial lime growers who own or

are affiliated with a packinghouse.

The funds we will use to make

payments for the recovery of lost

production income were made available

by Sec. 203(e) of the Agricultural Risk

Protection Act of 2000 (Public Law 106–

224) and Sec. 810 of the Agriculture,

Rural Development, Food and Drug

Administration, and Related Agencies

Appropriations Act, 2001 (Public Law

106–387). Public Law 106–224 directs

the Secretary of Agriculture to

‘‘compensate commercial growers for

losses due to Pierce’s disease, plum pox,

and citrus canker,’’ and Public Law

106–387 states that ‘‘[t]he Secretary of

Agriculture shall compensate Florida

commercial citrus and lime growers for

32714 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 117 / Monday, June 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

1The two other sources of funding are the

Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY 2000

[Public Law 106–113], which directs the Secretary

of Agriculture to use not more than $9 million of

Commodity Credit Corporation funds for a

cooperative program with the State of Florida to

replace commercial citrus trees removed to control

citrus canker until the earlier of December 31, 1999,

or the date crop insurance coverage is made

available with respect to citrus canker, and Sec.

203(e) of the Agricultural Risk Protection [Public

Law 106–224], which provides up to $25 million

shall be used by the Secretary to compensate

commercial growers for losses due to Pierce’s

disease, plum pox, and citrus canker.

lost production, as determined by the

Secretary of Agriculture, with respect to

trees removed to control citrus canker.’’

As neither of those acts makes reference

to including the growers’ mortgage- or

lienholders, nurseries, or packinghouses

in those payments, we believe that we

are limited to making payments under

this final rule to commercial citrus and

lime growers.

Two-Tier Discount Rate

Several commenters opposed the use

of a two-tier discount rate in calculating

the per-acre payments presented in the

proposed rule, arguing that there was

insufficient information available to

support a two-tier discount rate. These

commenters suggested that a single,

appropriate discount rate—i.e., the

lower of the two offered for each variety

in the proposed rule—be applied

throughout the model that is used to

calculate payments.

We had proposed to use two discount

rates to account for the fact that a

canker-infected grove would, over time,

produce less and lower-valued fruit, and

thus would provide a lesser income

stream than a canker-free grove. As we

explained in the proposed rule, the 1-

percent-higher discount rates proposed

for canker-infected groves were

intended to reflect increased risk, i.e.,

the decreased revenue stream. In light of

the concerns raised by the commenters,

we have reevaluated our ability at this

time to accurately account for that

increased risk through the use of a twotier discount rate. Given the present

unavailability of adequate supporting

data, we have eliminated the two-tier

discount rate from the payment

calculation detailed in the proposed

rule and will instead use a single

discount rate throughout, i.e., 14

percent for grapefruit; 14.5 percent for

tangelos and Valencia and navel

oranges; and 13.5 percent for limes. The

resulting payment adjustments are

reflected in the per-acre payments listed

in § 310.75–16(b) at the end of this

document. However, we do believe that

it is appropriate to account for the

reduced revenues from infested groves

and will continue to explore methods to

consider such reduced revenues in the

development of future payment or

compensation programs.

The switch to the use of a single

discount rate to calculate the per-acre

payments provided for by this rule will

increase the total estimated payments

for commercial citrus trees destroyed or

scheduled for destruction by March 9,

2001, by $6.34 million. Given that

limited funding is available for the lost

production payments in this rule and

the tree replacement payments in

§ 301.75–15, we considered the

possibility of initially paying a

substantial portion, but not all, of the

lost production payment calculated for

each eligible grower; once each grower

had received that partial payment, we

would then distribute the remaining

funds among all the eligible growers on

a prorated basis (assuming there would

be insufficient funds to provide each

grower with 100 percent of the amount

provided for in this rule). A two-part

payment method such as this would

ensure that all eligible commercial

citrus growers would receive at least a

percentage of the payments provided for

by this rule. However, after considering

the amount of remaining funds available

for payments and assessing the situation

in Florida with regard to the level of

survey activity and the frequency of

new citrus canker detections in

commercial citrus groves, we have

decided to not pursue the idea of partial

payments at this time.

One factor that played an important

role in our decision is the temporal

limitation on eligibility contained in

Sec. 810 of the Agriculture, Rural

Development, Food and Drug

Administration, and Related Agencies

Appropriations Act, 2001 (Public Law

106–387). Specifically, Sec. 810(c) of

that act states: ‘‘To receive assistance

under this section [i.e., tree replacement

and lost production payments], a tree

referred to in subsection (a) [which

refers to tree replacement payments] or

(b) [which refers to lost production

payments] must have been removed

after January 1, 1986, and before

September 30, 2001.’’ This act is the

source from which we derive the

majority of the funds ($58 million) for

the lost production payments provided

for by this rule and the tree replacement

payments under § 301.75–15.1 We

expect that sufficient funds will be

available to sustain the tree replacement

and lost production payment programs

until at least the September 30, 2001,

close of the eligibility period provided

for by Public Law 106–387. At some

point after September 30, 2001, we

expect that all available funds provided

by Congress for these payments will

have been depleted. We also recognize

that there is the possibility that those

funds could be depleted prior to

September 30, 2001, should citrus

canker be detected in an unexpectedly

large number of commercial citrus

groves in the coming months. Therefore,

because our ability to offer the tree

replacement payments provided for by

§ 301.75–15 and the lost production

payments provided for by this rule

(§ 301.75–16) is contingent upon the

availability of appropriated funds, we

must acknowledge that in the absence of

additional funding, there is the

possibility that we will be unable to

continue paying claims filed by

commercial citrus growers at some point

before the close of this calendar year

(2001).

Another factor in our decision to not

pursue the idea of partial payments was

our determination that doing so would

further delay the issuance of the

payments provided for by this rule.

Given that the issue of partial payments

was not raised in our December 2000

proposed rule, we believed the most

appropriate and defensible action would

have been to provide the public with an

opportunity to submit comments on the

subject through the publication of

another proposed rule. The delay

attendant to a new proposal is not, in

our view, warranted by the facts of this

case. While we are not pursuing the idea

of partial payments at this time, we do

welcome any thoughts that interested

parties may have on the subject. A

mailing address for the submission of

such correspondence can be found at

the beginning of this document under

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Lime Prices

Several commenters supported the

use of more up-to-date price information

in the calculation used to arrive at the

per-acre payment presented in the

proposed rule for limes. Most of these

commenters indicated that they

believed the proposed per-acre payment

for limes was too low and supported the

use of data provided by one of the

commenters.

In the proposed rule, we explained

that we calculated the per-acre net

income for each variety of fruit using

information obtained from the Florida

Agricultural Statistics Service (FASS)

and the University of Florida’s Institute

of Food and Agricultural Services

(IFAS). As the data offered by one of the

commenters was not reflected in the

information we obtained from FASS and

IFAS, we were unable to use those data

in our calculations. Based on the

information provided by that

commenter—specifically, a per-box

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 117 / Monday, June 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 32715

price for limes of $9.68 rather than the

price of $9.11 used in the proposed

rule—we have recalculated the per-acre

payment for limes in this final rule. The

adjusted payment is reflected in the peracre payment for limes listed in

§ 310.75–16(b) at the end of this

document.

Early and Midseason Oranges

On October 16, 2000, we published an

interim rule (65 FR 61077–61080,

Docket No. 00–037–1) that established

§ 301.75–15 in the regulations to

provide for the payment of tree

replacement funds to eligible owners of

commercial citrus groves. One of the

categories of citrus for which payments

were provided in that interim rule was

titled ‘‘Orange, early/midseason/navel.’’

In the proposed rule, however, we

changed the title of that category to

‘‘Orange, navel’’ and explained that we

were doing so to conform with the

language used in Sec. 810 of Public Law

106–387 (i.e., the Department’s fiscal

year 2001 appropriation, which made

$58 million available for payments to

commercial citrus and lime producers

in Florida). One commenter noted the

difference in the titles and asked that we

make it clear that the early and

midseason oranges are still included in

the ‘‘Orange, navel’’ category and that

the payments discussed in the proposed

rule will be made for early and

midseason varieties in addition to navel

oranges.

We do, as the commenter surmised,

intend to include payments for early

and midseason orange varieties in the

‘‘Orange, navel’’ category. To make that

clear, we have amended the ‘‘Orange,

navel’’ entry in the table in § 301.75–

16(b)(1) at the end of this document to

read ‘‘Orange, navel (includes early and

midseason oranges).’’

Tangerines

Two commenters noted that the

proposed rule did not provide for

payments for losses in production

income associated with the removal of

tangerine trees to control citrus canker

and urged APHIS to establish a category

for tangerines. Both commenters stated

that it would be inappropriate to

include tangerines in the proposed

rule’s ‘‘other or mixed citrus’’ category,

given that the costs and revenues

associated with tangerine production

result in a per-acre net present value

(NPV) for tangerine groves that exceeds

the per-acre NPV calculated for the

‘‘other or mixed citrus’’ category. One of

the commenters offered data to support

the establishment of a tangerine

category and suggested that, if

tangerines were not afforded their own

category, they should be considered in

the Valencia orange category, which

would provide for an NPV more

reflective of market conditions.

Given that commercial tangerine trees

have been removed as part of the citrus

canker eradication program, we agree

with the commenter that it is

appropriate to provide for payments for

lost production income to be made to

the owners of commercial tangerine

groves. Therefore, consistent with the

suggestion offered by one of the

commenters, we have amended the

Valencia orange category in the table in

§ 301.75–16(b)(1) of this final rule to

include tangerines.

Payment Amounts

One commenter disputed the validity

of many of the data and assumptions

used in the calculations that resulted in

the per-acre payments presented in the

proposed rule for each citrus variety.

This commenter stated that the

proposed payments were too high for

groves with average or below-average

production capacities and too low for

other groves with above-average

production capacity. This commenter

suggested alternative data and methods

related to planting densities, age of

trees, yield per acre, and value per box

for use in the model used to calculate

payments, and requested that a measure

of flexibility be incorporated into the

rule to provide for the consideration of

higher payments for growers who could

demonstrate above-average returns from

their groves.

While we acknowledge that some

groves may outproduce others for any of

several reasons, we believe that the

approach and data we used to calculate

per-acre payments in the proposed rule

and in this final rule are valid and

appropriate. In calculating the per-acre

payments, we applied an accepted

valuation model for determining NPV

and used, as noted above, citrus

industry economic and production

information supplied by FASS and IFAS

in that model. While a more precise

valuation of individual groves might be

obtained using the approach suggested

by the commenter, we believe that it is

necessary to retain the transparency and

consistency afforded by the

methodology we employed to calculate

the per-acre payments presented in this

final rule.

Late Claims

As noted previously, we published an

interim rule on October 16, 2000, that

established regulations in Subpart—

Citrus Canker to provide for the

payment of tree replacement funds to

eligible owners of commercial citrus

groves. That interim rule required,

among other things, that claims for

payments for destroyed trees must be

received within 60 days after their

destruction or, in the case of trees

destroyed on or before the effective date

of the interim rule, within 60 days after

the interim rule’s effective date. A

similar provision was included in the

proposed rule that preceded this final

rule. We were subsequently informed by

State officials that they had been unable

to inform some grove owners in a timely

manner of their eligibility to present

claims, in most cases due to the fact that

the person had sold the property and/

or had moved out of State, thus delaying

the notification that the State had

provided to other grove owners. In order

to provide us with the flexibility needed

to address this situation, we intend to

amend, in a separate document, the

regulations in § 310.75–15(c) regarding

the submission of tree replacement

claims to provide that the Administrator

may, on a case-by-case basis, approve

the consideration of late claims when

the circumstances appear, in the

opinion of the Administrator, to warrant

such consideration. Because the claim

submission procedures established by

this final rule are substantively the same

as those in § 310.75–15(c), we have also

amended § 310.75–16(c) in this final

rule to provide for the consideration of

late claims for up to 1 year after the

effective date of this rule, in the case of

trees destroyed on or before that

effective date, or up to 1 year after the

destruction of the trees in the case of

trees destroyed after the effective date of

this rule.

Other Comments

Other commenters questioned the

efficacy of the approach and methods

used by State and Federal officials in

conducting the current citrus canker

eradication program in Florida. Those

comments did not relate to the

regulatory provisions discussed in the

proposed rule and are, thus, outside of

the scope of this rulemaking.

Therefore, for the reasons given in the

proposed rule and in this document, we

are adopting the proposed rule as a final

rule, with the changes discussed in this

document.

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory

Flexibility Act

This 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

32716 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 117 / Monday, June 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

required by Executive Order 12866 and

an analysis of the potential economic

effects on small entities as required by

the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

This rule amends the citrus canker

regulations to establish provisions

under which eligible owners of

commercial citrus groves may, 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 lost production payments

are intended to 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

12,870 tons of oranges, grapefruit, limes,

tangerines, and tangelos worth $2.29

billion in 1999, with Florida producing

more than 80 percent of that total.

[1999]

Fruit U.S. production

(tons)

Value of U.S.

production

(millions)

Florida

production

(tons)

Value of Florida

production

(millions)

Florida share

of production

(%)

Oranges ..................................................................... 9,886 $1,807.4 8,113.1 $1,483.3 82.07

Tangerines ................................................................. 327 118.7 218.7 79.4 66.89

Grapefruit ................................................................... 2,520 338.9 1,931.0 259.7 76.63

Limes .......................................................................... 22 8.2 22.0 8.2 100.00

Tangelos .................................................................... 115 18.4 115.0 18.4 100.00

Total .................................................................... 12,870 2,291.6 10,399.9 1,849.0 ..........................

Source: USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Agricultural Statistics 2000.

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 8,550 acres of

commercial citrus trees have been

destroyed or scheduled to be destroyed

to control citrus canker by March 9,

2001. This figure includes an estimated

7,946 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 per-acre payments

contained in this rule, lost production

payments for commercial citrus trees

destroyed or scheduled for destruction

by March 9, 2001, are expected to total

about $46.05 million.

Variety

Acreage

destroyed

by 3/9/01

Per-acre

payment

Estimated

lost

production

claims

Grapefruit ........................................................................................................................................... 2,671 $3,342 $8,926,482

Orange, Valencia, and tangerine ....................................................................................................... 1,503 6,446 9,688,338

Orange, navel (includes early and midseason oranges) .................................................................. 1,874 6,384 11,963,616

Tangelos ............................................................................................................................................ 56 1,989 111,384

Limes ................................................................................................................................................. 2,273 6,503 14,781,319

Other or mixed citrus ......................................................................................................................... 173 3,342 578,166

Total ............................................................................................................................................ 8,550 ...................... 46,049,305

Effects on Small Entities

This rule establishes provisions under

which eligible owners of commercial

citrus groves may, 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 will

be affected by this rule are 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 rule will 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 will 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

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 117 / Monday, June 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 32717

State and local officials. (See 7 CFR part

3015, subpart V.)

Executive Order 12988

This rule has been reviewed under

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice

Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts all State

and local laws and regulations that are

inconsistent with this rule; (2) has no

retroactive effect; and (3) does not

require administrative proceedings

before parties may file suit in court

challenging this rule.

Paperwork Reduction Act

In accordance with the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501

et seq.), the information collection or

recordkeeping requirements included in

this rule have been approved by the

Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) under OMB control number

0579–0168.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 301

Agricultural commodities, Plant

diseases and pests, Quarantine,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Transportation.

Accordingly, we are amending 7 CFR

part 301 as follows:

PART 301—DOMESTIC QUARANTINE

NOTICES

1. The authority citation for part 301

is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 166, 7711, 7712, 7714,

7731, 7735, 7751, 7752, 7753, and 7754; 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 (7 U.S.C. 1421

note).

2. Section 301.75–1 is amended by

adding a definition of ACC coverage to

read as follows:

§ 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 is 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 .................................. $3,342

Orange, Valencia, and tangerine .................................... 6,446

Orange, navel (includes early

and midseason oranges) ...... 6,384

Tangelo ..................................... 1,989

Lime .......................................... 6,503

Other or mixed citrus ................ 3,342

(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,

6901 West Sunrise Boulevard,

Plantation, FL 33313. 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 on or before August 17, 2001.

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.

The Administrator may, on a case-bycase basis, approve the consideration of

late claims when the circumstances

appear, in the opinion of the

Administrator, to warrant such

consideration. However, any request for

consideration of a late claim must be

submitted to the Administrator on or

before July 18, 2002 for trees destroyed

on or before July 18, 2001, and within

1 year after the destruction of the trees

for trees destroyed after July 18, 2001.

Done in Washington, DC, this 12th day of

June 2001.

Bill Hawks,

Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory

Programs.

[FR Doc. 01–15320 Filed 6–15–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–34–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. NM185; Special Conditions No.

25–180–SC]

Special Conditions: Enhanced Vision

System (EVS) for Gulfstream Model G–

V Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final special conditions.

SUMMARY: These special conditions are

issued for Gulfstream Model G–V

airplanes. These airplanes, as modified

by Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation,

will have novel or unusual design

features associated with a head-up

display (HUD) system modified to

display forward-looking infrared (FLIR)

imagery. The regulations applicable to

pilot compartment view do not contain

adequate or appropriate safety standards

for this design feature. These special

conditions contain the additional safety

standards that the Administrator

considers necessary to establish a level

of safety equivalent to that provided by

the existing airworthiness standards.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 18, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dale

Dunford, FAA, Transport Standards