7190 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 26 / Thursday, February 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Federal Crop Insurance Corporation 

7 CFR Part 457 

RIN 0563–AC01 

Common Crop Insurance Regulations; 

Florida Citrus Fruit Crop Provisions 

AGENCY: Federal Crop Insurance 

Corporation, USDA. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Crop Insurance 

Corporation (FCIC) finalizes the Florida 

Citrus Fruit Crop Provisions. The 

intended effect of this action is to 

restrict the effect of the current Florida 

Citrus Fruit Crop Insurance Provisions 

to the 2008 and prior crop years and 

replace with new crop provisions to 

better meet the needs of the insured 

producers. The changes will apply for 

the 2009 and succeeding crop years. 

DATES: Effective Date: March 10, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

William Klein, Risk Management, 

Specialist, Product Management, 

Product Administration and Standards 

Division, Risk Management Agency, 

United States Department of 

Agriculture, 6501 Beacon Drive, Stop 

0812, Room 421, Kansas City, MO 

64133–4676, telephone (816) 926–7730. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Order 12866 

This rule has been determined to be 

non-significant for the purposes of 

Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, it 

has not been reviewed by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB). 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the 

collections of information in this rule 

have been approved by OMB under 

control number 0563–0053 through June 

30, 2008. 

E-Government Act Compliance 

FCIC is committed to complying with 

the E-Government Act, to promote the 

use of the Internet and other 

information technologies to provide 

increased opportunities for citizen 

access to Government information and 

services, and for other purposes. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) establishes 

requirements for Federal agencies to 

assess the effects of their regulatory 

actions on State, local, and tribal 

governments and the private sector. 

This rule contains no Federal mandates 

(under the regulatory provisions of title 

II of the UMRA) for State, local, and 

tribal governments or the private sector. 

Therefore, this rule is not subject to the 

requirements of sections 202 and 205 of 

UMRA. 

Executive Order 13132 

It has been determined under section 

1(a) of Executive Order 13132, 

Federalism, that this rule does not have 

sufficient implications to warrant 

consultation with the States. The 

provisions contained in this rule will 

not have a substantial direct effect on 

States, or on the relationship between 

the national government and the States, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

FCIC certifies that this regulation will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. Program requirements for the 

Federal crop insurance program are the 

same for all producers regardless of the 

size of their farming operation. For 

instance, all producers are required to 

submit an application and acreage 

report to establish their insurance 

guarantees and compute premium 

amounts, or a notice of loss and 

production information to determine an 

indemnity payment in the event of an 

insured cause of crop loss. Whether a 

producer has 10 acres or 1000 acres, 

there is no difference in the kind of 

information collected. To ensure crop 

insurance is available to small entities, 

the Federal Crop Insurance Act 

authorizes FCIC to waive collection of 

administrative fees from limited 

resource farmers. FCIC believes this 

waiver helps to ensure small entities are 

given the same opportunities to manage 

their risks through the use of crop 

insurance. A Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis has not been prepared since 

this regulation does not have an impact 

on small entities, and, therefore, this 

regulation is exempt from the provisions 

of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 605). 

Federal Assistance Program 

This program is listed in the Catalog 

of Federal Domestic Assistance under 

No. 10.450. 

Executive Order 12372 

This program is not subject to the 

provisions of Executive Order 12372, 

which require intergovernmental 

consultation with State and local 

officials. See the Notice related to 7 CFR 

part 3015, subpart V, published at 48 FR 

29115, June 24, 1983. 

Executive Order 12988 

This rule has been reviewed in 

accordance with Executive Order 12988 

on civil justice reform. The provisions 

of this rule will not have a retroactive 

effect. The provisions of this rule will 

preempt State and local laws to the 

extent such State and local laws are 

inconsistent herewith. With respect to 

any direct action taken by FCIC under 

the terms of the crop insurance policy, 

the administrative appeal provisions 

published at 7 CFR part 11 must be 

exhausted before any action for judicial 

review of any determination or action 

by FCIC may be brought. 

Environmental Evaluation 

This action is not expected to have a 

significant impact on the quality of the 

human environment, health, and safety. 

Therefore, neither an Environmental 

Assessment nor an Environmental 

Impact Statement is needed. 

Background 

On October 13, 2006, FCIC published 

a notice of proposed rulemaking in the 

Federal Register at 71 FR 60439–60444 

to revise 7 CFR § 457.107 Florida Citrus 

Fruit Crop Insurance Provisions. 

Following publication of the proposed 

rule, the public was afforded 60 days to 

submit written comments and opinions. 

Five sets of comments, for a total of 52 

comments, were received from 

insurance providers, trade associations, 

an insurance service organization, and 

other interested parties. The comments 

received and FCIC’s responses are as 

follows: 

Comment: An insurance service 

organization and an insurance provider 

commented that while it was not 

specifically mentioned in the proposed 

rule, the preamble should be deleted in 

the typeset policy, as in other recently 

revised policies, since the order of 

priority is covered in the Basic 

Provisions. 

Response: FCIC agrees with the 

commenter and will remove the 

preamble containing the order of 

priority when the Florida Citrus Fruit 

policy is issued. 

Comment: An insurance service 

organization and an insurance provider 

commented that the new terms in the 

definitions section, ‘‘Citrus fruit crop’’

and ‘‘citrus fruit crop type (fruit type),’’

both contain the words ‘‘citrus fruit.’’

They further commented that FCIC 

should consider if the term ‘‘citrus 

fruit’’ or even ‘‘marketable citrus fruit’’

should be defined. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 26 / Thursday, February 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7191 

Response: The policy specifically lists 

certain fruits designated as citrus fruits, 

and contained within a citrus fruit crop, 

such as early and mid-season oranges, 

grapefruit, tangelos and tangerines, etc. 

The reference to citrus fruit in such 

definition is to designate separate fruit 

and, as appropriate, to allow other types 

of fruit to be specified in the Special 

Provisions as a new citrus fruit crop or 

within an existing citrus fruit crop. 

Further, since citrus fruit is a common 

term, it will be given in common 

meaning. However, the insurable citrus 

fruit will be determined in accordance 

with the policy provisions. With respect 

to the term ‘‘marketable citrus fruit,’’

like many other fruit crops, it is not 

solely a grading standard or single 

criterion that determines whether the 

crop is marketable. It depends on a 

variety of factors that may change. 

Therefore, it is not practical to define 

the term. Instead, FCIC has included 

criteria in section 10 that will be used 

to determine whether the citrus fruit is 

marketable. Therefore, no change has 

been made. 

Comment: An insurance service 

organization noted that FCIC added a 

new definition, ‘‘fruit type,’’ in the 

proposed rule. They questioned if there 

would ever be more than one kind of 

citrus fruit within a fruit type. 

Response: FCIC redesignated the 

former ‘‘citrus fruit type’’ as ‘‘citrus fruit 

crop,’’ and the different fruit within a 

crop as ‘‘citrus fruit types’’ for clarity. 

For example, citrus fruit crop includes 

Citrus I, Citrus II, Citrus III, etc. Citrus 

fruit types for such citrus fruit crops 

would include early and mid-season 

oranges for Citrus I, late season oranges 

for Citrus II, and grapefruit for Citrus III, 

etc. At this time, there is no further 

subdivision of citrus fruit types and no 

current plans to further subdivide citrus 

fruit types. 

Comment: An insurance service 

organization commented they were 

concerned about the addition of the new 

item (9) under the definition ‘‘citrus 

fruit crop’’ in section 1, allowing 

coverage for, ‘‘Any other citrus fruit 

crop designated in the Special 

Provisions.’’ They expressed their 

concern with this proposed additional 

crop, citing existing difficulties with a 

similar catch-all category of grapes in 

California. They requested the 

opportunity to work closely with the 

applicable RMA Regional Office in any 

proposed development of such 

additional citrus fruit crops before they 

are added in the Special Provisions. In 

addition, if this catch-all category is 

added, they questioned whether it 

would be identified as ‘‘Citrus IX’’ to be 

consistent with the other ‘‘crop’’

numbers, or would there be multiple 

additional citrus fruit crops added in 

the Special Provisions. The commenter 

also questioned how the crop or crops 

will be identified for data processing 

purposes and how many there might 

end up being. 

Response: FCIC agrees with the 

commenter regarding a prefix of ‘‘Citrus 

IX’’ for ‘‘Any other fruit crop designated 

in the Special Provisions,’’ and has 

revised the provision accordingly. Given 

the constant changes in agriculture and 

the development of new types and 

varieties, having a category that would 

allow other citrus fruit crops to be 

added in the Special Provisions 

provides the flexibility to quickly 

provide insurance for a particular citrus 

fruit in the future, if warranted. RMA 

will work with Regional Offices and 

insurance providers when making a 

decision on adding any citrus fruit crop 

to the Special Provisions. If fruit crops 

are added in the future, they may or 

may not contain more than one fruit 

type depending on the fruit crop to be 

insured. However, if they contain more 

than one citrus fruit type, they will be 

identified for data processing purposes 

in the same manner as current citrus 

fruit crops containing multiple citrus 

fruit types. At this time, FCIC has no 

plans to add another citrus fruit crop to 

the Special Provisions. 

Comment: An insurance service 

organization and an insurance provider 

recommended RMA include a list, in 

the Special Provision, of the citrus 

varieties that fall under the citrus 

‘‘crops’’ and more specifically under 

crop types i.e., early, mid-season and 

late oranges, because while the varieties 

may be known in the citrus industry 

they may not be as well known by crop 

insurance agents and adjusters. 

Response: The insurable citrus fruit 

crops and fruit types are identified in 

the definitions section and in the 

Special Provisions. FCIC does not 

require reporting down to the variety 

level. Further, when a new orange 

variety is developed it is categorized by 

the Cooperate State Research Education 

and Extension Service as early, midseason or late-season. This information 

is made available to the industry, i.e. 

growers, buyers, trade associations, the 

extension service, and Florida 

Agricultural Statistics Service (FASS). 

Therefore, no change is made. 

Comment: An insurance service 

organization recommended FCIC 

consider deleting ‘‘crop’’ in the new 

definition ‘‘Citrus fruit crop type (fruit 

type).’’ They suggest it would be less 

confusing if it were changed to ‘‘Citrus 

fruit type.’’ They further asked that FCIC 

consider replacing the last phrase 

‘‘* * * shown as Roman Numerals I 

through VIII’’ with the words, ‘‘* * * 

defined above.’’

Response: The commenter is correct 

that the term ‘‘citrus fruit type’’ is less 

confusing and revised the provision 

accordingly. The definition also makes 

it clear that the citrus fruit type is one 

of the citrus fruit listed in the Special 

Provisions or in the definition of citrus 

fruit crop. 

Comment: An insurance service 

organization and an insurance provider 

recommended adding the term 

‘‘Marketable citrus fruit’’ since it is used 

throughout the crop provisions. 

Response: Marketability is situational 

based on damage to the fruit and 

whether the fruit is to be utilized as 

fresh fruit or juice. Further, the 

marketable standards may be different 

for the different categories defined as a 

‘‘citrus fruit crop.’’ Therefore, it would 

be difficult to create a single definition. 

It makes more sense to specify the 

criteria used to make such 

determinations of marketability in 

section 10, pertaining to the settlement 

of the claims. No change has been made. 

Comment: An insurance service 

organization and an insurance provider 

expressed concern with the way the 

definition ‘‘Potential production’’ is 

written. They believe that item number 

(3) under ‘‘Including citrus fruit’’ which 

addresses citrus fruit ‘‘* * * lost or 

damaged from either an insured or 

uninsured cause’’ could result in 

confusion due to items shown under 

‘‘But not including citrus fruit.’’ In 

particular, they cite under ‘‘But not 

including citrus fruit’’ item (1) ‘‘Was 

lost before insurance attached for any 

crop year’’ and item (2) ‘‘Was lost by 

normal dropping * * *.’’ They believe 

these two could be considered 

contradictory compared to item (3) 

under ‘‘Including citrus fruit,’’ ‘‘Was 

lost or damaged from either an insured 

or uninsured cause * * *.’’ They 

suggested adding the language ‘‘* * * 

except as excluded below’’ to item (3) 

under ‘‘Including citrus fruit,’’

Response: Including both the 

reference to production lost or damaged 

due to uninsured causes as ‘‘potential 

production’’ appears contradictory to 

those provisions that are not included as 

‘‘potential production,’’ such as 

production lost before the insurance 

attached or normal dropping, which are 

also uninsured causes. The suggested 

change should help clarify when such 

production is included as ‘‘potential 

production’’ and when it is not. 

Therefore, item (3) is revised to be 

prefaced with ‘‘Except as provided 

below.’’


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES
7192 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 26 / Thursday, February 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

Comment: An insurance provider 

commented that the word ‘‘lost’’ is 

vague, yet it is used throughout the 

definition of ‘‘potential production.’’

They questioned whether citrus fruit 

‘‘lost by normal dropping’’ should be 

described as ‘‘lost.’’ They recommend 

either using only the term ‘destroyed’, 

define ‘lost,’ or remove the term ‘lost’

completely. 

Response: The commenter is correct 

that the term ‘‘lost’’ is used in several 

different contexts to refer to citrus fruit 

that is missing or destroyed but the 

common definition of ‘‘lost’’ also refers 

to both missing or destroyed. Therefore, 

the term is not used inappropriately. 

However, to avoid any misperception 

that lost only means missing, FCIC has 

revised the provisions to refer to 

missing, damaged or destroyed, as 

appropriate, instead of lost. 

Comment: An insurance service 

organization recommended that the two 

lists of items under the definition of 

‘‘Potential Production’’ be identified as 

(a)(1)–(6) for ‘‘fruit including’’ and b(1)–

(3) for ‘‘fruit not including’’ for easier 

referencing. 

Response: FCIC has revised the 

provisions accordingly. 

Comment: An insurance service 

organization and an insurance provider 

recommended the terms ‘‘buckhorned’’

and ‘‘interstock,’’ be defined because 

they are used in the definition 

‘‘topworked.’’

Response: FCIC agrees with the 

recommendation and has defined the 

terms ‘‘buckhorned’’ and ‘‘interstock,’’

consistent with how those terms are 

used in other Crop Provisions. 

Comment: An insurance service 

organization and an insurance provider 

asked for clarification as to whether a 

change is intended in how basic units 

are established for Florida Citrus. They 

commented that while there was no 

explanation of any unit changes in the 

‘‘Background’’ portion of the proposed 

rule, the previously defined term ‘‘citrus 

fruit type’’ was changed to ‘‘citrus fruit 

crop.’’ They questioned whether this 

would result in a change in how basic 

units are determined. For example, 

lemons and limes are part of the Citrus 

VI ‘‘crop’’ and therefore would be (and 

have been) part of one basic unit, but if 

it is intended for lemons and limes to 

qualify as two separate basic units, the 

term needs to be revised to ‘‘citrus fruit 

type.’’

Response: In the proposed rule, the 

term ‘‘citrus fruit crop’’ replaced the 

term ‘‘citrus fruit type’’. This was done 

to reduce the confusion created by 

defining ‘‘types’’ as crops. In 

conjunction with this change, in the 

proposed rule, FCIC also revised the 

provisions in section 2 regarding units 

to clarify that basic units will be divided 

into additional basic units by each 

citrus fruit crop. Therefore, there has 

been no change in the manner in which 

basic units are established. No change 

has been made. 

Comment: An insurance service 

organization and an insurance provider 

commented that the changes in section 

2, Unit Division, allow optional units by 

non-contiguous land, in addition to 

optional units by section, section 

equivalent, or FSN. They further 

commented this is a change from the 

previous language ‘‘Instead of * * *,’’

but there is no explanation in the 

‘‘Background’’ as to why this change is 

proposed. Additionally, they noted that 

if optional units have changed, this 

should be identified in the summary of 

changes. 

Response: FCIC has made no change 

in optional unit determination. The 

language changed from ‘‘instead of’’ to 

‘‘in addition to,’’ to be consistent with 

other Crop Provisions. This change does 

not have any substantive effect. Use of 

the term ‘‘instead of’’ or ‘‘in addition to’’

both mean that optional units may be 

established by section, section 

equivalent, FSA farm serial number or 

non-contiguous land. While it does not 

effect how optional units are 

established, FCIC agrees the revision 

should have been identified and has 

done so in this final rule. 

Comment: An insurance service 

organization and an insurance provider 

commented that since this is a dollar 

plan crop, production does not have to 

be reported by a certain date for 

underwriting purposes. They further 

commented the second sentence in 

section 3(b) is misplaced, since section 

10 ‘‘Settlement of Claim’’ describes 

responsibilities in a loss situation. They 

recommended that provisions in section 

3(b) be revised to state simply ‘‘The 

production reporting requirements 

contained in section 3 of the Basic 

Provisions are not applicable.’’ These 

provisions would replace the existing 

crop provisions that read, ‘‘In lieu of the 

production reporting date contained in 

section 3 of the Basic Provisions, 

potential production for each unit will 

be determined during loss adjustment.’’

Response: FCIC has revised the 

provision accordingly. However, the 

reference to the determination of 

potential production is still necessary. 

FCIC has determined the provision 

belongs in section 6 ‘‘Insured Crop’’ and 

has added a new section 6(e). 

Comment: An insurance service 

organization commented that unless a 

different deadline applies to coverage 

changes requested for the initial year the 

revised crop provisions are effective, the 

opening phrase in section 3(e), ‘‘For the 

2008 and succeeding crop years * * *,’’

seems to be unnecessary. 

Response: FCIC has removed the 

opening phrase in section 3(e) 

accordingly. 

Comment: An insurance provider 

commented that the current Crop 

Provisions provide for coverage 

beginning on May 1 while the proposed 

Crop Provisions indicate that coverage 

will begin on June 1. They questioned 

if it is FCIC’s intention not to provide 

coverage for the month of May during 

the waiting period after insureds had 

requested increased coverage. 

Response: FCIC acknowledges that the 

proposed rule failed to state what, if any 

coverage, would be applicable for the 

month of May. Further, as stated more 

fully below in the comments to section 

8, there may be adverse consequences to 

producers as a result of this change. As 

a result, FCIC is moving the insurance 

period back to its original dates, with 

cancellation and termination dates of 

April 30, and the insurance attachment 

date of May 1. This will avoid any 

disruption of coverage. However, the 

sales closing date is moved back from 

April 30 to April 1 to be consistent with 

the one-month timeframe between sales 

closing and insurance attachment as 

provided in the Nursery and Florida 

Fruit tree policies. 

Comment: An insurance provider 

commented that the Crop Provisions are 

proposed to be effective for the 2008 

crop year, and section 3(e) is being 

added to address a 30-day waiting 

period for coverage changes as well as 

change the insurance period dates, to be 

consistent with the Nursery Crop 

Provisions and the Florida Fruit Tree 

Pilot Crop Provisions. They further 

commented the 30-day waiting period is 

difficult to administer and becomes a 

problem when a loss occurs before the 

waiting period is over. 

Response: As a result of delays in the 

publication of this final rule, the 

revisions are not expected to take affect 

until the 2009 crop year. FCIC originally 

proposed to modify the insurance 

period in the proposed rule, establishing 

a June 1 insurance attachment date, to 

be consistent with the Nursery Crop 

Provisions and the Florida Fruit Tree 

Pilot Crop Provisions. However, as 

stated above, this would have resulted 

in a disruption of coverage for a month 

so FCIC is moving the insurance 

attachment date back to the original 

May 1 date, with a sales closing date of 

April 1. The 30-day waiting period 

helps maintain program integrity and 

allows insurance providers ample time 

to inspect the crop when deemed 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 26 / Thursday, February 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7193 

appropriate, and if the crop is damaged 

to notify the insured of the status of 

their insurance on a timely basis. Comment: An insurance provider 

questioned how a loss would be paid 

based on the provisions contained in 

section 3(e). They provided an example 

where an insured has $1,000 coverage in 

a previous crop year and requests 

$1,500 coverage for the new crop year. 

A hail loss occurs within 30-day waiting 

period. They acknowledge the insured 

is kept at $1,000 coverage based on the 

policy language. If the damage is 

assessed and the insurance provider 

finds 50 percent hail damage, they 

questioned how they were to reduce 

coverage. They noted the Florida Citrus 

Fruit policy is a dollar plan and 

percentage of loss policy. They 

questioned whether they should reduce 

coverage by 50 percent to $500 and still 

owe the insured $500 multiplied by 50 

percent damage, or determine that 50 

percent of the loss is not covered. 

Essentially, they questioned whether the 

proposed provisions provide coverage 

for insured losses during the month of 

May. Response: The commenter did not 

indicate if the crop in the example was 

the current year’s crop or the following 

year’s crop, just that the loss occurred 

during the 30-day waiting period. If it 

was the current crop year, and the 

calendar date for the end of the 

insurance period has not passed, the 

loss would be indemnified just as in the 

past, based on the liability for that crop 

year. They would be paid the $1,000. If 

it was the crop set for the next crop 

year, it would not be covered until May 

1 under the Final Rule. There would be 

no indemnity for that crop since 

insurance had not yet attached, and the 

amount of insurance would be reduced 

to reflect the remaining potential, 

consistent with section 3(f). Insured 

losses on or after May 1 will be covered 

just as they were in the previous policy. Comment: An insurance service 

organization and an insurance provider 

commented that the provisions in 

section 3(f) have been added to address 

the crop being damaged prior to the 

beginning of the insurance period and 

reducing coverage based on the amount 

of damage. They further commented 

while in theory they agree with this 

concept, there are no procedures in 

place to address how coverage will be 

reduced. Additionally they commented 

this has been an issue on all of the 

perennial policies in Florida due to the 

number of hurricanes that have 

occurred in recent years. Provisions of 

existing policies have not been working 

as there are no procedures or guidance 

in place to properly implement. If these 

provisions remain, FCIC will need to 

provide additional guidance as to how 

the provisions are to be implemented. Response: Underwriting procedures 

need to be in place to determine the 

appropriate reduction in the amount of 

insurance. While section 3(f) is new, 

reduction in the amount of insurance 

was applicable to interplanted acreage 

in the current Crop Provisions, but the 

methodology for determining damage 

was not specifically addressed in FCIC 

procedure. FCIC will modify the Florida 

Citrus Fruit Loss Adjustment Standards 

and the underwriting procedures by 

adding instructions for reducing the 

amount of insurance based on damage 

sustained on the acreage prior to 

insurance attaching. Comment: A trade association 

commented on the provisions in section 

6(b)(2), which state no fruit is insurable 

until the trees reach the ‘‘fifth growing 

season.’’ They noted production 

practices have changed significantly 

since the rule was put into place and 

viable production is now obtained at a 

much earlier age. They cited that USDA 

Agricultural Statistics Services 

considers citrus trees bearing at three 

years of age and, the statistics show the 

average tree production for the age 

category 3–5 years is 1.22 boxes per tree 

for early season orange varieties and 

1.12 boxes per tree for late season 

orange varieties. With an average per 

acre planting of 120 trees, production of 

1.22 boxes per tree amounts to more 

than 146 boxes per acre. Response: There is a trend for recently 

set citrus trees to be placed at a higher 

density pattern for increased production 

capability. However, the statistics 

provided by the commenter were for age 

category 3–5 years. The commenter did 

not provide statistics separately for 3, 4, 

and 5 year old trees. Additionally, 

statistics were only provided for early 

and late season varieties. This is not 

sufficient information to make a blanket 

change in insurability of trees at an 

earlier age. However, section 6(b)(2) also 

allows trees to be insured at an earlier 

age if provided in the Special Provisions 

or by written agreement. Currently, 

when FCIC determines certain varieties 

of citrus fruit can produce significant 

fruit at an earlier age, those varieties are 

specified in the Special Provisions. 

Therefore, producers with trees that 

have the production capability cited by 

the commenter have access to coverage 

for such trees. No change has been 

made. 

Comment: A trade association 

commented that provisions in section 

6(c) state, in part, that a grower may 

elect to insure or exclude any acreage 

that has a potential production of less 

than 100 boxes per acre, under certain 

conditions. Therefore, it would be 

appropriate for three-year-old trees, 

which are capable of producing 50 

percent more than an apparent 

minimum standard, to be eligible for 

coverage. They further suggested FCIC 

consider a modification to section 

6(b)(2) to read in part ‘‘Produced by 

citrus trees that have not reached the 

third growing season after being set out 

***’’ Based on the current 

requirement that trees be set out prior to 

May 1 to be considered as a growing 

season, that would in most cases mean 

trees would be in their 4th year of 

growth. 

Response: FCIC needs additional 

information in order to reduce the age 

of the tree for the purposes of eligibility 

for insurance under these Crop 

Provisions to the third or fourth growing 

season after setout. Further, as stated 

above, younger varieties with known 

higher production capabilities will be 

added to the Special Provisions. 

Further, producers will have access to 

written agreements. Therefore, no 

change has been made. 

Comment: An insurance provider 

commented that section 6(b)(3) and (4) 

describes specific citrus fruit types that 

are not insurable, i.e., Meyer Lemons 

and oranges commonly known as Sour 

Oranges or Clementines, and those of 

the Robinson tangerine variety. They 

further commented that the citrus fruit 

crop into which these uninsurable types 

of citrus would fall should be specified 

in the provisions in order to remove the 

risk of assumption. For example, section 

6(b)(4) should read, ‘‘For Citrus IV, 

Robinson tangerine variety * * *’’

Response: FCIC lists only insurable 

types of citrus under the definition 

‘‘Citrus fruit crop.’’ in section 1. 

Therefore, it would not be appropriate 

to include uninsurable types in such 

definition. FCIC has added language at 

the beginning of section 1 to 

acknowledge that some of the varieties 

designated in section 6 as uninsurable 

may fall within one of the insurable 

categories of citrus fruit crops in section 

1. The phrase ‘‘Except as provided in 

section 6,’’ is meant to reference citrus 

fruit that is not insurable, but does not 

to do so by citrus fruit crop. FCIC has 

also added a new section 6(b)(6) that 

states that any citrus fruit type not 

included in the Special Provisions or 

within the definition of ‘‘citrus fruit 

crop’’ is also uninsurable. This will 

further clarify the provisions. 

Comment: An insurance service 

organization commented that the 

provisions in section 7(a), ‘‘* * * 

interplanted with another citrus fruit 

crop * * *’’ have been revised to 

‘‘* * * 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES
7194 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 26 / Thursday, February 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

interplanted with another crop * * *’’. 

They further commented this suggests a 

broadening of the provisions to include 

the interplanting of citrus trees with a 

perennial or annual crop, though the 

intent is unclear since it is not specified 

in the ‘‘Background’’ portion of the 

proposed rule. Additionally, they 

commented that unless this is an 

intended change, and they are not sure 

how likely it is for citrus trees to be 

interplanted with non-citrus trees or 

crops, they believe the previous 

wording is clearer. 

Response: FCIC intended the 

provisions be broadened to include 

other crops that may be interplanted 

with citrus. This could include tropicals 

interplanted in a citrus grove. To make 

the provisions clearer FCIC has 

modified the language to read 

‘‘* * * interplanted with another fruit 

type or another crop * * *’’. A 

conforming change has also been made 

in section 3(d) so that the references to 

interplanting are consistent. 

Comment: A trade association 

commented that the provisions in 

section 8(a)(1) of the proposed rule 

change the date coverage begins from 

April 30 (actually May 1) to June 1. 

They further commented that while they 

agree it is beneficial to growers to have 

tree and fruit insurance dates as similar 

as possible, moving the coverage date 

for fruit later in the growing season as 

proposed will have negative effects on 

producers’ risk management. 

Additionally, they noted in some years 

citrus growers have an uncovered risk 

when the bloom is damaged by a peril 

and in fact, they currently have as much 

as 3 months when fruit set is not 

covered even with the current dates. 

They expressed concern about hail 

damage to a citrus crop in May, which 

would not be covered for their insureds. 

Finally, they concluded a later coverage 

date means growers will be without 

coverage for a longer period of time on 

a crop already set on the tree, and 

recommend FCIC retain the current 

April 30 sales closing date and May 1 

insurance attachment date. 

Response: FCIC received a number of 

similar comments regarding the date 

insurance attaches, and has determined 

it will remain as May 1. Thus, the new 

policy has the same insurance 

attachment date as the current policy 

and retains the same period of risk as 

the current policy. However, the sales 

closing date is set one month prior to 

insurance attachment, now on April 1, 

consistent with the 30-day period 

between the sales closing and insurance 

attachment for Florida Fruit Tree and 

Nursery policies. FCIC has determined 

the April 1 sales closing date is 

acceptable, based on feedback from 

insurance providers, insureds, and the 

industry. Further, as stated above, the 

30-day waiting period is necessary to 

protect program integrity. 

Comment: An insurance service 

organization and several insurance 

providers commented that because of 

the proposed changes in the coverage 

dates, this would result in a gap in 

coverage since the current policy’s 

coverage for 2007 would have ended a 

month before the 2008 policy coverage 

would begin. They believe that unless it 

is intended that carryover policyholders 

have no coverage for the month of May, 

the policy provisions need to address 

how carryover coverage will be handled 

during that month. Further, if the gap in 

coverage is intended, it needs to be 

made very clear in the summary of 

changes to be provided to carryover 

policyholders. Otherwise, it does not 

seem necessary to specify ‘‘* * * 

beginning with the 2008 crop year 

***’’ since these Crop Provisions will 

not be effective prior to that crop year. 

A commenter stated that language needs 

to be added to these provisions to 

address the issue of damage occurring 

during May, so both insured’s and 

insurance providers understand 

whether there is coverage during the 

month of May. 

Response: As stated above, based on 

a number of comments addressed the 

additional risk insureds would bear due 

to no coverage for the month of May, 

FCIC has modified the date for 

insurance attachment from June 1 back 

to May 1 based on numerous comments 

received requesting that insurance 

attachment continue as specified in the 

current provisions. This means there 

will be no gap in coverage for current 

insureds. 

Comment: An insurance provider 

commented that the calendar date for 

the end of the insurance period for 

citrus types already occurs as early as 

January 31, with some dates in February 

and March. By moving the coverage 

attachment date from May 1 to June 1, 

the gap in coverage has been extended 

an additional month. They further 

commented that May is a month when 

hail damage is a primary concern in 

Florida. Additionally they noted fruit 

trees bloom primarily in March and 

April, and they recognize that damage 

or loss occurring prior to May 1 is not 

an insurable cause of loss under the 

current or proposed crop provisions. 

However, they noted that some 

perennial crop programs provide 

continuous coverage, and wondered 

whether FCIC has considered doing 

something similar for Florida citrus 

fruit. 

Response: FCIC has previously 

explored providing ‘‘bloom coverage,’’

i.e., year around coverage, with growers 

and grower groups. After several 

discussions, they concluded they favor 

the current policy where coverage 

attaches only to fruit on the tree. 

Determining damage or loss based on a 

reduction of blooms was considered 

problematic because only a small 

percentage of blooms actually set fruit. 

Additionally, FCIC has paid minimal 

indemnities for hail losses on a new 

crop during the month of May. The 

primary causes of loss, frost or freeze 

and hurricane damage, have not 

occurred in May. Further, as stated 

above, based on the comments, FCIC has 

decided to retain the May 1 insurance 

attachment date. 

Comment: An insurance service 

organization and an insurance provider 

commented that FCIC should clarify 

that section 8(a)(1)(i) applies to new 

applicants and 8(a)(1)(ii) to carryover 

policyholders. They further 

recommended section 8(a)(1)(i) be 

prefaced with ‘‘For new applications 

***’’, and section 8(a)(1)(ii) be 

prefaced with ‘‘For carryover insureds 

* * *.’’

Response: While section 8(a)(1)(i) 

applies primarily to new applicants it 

could also apply to inspections 

performed on acreage of carryover 

insureds no longer meeting insurability 

requirements. The commenter is correct 

that section 8(a)(1)(ii) applies only to 

carryover insureds. Therefore, FCIC will 

revise the provisions to specifically 

identify whether they apply to new or 

carryover policies for clarification. 

Comment: A Regional Office and 

trade association commented with 

regard to section 8(a)(2). One 

commenter stated that they previously 

recommended the end of the insurance 

period for Navels and Orlando Tangelos 

be changed to January 31. However, a 

closer look at the maturity date of these 

fruit types shows harvesting of Orlando 

Tangelos typically continues into early 

February. To accommodate this 

additional picking time, they 

recommend the end of insurance period 

for Navels and Orlando Tangelos be 

changed to the first week in February. 

Response: Based on additional 

research, FCIC has determined it is 

appropriate to extend the calendar date 

for the end of the insurance period to 

February 7 for Navel Oranges and 

Orlando Tangelos. This modification 

addresses the important balance 

between a date late enough to cover the 

fruit through normal picking, but not so 

late as to pose an unacceptable risk. 

Comment: A trade association 

commented that there were changes 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 26 / Thursday, February 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7195 

made to the end of the insurance period 

in section 8(a)(2), and it is essential 

these dates do not exclude coverage 

when appropriate. They expressed 

concern that some earlier dates 

contained in the proposed rule would 

put some growers at risk of having paid 

premiums on policies yet have the 

insurance end before harvest is 

complete. They further commented 

harvest begins at different times from 

one year to the next based on date of 

bloom and whether maturity is early or 

late for that year. The trade association 

commented that it is appropriate the 

rule consider the latest harvest dates for 

fruit types. The trade association polled 

harvesters in Florida, and reviewed Ag 

Statistics Service data for the past 4 

years on the highest percent of crop 

remaining on dates they recommended. 

They asked that the calendar date for 

the end of the insurance period be 

changed, based on percent of fruit 

remaining on the trees later in the 

season for the following fruit types; 

Early and Navel Oranges and Orlando 

Tangelos and Tangerines, February 28, 

Murcott Honey Oranges May 15, and 

Grapefruit and Late Season Oranges July 

31. 

Response: In determining the calendar 

date for the end of the insurance period, 

FCIC must find a balance between 

normal picking dates and good farming 

practices, versus not timely picking 

fruit, or leaving mature fruit on the tree 

in order to obtain a higher price. If FCIC 

were to set the end of the insurance 

period for a date when the last fruit for 

the fruit type is picked it could be 

weeks beyond the recommended final 

picking date. Additionally, a producer 

may leave the crop on the tree hoping 

for higher prices or conversely allowing 

a loss because the amount of insurance 

is greater than the market price. Fruit 

left on the tree beyond the optimal 

picking date is at much greater risk of 

damage or loss. For example, extending 

the date of Grapefruit and Late Season 

Oranges to July 31 exposes FCIC to an 

unacceptable risk of damage or loss due 

to the hurricane peril. However, based 

on additional research, FCIC has 

determined it can modify the calendar 

date for the end of the insurance period 

without incurring unacceptable risks as 

follows: Early and Navel Oranges and 

Orlando Tangelos and Tangerines, 

February 7; and Murcott Honey 

Oranges, May 15. RMA retained the 

current date for the end of the insurance 

period for Grapefruit and Late Season 

Oranges, June 30. Research shows these 

fruit types are, or should be, harvested 

by this date. 

Comment: An insurance provider 

recommended language be added to 

replace sections 8(b)(1) and (2) to 

address situations where an existing 

insured acquires additional citrus 

acreage after the acreage reporting date. 

They added that an insurance provider 

should be able to add such acreage to an 

existing policy upon completion of an 

acceptable inspection of the added 

acreage, assuming the added acreage is 

not insured under an existing citrus 

policy. If the added acreage is already 

insured on an existing citrus policy, this 

provision should stipulate that a 

transfer of coverage and right to an 

indemnity can be completed to continue 

the existing coverage on the added 

acreage. They further commented this 

has been an issue in previous years and 

the FCIC has indicated they would try 

to address this coverage issue when the 

provisions were revised. 

Response: Since no changes to section 

8(b) were proposed, the proposed 

changes would be substantive in nature, 

and the public was not provided an 

opportunity to comment on the 

recommended changes, the 

recommendations cannot be 

incorporated in the final rule. No 

change has been made. 

Comment: An insurance service 

organization and an insurance provider 

commented that currently the sales 

closing and acreage reporting dates are 

the same for Florida Citrus, so the 

situations addressed in sections 8(b)(1) 

and (2), acquiring or relinquishing an 

insurable share on or before the acreage 

reporting date, should not come up 

unless those dates will be changed. 

They commented that section 8(b)(1) 

could be removed. They further 

commented the procedure in 8(b)(2) 

regarding use of the Transfer of Right to 

an Indemnity could be applied to cases 

when the insurable share changes hands 

after the acreage reporting date. 

Response: Since no changes to section 

8(b) were proposed, the proposed 

changes would be substantive in nature, 

and the public was not provided an 

opportunity to comment on the 

recommended changes, the 

recommendations cannot be 

incorporated in the final rule. No 

change has been made. 

Comment: An insurance service 

organization and an insurance provider 

recommended that the insured cause of 

loss in section 9(a) be clarified as ‘‘Fire, 

due to natural causes, unless * * *’’ or 

‘‘Fire, if caused by lightning * * *,’’ as 

contained in the proposed revisions to 

the Tobacco Crop Provisions. 

Response: Section 12 of the Basic 

Provisions already clearly states all 

causes of loss listed in the Crop 

Provisions must be due to a naturally 

occurring event. If this provision were 

changed for this policy or just for this 

cause of loss, it could create the 

mistaken impression that the other 

insurable causes do not have to be 

natural occurring. No change has been 

made. 

Comment: An insurance service 

organization and an insurance provider 

commented that they had concern with 

the proposed addition in section 9(a) of 

‘‘Diseases, only if specified in the 

Special Provisions’’ to the list of insured 

causes of loss. They further commented 

that certain diseases may cause a 

decline in yields, and the condition of 

the citrus trees, over a period of years 

but it would be difficult to know how 

to account for this when underwriting 

the cause of loss, and for developing 

loss adjustment procedures. 

Additionally they recommended that if 

this cause of loss is retained, either 

delete ‘‘only’’ or precede it with ‘‘but,’’

to read ‘‘Diseases, but only if specified 

* * *.’’

Response: FCIC has added this 

provision to provide flexibility to the 

Florida Citrus Fruit Crop Provisions in 

the event a disease manifests itself and 

FCIC determines it can be insured on an 

actuarially sound basis, with the proper 

underwriting and loss adjustment. 

Given the potential delay of several 

years to revise the policy through the 

rulemaking process, this provision will 

give the producer a chance to receive 

needed coverage on a more timely basis. 

However, FCIC will not specify a new 

disease in the Special Provisions 

without significant research regarding 

the feasibility and prudence of adding 

the disease. Further, FCIC does not plan 

on adding any diseases to the Special 

Provisions at this time. FCIC agrees that 

the addition of the word ‘‘but’’ before 

‘‘only,’’ makes it consistent with the 

definition of diseases in other policies, 

and has revised the provision 

accordingly. 

Comment: An insurance provider 

commented that adding disease as a 

cause of loss if specified in the Special 

Provisions causes them a great deal of 

concern from both the underwriting and 

loss adjustment standpoint. For 

example, if the FCIC were to add 

trestasia as a cause of loss, they asked 

how they would work a loss on groves 

losing production each year resulting 

from this type of disease. They further 

commented this disease causes a 

decline in condition of trees and yields, 

and it would be very difficult to 

underwrite and adjust for this type of 

disease. They added that citrus greening 

is another new disease that would result 

in similar problems and issues. 

Response: As specified in the above 

response, FCIC has added ‘‘Diseases, but 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES
7196 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 26 / Thursday, February 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

only if specified in the Special 

Provisions’’ as a cause of loss to provide 

flexibility to the Florida Citrus Fruit 

Crop Provisions. However, no disease 

will be added to the Special Provisions 

unless the disease can be properly rated, 

underwritten and adjusted. 

Comment: A trade association 

commented that they commend FCIC for 

the addition of ‘‘Diseases, but only if 

specified in the Special Provisions,’’ but 

are still concerned that damaging 

windstorms, which have not been 

classified by the National Weather 

Service as hurricanes, are not 

recognized as a legitimate peril. They 

commented that the weather conditions 

in Florida lend themselves to occasional 

high density windstorms, some even 

reaching a wind speed of hurricane 

force, but are formed either too rapidly 

to receive a hurricane designation or 

have wind gusts too brief to achieve a 

hurricane designation, but which are as 

damaging to fruit as a named hurricane. 

They concluded that for the fruit 

insurance policy in Florida to be an 

effective risk management tool and to 

fully meet the needs of those it is 

designed to serve, these unnamed 

storms with damaging wind intensity 

must be classified as a cause of loss in 

the policy. 

Response: The commenter is correct 

that there may be winds that do not 

meet the definition of a hurricane or 

tornado that could damage the crop. 

Therefore, FCIC is including excess 

wind as a cause of loss but only if it 

causes damage to the extent that citrus 

fruit from Citrus IV, V, VII, and VIII is 

unmarketable as fresh fruit. FCIC has 

also added a definition of ‘‘excess 

wind’’ consistent with the definition in 

the Texas Citrus Fruit Crop Provisions. 

Comment: An insurance service 

organization questioned whether the 

rewording of the parenthetical phrase in 

section 10(b)(2) of the proposed rule is 

an improvement over the current 

language. They suggested another 

alternative: ‘‘* * * The percent of 

damage will be the amount of citrus 

fruit damaged by an insured cause, 

converted to boxes, and divided by the 

undamaged potential production.’’

Response: FCIC believes the 

provisions contained in the proposed 

rule are clear and therefore, no change 

has been made. 

Comment: An insurance service 

organization and an insurance provider 

asked that FCIC consider adding 

instructions to section 10(b)(4) to 

address situations when the result to 

this point is negative instead of positive. 

They questioned whether there would 

be any need in completing the rest of 

the steps, and if there would be no 

indemnity due in such a case. 

Response: FCIC has revised the 

provision to add language that states 

that if the result of section 10(b)(3) is 

negative, no indemnity will be due. 

Comment: An insurance service 

organization recommended FCIC 

rearrange the first sentence in the 

example in 10(b)(6) to read ‘‘* * * 

assume a 55-acre unit sustains late 

season damage,’’ instead of ending 

‘‘* * * on the 55 acres * * *’’, which 

could suggest the unit contains more 

than ‘‘the 55 acres’’ that are damaged. 

Response: FCIC has modified the 

provisions accordingly. 

Comment: An insurance service 

organization recommended FCIC refer to 

the ‘‘* * * level for the citrus crop 

***’’ instead of ‘‘citrus type’’ in 

section 10(b)(6) since the choice of level 

is on a citrus crop basis, unless the 

‘‘type’’ reference is related to the 

‘‘amount of insurance’’ at the beginning 

of the sentence. 

Response: The reference is related to 

the amount of insurance at the 

beginning of the sentence. In order to 

clarify, FCIC has modified the 

provisions by adding ‘‘, for the citrus 

crop, fruit type, and age of trees’’ after 

‘‘ based on the 75 percent coverage 

level’’. 

Additionally, FCIC requested input 

regarding the possible addition of 

Asiatic Citrus Canker (ACC) as a cause 

of loss. An insurance service 

organization commented they believe 

their members would oppose this since 

it has been problematic as a cause of 

loss in the Florida Fruit Tree Pilot 

policy. An insurance provider 

commented they are strongly opposed to 

providing coverage for ACC under the 

fruit policy. They believe the ACC 

disease is so widespread it is creating a 

multitude of problems with the Florida 

Fruit Tree Pilot Crop Provisions and 

they have concerns with it being 

covered in these provisions as well. 

Additionally, ACC coverage has been 

removed from the Florida Fruit Tree 

policy effective for the 2008 crop year. 

In addition to the changes described 

above, FCIC has made minor editorial 

changes and the following changes: 

1. Removed the paragraph 

immediately preceding section 1 which 

refers to the order of priority in the 

event of conflict. This same information 

is contained in the Basic Provisions. 

Therefore, it is duplicative and has been 

removed in the Crop Provisions. 

2. Added the provisions, ‘‘unless 

specified otherwise in the Special 

Provisions’’ in section 8(a)(2) to allow 

greater flexibility in modifying the 

calendar date for the end of the 

insurance period. Given the rapid 

advances in technology, which could 

affect the insurance period, the policy 

needs the ability to respond quickly. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 457 

Crop insurance, Florida Citrus Fruit 

Crop Provisions. 

Final Rule 

■ Accordingly, as set forth in the 

preamble, the Federal Crop Insurance 

Corporation amends 7 CFR part 457, 

Common Crop Insurance Regulations, 

for the 2008 and succeeding crop years 

as follows: 

PART 457—COMMON CROP 

INSURANCE REGULATIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR 

part 457 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1506(l) and 1506(p). 

■ 2. Revise § 457.107 to read as follows: 

§ 457.107 Florida Citrus Fruit Crop 

Insurance Provisions. 

The Florida Citrus Fruit Crop 

Insurance Provisions for the 2009 and 

succeeding crop years are as follows: 

FCIC policies: United States Department 

of Agriculture, Federal Crop 

Insurance Corporation 

Reinsured policies: (Appropriate title 

for insurance provider) 

Both FCIC and reinsured policies: 

Florida Citrus Fruit Crop Insurance 

Provisions 

1. Definitions 

Amount of insurance (per acre). The 

dollar amount determined by 

multiplying the Reference Maximum 

Dollar Amount shown on the actuarial 

documents for each fruit type and age of 

trees, within a citrus fruit crop, times 

the coverage level percent that you 

elect, times your share. 

Box. A standard field box as 

prescribed in the State of Florida Citrus 

Fruit Laws or contained in standards 

issued by FCIC. 

Buckhorn. To prune any limb at a 

diameter of at least three inches for 

citrus. 

Citrus fruit crop. Except as otherwise 

provided in section 6, any of the 

following: 

(1) Citrus I—Early and mid-season 

oranges; 

(2) Citrus II—Late oranges juice; 

(3) Citrus III—Grapefruit for which 

freeze damage will be adjusted on a 

juice basis; 

(4) Citrus IV—Tangelos and 

Tangerines; 

(5) Citrus V—Murcott Honey Oranges 

(also known as Honey Tangerines) and 

Temple Oranges; 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 26 / Thursday, February 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7197 

(6) Citrus VI—Lemons and Limes; 

(7) Citrus VII—Grapefruit for which 

freeze damage will be adjusted on a 

fresh fruit basis, and late oranges fresh; 

(8) Citrus VIII—Navel Oranges; and 

(9) Citrus IX—Any other citrus fruit 

crop designated in the Special 

Provisions. 

Citrus fruit type (fruit type). Any of 

the separate citrus fruit listed in the 

Special Provisions and contained within 

one of the citrus fruit crops designated 

as Citrus I through IX. 

Excess wind. A natural movement of 

air that has sustained speeds exceeding 

58 miles per hour recorded at the U.S. 

Weather Service reporting station 

operating nearest to the grove at the 

time of damage. 

Freeze. The formation of ice in the 

cells of the fruit caused by low air 

temperatures. 

Harvest. The severance of mature 

citrus fruit from the tree by pulling, 

picking, shaking, or any other means, or 

collecting the marketable citrus fruit 

from the ground. 

Hurricane. A windstorm classified by 

the U.S. Weather Service as a hurricane. 

Interstock. The area of the tree that is 

grafted to a rootstock. For example, the 

rootstock may be Sour Orange, and the 

interstock grapefruit, and the grafted 

scion Valencia orange. 

Potential production. The amount, 

converted to boxes, of citrus fruit that 

would have been produced had damage 

not occurred. 

(a) Including citrus fruit that: 

(1) Was harvested before damage 

occurred; 

(2) Remained on the tree after damage 

occurred; 

(3) Except as provided in (b), was 

missing, damaged, or destroyed from 

either an insured or uninsured cause; 

(4) Was marketed or could be 

marketed as fresh citrus fruit; 

(5) Was harvested prior to inspection 

by us; or 

(6) Was harvested within 7 days after 

a freeze; 

(b) Not including citrus fruit that: 

(1) Was missing, damaged, or 

destroyed before insurance attached for 

any crop year; 

(2) Was damaged or destroyed by 

normal dropping; or 

(3) Any tangerines that normally 

would not meet the 210 pack size (2 and 

4⁄16 inch minimum diameter) under 

United States Standards by the end of 

the insurance period for tangerines. 

Scion. A detached living portion of a 

plant joined to a stock in grafting. 

Top worked. A buckhorned citrus tree 

with a new scion grafted onto the 

interstock. 

2. Unit Division 

(a) A basic unit, as defined in section 

1 of the Basic Provisions, will be 

divided into additional basic units by 

each citrus fruit crop designated in the 

Special Provisions. 

(b) Provisions in the Basic Provisions 

that allow optional units by irrigated 

and non-irrigated practices are not 

applicable. 

(c) In addition to establishing optional 

units by section, section equivalent, or 

FSA farm serial number, optional units 

may be established if each optional unit 

is located on non-contiguous land. 

3. Insurance Guarantees, Coverage 

Levels, and Prices for Determining 

Indemnities 

In addition to the requirements of 

section 3 of the Basic Provisions: 

(a) You may select only one coverage 

level for each citrus fruit crop shown in 

section 1 of these Crop Provisions, or 

designated in the Special Provisions, 

that you elect to insure. If different 

amounts of insurance are available for 

fruit types within a citrus fruit crop, you 

must select the same coverage level for 

each fruit type. For example, if you 

choose the 75 percent coverage level for 

one fruit type, you must also choose the 

75 percent coverage level for all other 

fruit types within that citrus fruit crop. 

(b) The production reporting 

requirements contained in section 3 of 

the Basic Provisions are not applicable. 

(c) For the first year of insurance for 

acreage interplanted with another fruit 

type or another crop, and any time the 

planting pattern of such acreage is 

changed, you must report, by the sales 

closing date, the following: 

(1) The age and fruit type of the 

interplanted citrus trees, as applicable; 

(2) The planting pattern; and 

(3) Any other information we request 

in order to establish your amount of 

insurance. 

(d) We will reduce acreage or the 

amount of insurance or both, as 

necessary, based on our estimate of the 

effect of the interplanted fruit type or 

another crop on the insured fruit type. 

If you fail to notify us of any 

circumstance that may reduce the 

acreage or amount of insurance, we will 

reduce the acreage or amount of 

insurance or both as necessary any time 

we become aware of the circumstance. 

(e) For carryover policies: 

(1) Any changes to your coverage 

must be requested on or before the sales 

closing date; 

(2) Requested changes will take effect 

on May 1, the first day of the crop year, 

unless we reject the requested increase 

based on our inspection, or because a 

loss occurs on or before April 30 

(Rejection can occur at any time we 

discover loss has occurred on or before 

April 30); and 

(3) If the increase is rejected, coverage 

will remain at the same level as the 

previous crop year. 

(f) If your citrus fruit was damaged 

prior to the beginning of the insurance 

period, your amount of insurance (per 

acre) will be reduced by the amount of 

damage that occurred. 

4. Contract Changes 

In accordance with section 4 of the 

Basic Provisions, the contract change 

date is January 31 preceding the 

cancellation date. 

5. Cancellation and Termination Dates 

In accordance with section 2 of the 

Basic Provisions, the cancellation and 

termination dates are April 30. 

6. Insured Crop 

(a) In accordance with section 8 of the 

Basic Provisions, the crop insured will 

be all acreage of each citrus fruit crop 

that you elect to insure, in which you 

have a share, that is grown in the county 

shown on the application, and for 

which a premium rate is quoted in the 

actuarial documents. 

(b) In addition to the citrus fruit not 

insurable in section 8 of the Basic 

Provisions, we do not insure any citrus 

fruit: 

(1) That cannot be expected to mature 

each crop year within the normal 

maturity period for the fruit type; 

(2) Produced by citrus trees that have 

not reached the fifth growing season 

after being set out, unless otherwise 

provided in the Special Provisions or by 

a written agreement to insure such 

citrus fruit (In order for the year of set 

out to be considered as a growing 

season, citrus trees must be set out on 

or before April 30 of the calendar year); 

(3) Of ‘‘Meyer Lemons’’ and oranges 

commonly known as ‘‘Sour Oranges’’ or 

‘‘Clementines’’; 

(4) Of the Robinson tangerine variety, 

for any crop year in which you have 

elected to exclude such tangerines from 

insurance (You must elect this 

exclusion prior to the crop year for 

which the exclusion is to be effective, 

except that for the first crop year you 

must elect this exclusion by the later of 

the sales closing date or the time you 

submit the application for insurance); 

(5) That is produced on citrus trees 

that have been topworked until the third 

crop year after topworking. The Special 

Provisions will specify the appropriate 

rate class for trees insurable following 

topworking, but that have not reached 

full production; or 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES
7198 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 26 / Thursday, February 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

(6) Of any fruit type not specified as 

insurable in the Special Provisions or 

within the definition of ‘‘citrus fruit 

crop.’’

(c) Prior to the date insurance 

attaches, and upon our approval, you 

may elect to insure or exclude from 

insurance any insurable citrus acreage 

that has a potential production of less 

than 100 boxes per acre. If you elect to: 

(1) Insure such acreage, we will 

consider the potential production to be 

100 boxes per acre when determining 

the amount of loss; or 

(2) Exclude such acreage, we will 

disregard the acreage for all purposes 

related to this policy. 

(d) In addition to the provisions in 

section 6 of the Basic Provisions, if you 

fail to notify us of your election to 

insure or exclude citrus acreage, and the 

potential production from such acreage 

is 100 or more boxes per acre, we will 

determine the percent of damage on all 

of the insurable acreage for the unit, but 

will not allow the percent of damage for 

the unit to be increased by including 

such acreage. 

(e) Potential production will be 

determined during loss adjustment. 

7. Insurable Acreage 

In lieu of the provisions in section 9 

of the Basic Provisions that prohibit 

insurance attaching to a crop planted 

with another crop: 

(a) Citrus fruit from trees interplanted 

with another fruit type or another crop 

is insurable unless we inspect the 

acreage and determine it does not meet 

the requirements contained in your 

policy. 

(b) If the citrus fruit is from trees 

interplanted with another fruit type or 

another crop, acreage will be prorated 

according to the percentage of the acres 

occupied by each of the interplanted 

fruit types or crops (For example, if 

grapefruit have been interplanted with 

oranges on 100 acres and the grapefruit 

trees are on 50 percent of the acreage, 

grapefruit will be considered planted on 

50 acres and oranges will be considered 

planted on 50 acres). 

(c) The combination of the citrus fruit 

acreage and the interplanted crop 

acreage cannot exceed the physical 

amount of acreage. 

8. Insurance Period 

(a) In accordance with the provisions 

of section 11 of the Basic Provisions: 

(1) Coverage begins on May 1 of each 

crop year, unless: 

(i) For new or carryover policies, as 

applicable, we inspect the acreage and 

determine it does not meet the 

requirements for insurability contained 

in your policy (You must provide any 

information we require for the fruit 

type, so we may determine the 

condition of the grove to be insured); or 

(ii) For carryover policies, you report 

additional citrus acreage, or a greater 

share, such that the amount of insurance 

will increase by more than 10 percent 

and we notify you all or a part of your 

citrus acreage is not insurable. 

(2) The calendar date for the end of 

the insurance period for each crop year, 

unless specified otherwise in the 

Special Provisions, is: 

(i) February 7 for early and navel 

oranges, Orlando tangelos and 

tangerines; 

(ii) February 28 for all other tangelos; 

(iii) March 31 for mid-season and 

temple oranges; 

(iv) April 30 for lemons, limes; 

(v) May 15 for murcott honey oranges; 

and 

(vi) June 30 for grapefruit and late 

season oranges. 

(b) In addition to the provisions of 

section 11 of the Basic Provisions: 

(1) If you acquire an insurable share 

in any insurable acreage of citrus fruit 

after coverage begins, but on or before 

the acreage reporting date of any crop 

year, and if after inspection we consider 

the acreage acceptable, then insurance 

will be considered to have attached to 

such acreage on the calendar date for 

the beginning of the insurance period. 

(2) If you relinquish your insurable 

share on any insurable acreage of citrus 

fruit on or before the acreage reporting 

date of any crop year, insurance will not 

be considered to have attached, no 

premium will be due, and no indemnity 

payable, for such acreage for that crop 

year unless: 

(i) A transfer of coverage and right to 

an indemnity, or a similar form 

approved by us, is completed by all 

affected parties; 

(ii) We are notified by you or the 

transferee in writing of such transfer on 

or before the acreage reporting date; and 

(iii) The transferee is eligible for crop 

insurance. 

9. Causes of Loss 

(a) In accordance with the provisions 

of section 12 of the Basic Provisions, 

insurance is provided only against the 

following causes of loss to citrus fruit 

that occur within the insurance period: 

(1) Fire, unless weeds and other forms 

of undergrowth have not been 

controlled or pruning debris has not 

been removed from the grove; 

(2) Freeze; 

(3) Hail; 

(4) Hurricane; 

(5) Tornado; 

(6) Excess wind, but only if it causes 

the individual citrus fruit from Citrus 

IV, V, VII, and VIII to be unmarketable 

as fresh fruit; or 

(7) Diseases, but only if specified in 

the Special Provisions. 

(b) In addition to the causes of loss 

excluded in section 12 of the Basic 

Provisions, we will not insure against 

damage or loss of production due to: 

(1) Damage to the blossoms or trees; 

or 

(2) Inability to market the citrus fruit 

for any reason other than actual 

physical damage from an insurable 

cause specified in this section. For 

example, we will not pay you an 

indemnity if you are unable to market 

due to quarantine, boycott, or refusal of 

any person to accept production. 

10. Settlement of Claim 

(a) We will determine your loss on a 

unit basis. In the event you are unable 

to provide separate acceptable 

production records: 

(1) For any optional units, we will 

combine all optional units for which 

such production records were not 

provided; or 

(2) For any basic units, we will 

allocate any commingled production to 

such units in proportion to our liability 

on the harvested acreage for the units. 

(b) If any citrus fruit within a unit is 

damaged by an insurable cause of loss, 

we will settle your claim by: 

(1) Calculating the amount of 

insurance for the unit by multiplying 

the number of acres by the respective 

dollar amount of insurance per acre for 

each fruit type and multiplying that 

result by your share; 

(2) Calculating the average percent of 

damage to the fruit within each 

respective fruit type, rounded to the 

nearest tenth of a percent (0.1%) (To 

determine the percent of damage, the 

amount of citrus fruit damaged from an 

insured cause must be converted to 

boxes and divided by the undamaged 

potential production); 

(3) Subtracting the deductible from 

the result of section (10)(b)(2); 

(4) If the result of section (10)(b)(3) is 

positive, dividing this result by the 

coverage level percentage (If the result 

of section 10(b)(3) is negative, no 

indemnity will be due); 

(5) Multiplying the result of section 

(10)(b)(4) by the amount of insurance for 

the unit for the respective fruit type, to 

determine the value of all damage; and 

(6) Totaling all such results of section 

(10)(b)(5) for all fruit types and 

subtracting any indemnities paid for the 

current crop year to determine the 

amount payable for the unit. (For 

example, assume a 55-acre unit sustains 

late season damage. No previous 

damage has occurred on the unit during 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 26 / Thursday, February 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7199 

the crop year and no fruit has been 

harvested. The producer elected the 75 

percent coverage level and has a 100 

percent share. The amount of insurance 

is $1,180 per acre, based on the 75 

percent coverage level, for the citrus 

crop, fruit type, and age of trees. The 

amount of potential production is 

24,530 boxes and the amount of 

damaged production is 17,171 boxes. 

The loss would be calculated as follows: 

1. 55 acres × $1,180 = $64,900 amount 

of insurance for the unit; 

2. 17,171 ÷ 24,530 = 70 percent 

average percent of damage; 

3. 70 percent damage ¥ 25 percent 

deductible (100 percent ¥ 75 percent) 

= 45 percent; 

4. 45 percent ÷ 75 percent = 60 

percent adjusted damage; and 

5. 60 percent × $64,900 = $38,940 

indemnity. 

(c) Citrus fruit crops IV, V, VII, and 

VIII that are seriously damaged by 

freeze, as determined by a fresh-fruit cut 

of a representative sample of fruit in the 

unit in accordance with the applicable 

provisions of the State of Florida Citrus 

Fruit Laws, or contained in standards 

issued by FCIC, and that are not or 

could not be marketed as fresh fruit, 

will be considered damaged to the 

following extent: 

(1) If less than 16 percent of the fruit 

in a sample shows serious freeze 

damage, the fruit will be considered 

undamaged; or 

(2) If 16 percent or more of the fruit 

in a sample shows serious freeze 

damage, the fruit will be considered 50 

percent damaged, except that: 

(i) For tangerines of Citrus IV, damage 

in excess of 50 percent will be the actual 

percent of damaged fruit; and 

(ii) Citrus IV (except tangerines), V, 

VII, and VIII, if it is determined that the 

juice loss in the fruit exceeds 50 

percent, such percent will be considered 

the percent of damage. 

(d) Notwithstanding the provisions of 

section 10(c) of these crop provisions as 

to citrus fruit of Citrus IV, V, VII, and 

VIII, in any unit that is mechanically 

separated using the specific-gravity 

(floatation) method into undamaged and 

freeze-damaged fruit, the amount of 

damage will be the actual percent of 

freeze-damaged fruit not to exceed 50 

percent and will not be affected by 

subsequent fresh-fruit marketing. 

However, the 50 percent limitation on 

mechanically separated, freeze-damaged 

fruit will not apply to tangerines of 

Citrus IV. 

(e) Any citrus fruit of Citrus I, II, III, 

and VI damaged by freeze, but that can 

be processed into products for human 

consumption, will be considered as 

marketable for juice. The percent of 

damage will be determined by relating 

the juice content of the damaged fruit to: 

(1) The average juice content of the 

fruit produced on the unit for the three 

previous crop years based on your 

records, if they are acceptable to us; or 

(2) The following juice content, if 

acceptable records are not furnished: 

(i) Citrus I—52 pounds of juice per 

box; 

(ii) Citrus II—54 pounds of juice per 

box; 

(iii) Citrus III—45 pounds of juice per 

box; and 

(iv) Citrus VI—43 pounds of juice per 

box; 

(f) Any individual citrus fruit on the 

ground that is not collected and 

marketed will be considered as 100 

percent damaged if the damage was due 

to an insured cause. 

(g) Any individual citrus fruit that is 

unmarketable either as fresh fruit or as 

juice because it is immature, 

unwholesome, decomposed, 

adulterated, or otherwise unfit for 

human consumption due to an insured 

cause will be considered as 100 percent 

damaged. 

(h) Individual citrus fruit of Citrus IV, 

V, VII, and VIII, that are unmarketable 

as fresh fruit due to serious damage 

from hail as defined in the applicable 

United States Standards for Grades of 

Florida fruit, or wind damage from a 

hurricane, tornado or other excess wind 

storms that results in the fruit not 

meeting the standards for packing as 

fresh fruit, will be considered 100 

percent damaged. 

11. Late and Prevented Planting 

The late and prevented planting 

provisions of the Basic Provisions are 

not applicable. 

Signed in Washington, DC, on January 31, 

2008. 

Eldon Gould, 

Manager, Federal Crop Insurance 

Corporation. 

[FR Doc. E8–2190 Filed 2–6–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–08–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

7 CFR Part 932 

[Docket No. AMS–FV–07–0155; FV08–932–

1 IFR] 

Olives Grown in California; Decreased 

Assessment Rate 

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, 

USDA. 

ACTION: Interim final rule with request 

for comments. 

SUMMARY: This rule decreases the 

assessment rate established for the 

California Olive Committee (committee) 

for the 2008 and subsequent fiscal years 

from $47.84 to $15.60 per assessable ton 

of olives handled. The committee 

locally administers the marketing order 

which regulates the handling of olives 

grown in California. Assessments upon 

olive handlers are used by the 

committee to fund reasonable and 

necessary expenses of the program. The 

fiscal year began January 1 and ends 

December 31. The assessment rate will 

remain in effect indefinitely unless 

modified, suspended, or terminated. 

DATES: Effective February 8, 2008. 

Comments received by April 7, 2008 

will be considered prior to issuance of 

a final rule. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

invited to submit written comments 

concerning this rule. Comments must be 

sent to the Docket Clerk, Marketing 

Order Administration Branch, Fruit and 

Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 

Independence Avenue, SW., STOP 

0237, Washington, DC 20250–0237; Fax: 

(202) 720–8938, or Internet: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Comments should 

reference the docket number and the 

date and page number of this issue of 

the Federal Register and will be 

available for public inspection in the 

Office of the Docket Clerk during regular 

business hours, or can be viewed at: 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jennifer R. Garcia, Marketing Specialist, 

or Kurt J. Kimmel, Regional Manager, 

California Marketing Field Office, 

Marketing Order Administration 

Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, 

AMS, USDA; Telephone: (559) 487–

5901, Fax: (559) 487–5906; or E-mail: 

Jen.Garcia@usda.gov or 

Kurt.Kimmel@usda.gov. 

Small businesses may request 

information on complying with this 

regulation by contacting Jay Guerber, 

Marketing Order Administration 

Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, 

AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence 

Avenue, SW., STOP 0237, Washington, 

DC 20250–0237; Telephone: (202) 720–

2491, Fax: (202) 720–8938, or E-mail: 

Jay.Guerber@usda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule 

is issued under Marketing Agreement 

No. 148 and Order No. 932, both as 

amended (7 CFR part 932), regulating 

the handling of olives grown in 

California, hereinafter referred to as the 

‘‘order.’’ The order is effective under the 

Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act 

of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601–674), 

hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘Act.’’


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES