Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 21, 1995 / Proposed Rules 9631

7. Insurable Acreage

Paragraph 9.(a)(3) of the Basic Provisions

(§ 457.8) is not applicable to the Sugarcane

Crop Provisions.

8. Insurance Period

(a) In addition to the provisions of section

11 (Insurance Period) of the Basic Provisions

(§ 457.8), insurance attaches:

(1) At the time of planting for plant cane

unless we agree in writing to a later date;

(2) On the first day following harvest of the

previous crop for stubble cane except as set

out in paragraph 8.(a)(3);

(3) On the later of April 15 or 30 days

following harvest of the previous crop for

stubble cane:

(i) Damaged during the previous crop year

in all states; and

(ii) In Louisiana, after the second crop year.

(b) In accordance with the provisions of

section 11 (Insurance Period) of the Basic

Provisions (§ 457.8) the calendar date for the

end of the insurance period is:

(1) January 31 in Louisiana; and

(2) April 30 in all other states.

9. Causes of Loss

In accordance with the provisions of

section 12 (Causes of Loss) of the Basic

Provisions (§ 457.8), insurance is provided

only against the following causes of loss

which occur within the insurance period:

(a) Adverse weather conditions;

(b) Fire;

(c) Insects, but not damage due to

insufficient or improper application of pest

control measures;

(d) Plant disease, but not damage due to

insufficient or improper application of

disease control measures;

(e) Wildlife;

(f) Earthquake;

(g) Volcanic eruption; or

(h) If applicable, failure of the irrigation

water supply due to an unavoidable cause of

loss occurring within the insurance period.

10. Duties in the Event of Damage or Loss or

Cutting the Sugarcane for Seed

(a) In addition to your duties under section

14 (Duties in the Event of Damage or Loss)

of the Basic Provisions (§ 457.8), in the event

of damage or loss:

(1) All sugarcane stubble must remain

intact for our inspection; and

(2) You must give us notice at least 15 days

before you begin cutting any sugarcane for

seed. Your notice must include the unit

number and the number of acres you intend

to harvest as seed. After we receive such

notice we will appraise the sugarcane for its

sugar potential. If you do not give us notice,

the production to count will be the per acre

production guarantee for such acreage.

(b) In accordance with the requirements of

section 14 (Duties in the Event of Damage or

Loss) of the Basic Provisions (§ 457.8), if you

initially discover damage to any insured crop

within 15 days of, or during harvest, you

must leave representative samples of the

unharvested crop for our inspection. The

representative samples of the unharvested

crop must be at least 10 feet wide and extend

the entire length of each field in the unit. The

stubble must not be destroyed and the

required samples must not be harvested until

the earlier of our inspection or 15 days after

harvest of the balance of the unit is

completed.

11. Settlement of Claim

(a) We will determine your loss on a unit

basis. In the event you are unable to provide

records of production:

(1) For any optional unit, we will combine

all optional units for which acceptable

records of production were not provided; or

(2) For any basic unit, we will allocate any

commingled production to such units in

proportion to our liability on the harvested

acreage for each unit.

(b) In the event of loss or damage covered

by this policy, we will settle your claim on

any unit by:

(1) Multiplying the insured acreage by the

production guarantee;

(2) Subtracting from this the total

production to count;

(3) Multiplying the remainder by your

price election; and

(4) Multiplying this result by your share.

(c) The total production (pounds of sugar)

to count from all insurable acreage on the

unit will include:

(1) All appraised production as follows:

(i) Not less than the production guarantee

for acreage:

(A) That is abandoned;

(B) Put to another use without our consent;

(C) Damaged solely by uninsured causes;

(D) For which you fail to provide records

of production that are acceptable to us; or

(E) On which the sugarcane stubble is

destroyed within 15 days after harvest

without our consent;

(ii) Production lost due to uninsured

causes;

(iii) Unharvested production;

(iv) The difference between the production

guarantee and the appraised production for

acreage which has an inadequate stand. An

appraisal for an inadequate stand will be

made if the product of the number of stalks

per acre multiplied by 2 and further

multiplied by the percentage of sugar

contained in the Special Provisions for this

purpose does not equal the per-acre

production guarantee; and

(v) Potential production on insured acreage

you want to put to another use or you wish

to abandon and no longer care for, if you and

we agree on the appraised amount of

production. Upon such agreement, the

insurance period for that acreage will end if

you put the acreage to another use or

abandon the crop. If agreement on the

appraised amount of production is not

reached:

(A) If you do not elect to continue to care

for the crop, we may give you consent to put

the acreage to another use if you agree to

leave intact, and provide sufficient care for,

representative samples of the crop in

locations acceptable to us. (The amount of

production to count for such acreage will be

based on the harvested production or

appraisals from the samples at the time

harvest should have occurred. If you do not

leave the required samples intact, or you fail

to provide sufficient care for the samples, our

appraisal made prior to giving you consent to

put the acreage to another use will be used

to determine the amount of production to

count.); or

(B) If you elect to continue to care for the

crop, the amount of production to count for

the acreage will be the harvested production,

or our reappraisal if additional damage

occurs and the crop is not harvested; and

(2) All harvested production from

insurable acreage. Final records of sugar

production will be used to determine the

amount of production to count. Preliminary

mill estimates will not be used.

(d) Harvested sugarcane may be adjusted

for quality if it is damaged by freeze within

the insurance period and cannot be

processed for sugar by the boiling house

operation. The amount of production to

count for such sugarcane will be determined

by dividing the dollar value of the damaged

production by the local market price per

pound for raw sugar. The prices used for this

adjustment will be determined on the earlier

of the date such quality-adjusted production

is sold or the date of final inspection for the

unit.

Done in Washington, D.C., on February 10,

1995.

Kenneth D. Ackerman,

Manager, Federal Crop Insurance

Corporation.

[FR Doc. 95–4092 Filed 2–17–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–08–P

Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service

9 CFR Parts 50, 77, and 92

[Docket No. 93–014–3]

Cattle From Mexico

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.

SUMMARY: We are withdrawing a

proposed rule that would have required

certain steers and spayed heifers

imported into the United States from

Mexico to be sent to a quarantined

pasture or feedlot for finish feeding, or

to a holding facility for quarantine and

a 60-day post-entry tuberculin test. The

proposed rule would also have denied

claims for indemnity for Mexican-origin

steers or spayed heifers that were

positive to the 60-day post-entry

tuberculin test, and would have denied

claims for indemnity for cattle that were

exposed to such animals. We are taking

this action after considering the

comments we received following the

publication of the proposed rule.

DATES: The proposed rule is withdrawn

February 21, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dr. Joseph S. VanTiem, Senior Staff

Veterinarian, Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service, Veterinary Services,
9632 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 21, 1995 / Proposed Rules

Cattle Diseases and Surveillance Staff,

4700 River Road Unit 36, Riverdale, MD

20737–1231; (301) 734–8715.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On May 9, 1994, we published in the

Federal Register (59 FR 23810–23817,

Docket No. 93–014–1) a proposed rule

to amend the regulations in 9 CFR parts

50, 77, and 92 to require certain steers

and spayed heifers imported into the

United States from Mexico to be sent to

a quarantined pasture or feedlot for

finish feeding, or to holding facility for

quarantine and a 60-day postentry

tuberculin test. The proposed rule also

contained provisions to deny claims for

indemnity for Mexican-origin steers or

spayed heifers that tested positive to the

60-day post entry tuberculin test, and to

deny claims for indemnity for cattle that

were exposed to such animals.

We initially solicited comments on

the proposed rule for 60 days ending on

July 8, 1994. We received several

requests for an extension of the

comment period to allow interested

parties additional time to prepare

comments on the proposal. In response

to those requests, we published a notice

in the Federal Register on July 18, 1994

(59 FR 36374, Docket No. 93–014–2)

that reopened and extended the

comment period for the proposed rule

until September 16, 1994.

By the close of the extended comment

period, we had received a total of 165

comments. The comments were

submitted by representatives of the

Mexican Government, animal rights

organizations, private citizens, dairies

and dairy associations, U.S. and

Mexican tuberculosis eradication

committees, cattle industry associations,

a bank, cattle companies, feedlot

operators, veterinary and animal health

associations, State agriculture agencies

and livestock boards, cattle importers

and exporters, a farm bureau federation,

government and private veterinarians,

ranchers, and universities. None of the

commenters supported the proposed

rule as written; some offered general

suggestions, while others submitted

detailed recommendations for changes.

The majority of the commenters

believed that the proposed rule would

adversely affect the cattle industry and

efforts to control tuberculosis in both

the United States and Mexico. Many

commenters believed that the proposed

rule placed the burden of controlling

potentially infected Mexican cattle on

individual States and failed to provide

any incentive to Mexican cattle

producers to develop and implement a

comprehensive tuberculosis control and

eradication program. Other commenters

also cited the potential hardship that the

proposed rule would place on U.S. and

Mexican cattle producers.

After considering all the comments

we received, we have concluded that it

is necessary to comprehensively

reexamine the issues associated with the

importation into the United States of

cattle from Mexico. Therefore, we are

withdrawing the May 9, 1994, proposed

rule referenced above. The concerns and

recommendations of all the commenters

will be considered during the

development of any new proposed

regulations regarding the importation of

cattle from Mexico.

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1622; 19 U.S.C. 1306;

21 U.S.C. 102–105, 111–113, 114, 114a,

114a–1, 115–117, 120, 121, 125, 134a, 134b,

134c, 134d, 134f, 135, 136, and 136a; 31

U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.17, 2.51, and 371.2(d).

Done in Washington, DC, this 13th day of

February 1995.

Lonnie J. King,

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service.

[FR Doc. 95–4180 Filed 2–17–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–34–M

9 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. 93–084–3]

Interstate Movement of Mexican-Origin

Cattle; Certification Requirements

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.

SUMMARY: We are withdrawing a

proposed rule that would have amended

the regulations concerning the interstate

transportation of animals to require that

all Mexican-origin cattle moved in

interstate commerce be accompanied by

a certificate on which each animal is

individually identified. We are taking

this action after reevaluating the

proposed rule in light of the comments

we received following the publication of

the proposed rule.

DATES: The proposed rule is withdrawn

February 21, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.

James P. Davis, Senior Staff

Veterinarian, Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service, Veterinary Services,

Cattle Diseases and Surveillance Staff,

4700 River Road Unit 36, Riverdale, MD

20737–1231; (301) 734–4923.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On November 12, 1993, we published

in the Federal Register (58 FR 59959–

59962, Docket No. 93–084–1) a proposal

to amend the regulations concerning the

interstate transportation of animals in 9

CFR part 71 to require all Mexicanorigin cattle moved in interstate

commerce to be accompanied by a

certificate on which each animal is

individually identified. The certificate

would have been issued by an Animal

and Plant Health Inspection Service

(APHIS) representative, State

representative, or accredited

veterinarian in the State from which the

cattle were to be moved. We also

proposed to make several

nonsubstantive changes to the

regulations in part 71 for the sake of

clarity and accuracy.

We initially solicited comments

concerning our proposal for 30 days

ending December 13, 1993. We received

several requests for an extension of the

comment period to give interested

parties additional time to prepare

comments on the proposal. In response

to those requests, we published in the

Federal Register on December 22, 1993

(58 FR 67708–67709, Docket No. 93–

084–2), a document reopening and

extending the comment period until

February 14, 1994.

We received a total of 41 comments

by the close of the extended comment

period. The comments were submitted

by State departments of agriculture and

animal health agencies, veterinarians,

private citizens, cattle industry

associations, cattle-oriented businesses,

and a member of the U.S. House of

Representatives. Eight commenters

supported the proposed rule as written,

while another five commenters offered

some support but suggested changes.

The remaining 28 commenters opposed

the proposed rule.

Some of the commenters questioned

the need for individual identification on

a certificate, asserting that State

veterinarians could be notified by other

means of the arrival of Mexican-origin

cattle in their States. Many commenters

believed that the proposed rule would

place a huge new burden on the cattle

industry, bringing excessive paperwork

requirements, increased labor costs, and

expensive time delays. Many of the

commenters also believed that APHIS

had seriously underestimated the costs

that would be associated with

completing, handling, and filing the

certificates on which the cattle would be

individually identified.

We carefully considered all of the

comments we received. In light of the

issues raised by many of the

commenters, we have concluded that

additional research is necessary to

determine if the proposed rule would

likely impose greater logistical and

financial burdens on those entities that