Karnal Bunt; Compensation for Custom Harvesters in Northern Texas, 24297-24302 [05-9194]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 88 / Monday, May 9, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
review, or response to the petition or
cross petition.
(5) The Board shall decide the merits
of any timely allegation that is raised at
this stage of adjudication in a final
decision.
(c) All complaints of discrimination
on the basis of disability in programs
and activities conducted by the agency,
except for those described in paragraphs
(a) and (b) of this section, shall be filed
under the procedures described in this
paragraph.
(1) Who may file. Any person who
believes that he or she has been
subjected to discrimination prohibited
by this part, or authorized
representative of such person, may file
a complaint. Any person who believes
that any specific class of persons has
been subjected to discrimination
prohibited by this part and who is a
member of that class or the authorized
representative of a member of that class
may file a complaint. A charge on behalf
of a person or member of a class of
persons claiming to be aggrieved may be
made by any person, agency or
organization.
(2) Where and when to file.
Complaints shall be filed with the
Director, Office of Equal Employment
Opportunity (EEO Director), Merit
Systems Protection Board, 1615 M
Street, NW., Washington DC 20419, or emailed to equalopportunity@mspb.gov,
within thirty-five (35) calendar days of
the alleged act of discrimination. A
complaint filed by personal delivery is
considered filed on the date it is
received by the EEO Director. The date
of filing by facsimile or e-mail is the
date the facsimile or e-mail is sent. The
date of filing by mail is determined by
the postmark date; if no legible
postmark date appears on the mailing,
the submission is presumed to have
been mailed five days (excluding days
on which the Board is closed for
business) before its receipt. The date of
filing by commercial overnight delivery
is the date the document was delivered
to the commercial overnight delivery
service. The agency shall extend the
time period for filing a complaint upon
a showing of good cause. For example,
the agency shall extend this time limit
if a complainant shows that he or she
was prevented by circumstances beyond
his or her control from submitting the
matter within the time limits.
(3) Acceptance of complaint. (i) The
agency shall accept a complete
complaint that is filed in accordance
with paragraph (c) of this section and
over which it has jurisdiction. The EEO
Director shall notify the complainant of
receipt and acceptance of the complaint.
VerDate jul<14>2003
17:12 May 06, 2005
Jkt 205001
(ii) If the EEO Director receives a
complaint that is not complete, he or
she shall notify the complainant that
additional information is needed. If the
complainant fails to complete the
complaint and return it to the EEO
Director within 15 days of his or her
receipt of the request for additional
information, the EEO Director shall
dismiss the complaint with prejudice
and shall so inform the complainant.
(4) Within 60 days of the receipt of a
complete complaint for which it has
jurisdiction, the EEO Director shall
notify the complainant of the results of
the investigation in an initial decision
containing—
(i) Findings of fact and conclusions of
law;
(ii) When applicable, a description of
a remedy for each violation found; and
(iii) A notice of the right to appeal.
(5) Any appeal of the EEO Director’s
initial decision must be filed with the
Chairman of the Board, Merit Systems
Protection Board, 1615 M Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20419 by the
complainant within 35 days of the date
the EEO Director issues the decision
required by § 1207.170(c)(4). The agency
may extend this time for good cause
when a complainant shows that
circumstances beyond his or her control
prevented the filing of an appeal within
the prescribed time limit. An appeal
filed by personal delivery is considered
filed on the date it is received by the
Chairman. The date of filing by
facsimile is the date of the facsimile.
The date of filing by mail is determined
by the postmark date; if no legible
postmark date appears on the mailing,
the submission is presumed to have
been mailed five days (excluding days
on which the Board is closed for
business) before its receipt. The date of
filing by commercial overnight delivery
is the date the document was delivered
to the commercial overnight delivery
service. The appeal should be clearly
marked ‘‘Appeal of Section 504
Decision’’ and must contain specific
objections explaining why the person
believes the initial decision was
factually or legally wrong. A copy of the
initial decision being appealed should
be attached to the appeal letter.
(6) A timely appeal shall be decided
by the Chairman unless the Chairman
determines, in his or her discretion, that
the appeal raises policy issues and that
the nature of those policy issues
warrants a decision by the full Board.
The full Board shall then decide such
appeals.
(7) The Chairman shall notify the
complainant of the results of the appeal
within sixty (60) days of the receipt of
the request. If the Chairman determines
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
24297
that he or she needs additional
information from the complainant, he or
she shall have sixty (60) days from the
date he or she receives the additional
information to make his or her
determination on the appeal.
(8) The time limit stated in paragraph
(c)(2) may be extended by the EEO
Director to a period of up to 180 days,
and may be extended further with the
permission of the Assistant Attorney
General. The time limit stated in
paragraph (c)(5) may be extended by the
Chairman to a period of up to 180 days,
and may be extended further with the
permission of the Assistant Attorney
General.
(9) The agency may delegate its
authority for conducting complaint
investigations to other Federal agencies,
except that the authority for making the
final determination may not be
delegated to another agency.
(d) The agency shall notify the
Architectural and Transportation
Barriers Compliance Board upon receipt
of any complaint alleging that a building
or facility that is subject to the
Architectural Barriers Act of 1968, as
amended (42 U.S.C. 4151–4157), is not
readily accessible to and usable by
individuals with disabilities.
(e) If the agency receives a complaint
over which it does not have jurisdiction,
it shall promptly notify the complainant
and shall make reasonable efforts to
refer the complaint to the appropriate
entity.
§§ 1207.171–1207.999
[Reserved]
Bentley M. Roberts, Jr.,
Clerk of the Board.
[FR Doc. 05–9209 Filed 5–6–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7400–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service
7 CFR Part 301
[Docket No. 03–052–3]
Karnal Bunt; Compensation for
Custom Harvesters in Northern Texas
Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: We are adopting as a final
rule, with changes, an interim rule that
amended the Karnal bunt regulations to
provide for the payment of
compensation to custom harvesters for
losses they incurred due to the
requirement that their equipment be
E:\FR\FM\09MYR1.SGM
09MYR1
24298
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 88 / Monday, May 9, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
cleaned and disinfected after four
counties in northern Texas were
declared regulated areas for Karnal bunt
during the 2000–2001 crop season. The
interim rule also amended the
regulations to provide for the payment
of compensation to owners or lessees of
other equipment that came into contact
with Karnal bunt-positive host crops in
those counties and was required to be
cleaned and disinfected during the
2000–2001 crop season. This final rule
amends the interim rule to indicate that
affected parties may apply for
compensation whenever disinfection
was required by an inspector and to
extend the deadline by which claims for
compensation must have been
submitted. The payment of
compensation is necessary to reduce the
economic burden imposed by the
regulations and to encourage the
participation of, and obtain cooperation
from, affected individuals in our efforts
to contain and reduce the presence of
Karnal bunt in the United States.
DATES: Effective Date: May 9, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.
Matthew H. Royer, Senior Program
Advisor, Pest Detection and
Management Programs, PPQ, APHIS,
4700 River Road Unit 26, Riverdale, MD
20737–1234; (301) 734–3769.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Karnal bunt is a fungal disease of
wheat (Triticum aestivum), durum
wheat (Triticum durum), and triticale
(Triticum aestivum X Secale cereale), a
hybrid of wheat and rye. Karnal bunt is
caused by the smut fungus Tilletia
indica (Mitra) Mundkur and is spread
primarily through the movement of
infected seed. In the absence of
measures taken by the U.S. Department
of Agriculture (USDA) to prevent its
spread, the establishment of Karnal bunt
in the United States could have
significant consequences with regard to
the export of wheat to international
markets.
The regulations regarding Karnal bunt
are set forth in 7 CFR 301.89–1 through
301.89–16 (referred to below as the
regulations). Among other things, the
regulations define areas regulated for
Karnal bunt and restrict the movement
of certain regulated articles, including
wheat seed and grain, from the
regulated areas. The regulations have
also provided for the payment of
compensation for certain growers,
handlers, seed companies, owners of
grain storage facilities, flour millers, and
participants in the National Karnal Bunt
Survey who incurred losses and
VerDate jul<14>2003
17:12 May 06, 2005
Jkt 205001
expenses because of Karnal bunt during
certain years.
In an interim rule effective and
published in the Federal Register on
May 5, 2004 (69 FR 24909–24016,
Docket No. 03–052–1), we amended the
regulations in § 301.89–16 to provide for
the payment of compensation to custom
harvesters whose mechanized
harvesting equipment was used to
harvest Karnal bunt-positive host crops
in Archer, Baylor, Throckmorton, and
Young Counties, TX, during the 2000–
2001 crop season and was required to be
cleaned and disinfected prior to
movement from those counties. This
compensation was intended to
reimburse custom harvesters for the cost
of that cleaning and disinfection. The
interim rule also provided for the
payment of compensation equivalent to
the value of one contract that an eligible
custom harvester lost due to the
downtime necessitated by cleaning and
disinfection. If an eligible custom
harvester did not lose a contract due to
this downtime, the interim rule
provided compensation for the fixed
costs he or she incurred during the time
the machine was being cleaned and
disinfected. The interim rule also
provided for the payment of
compensation for the expenses
associated with the cleaning and
disinfection of other types of equipment
used in the four affected counties. The
specific amounts of compensation
provided were discussed in detail in the
interim rule.
In a subsequent technical amendment
effective and published in the Federal
Register on July 8, 2004 (69 FR 41181,
Docket No. 03–052–2), we extended the
deadline for submitting claims for
compensation under the regulations
established by the interim rule from
September 2, 2004, to December 31,
2004.
Comments on the interim rule were
required to be received on or before July
6, 2004. We received 334 comments by
that date. They were from custom
harvesters, a representative of custom
harvesters, and a State plant protection
organization. We carefully considered
all the comments we received. They are
discussed below by topic.
Eligibility for Compensation
The interim rule provided for the
payment of compensation for costs
related to the cleaning and disinfection
of mechanized harvesting equipment
that had been used to harvest host crops
that had tested positive for Karnal bunt
and for costs related to the cleaning and
disinfection of other equipment that had
come into contact with host crops that
had tested positive for Karnal bunt.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Several commenters stated that all
mechanized harvesting equipment
leaving Archer, Baylor, Throckmorton,
and Young Counties during the 2000–
2001 crop season was required by
Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service (APHIS) inspectors to be
cleaned and disinfected, regardless of
whether the host crops the mechanized
harvesting equipment had been used to
harvest had been tested and found to be
positive for Karnal bunt. The
commenters asked that we amend the
rule to provide for the payment of
compensation to custom harvesters
whose mechanized harvesting
equipment was used to harvest host
crops that had not been tested for Karnal
bunt but was nevertheless required by
an inspector to be cleaned and
disinfected prior to movement from the
regulated counties.
In an emergency situation, it is
important to act quickly to prevent the
spread of Karnal bunt. The inspectors
who required cleaning and disinfection
for mechanized harvesting equipment
that had been used to harvest crops that
had not been tested for Karnal bunt had
determined that the host crops were
infected according to the definition of
infestation (infected) in § 301.89–1 of
the regulations, which specifies that
crops may be considered infected if,
among other things, there exist
‘‘circumstances that make it reasonable
to believe that Karnal bunt is present.’’
As we discussed in the preamble of
the interim rule, any delays associated
with cleaning and disinfection cause
custom harvesters to incur losses. If
inspectors had halted the movement of
mechanized harvesting equipment from
the regulated counties pending the
receipt of Karnal bunt test results for the
host crops the mechanized harvesting
equipment was used to harvest, the
delays suffered by the custom harvesters
could have been longer, which could
have resulted in additional costs
associated with complying with the
regulations. By requiring that any
mechanized harvesting equipment used
to harvest host crops in the four
regulated counties be cleaned and
disinfected prior to moving from the
regulated area, even if the host crops
that the mechanized harvesting
equipment had been used to harvest had
not yet been tested, inspectors were
acting to minimize these costs.
However, some costs were still incurred
due to cleaning and disinfection, and it
was our intent to provide for the
payment of compensation to all custom
harvesters whose equipment was
required by an inspector to be cleaned
and disinfected prior to movement from
the regulated counties.
E:\FR\FM\09MYR1.SGM
09MYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 88 / Monday, May 9, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
Similar considerations apply to
owners or lessees of other equipment in
Archer, Baylor, Throckmorton, or Young
Counties during the 2000–2001 crop
season who were eligible for
compensation under the interim rule.
The owners or lessees of these pieces of
equipment had scheduled the
movement of the equipment from the
affected area prior to the designation of
these counties as regulated areas and
needed to move the equipment out of
the regulated areas to continue their
harvesting. Any delays associated with
testing the host crops with which this
other equipment came into contact for
Karnal bunt would have further
hampered the harvesting efforts for
which the other equipment needed to
move from the regulated counties.
However, the commenters are correct
that the compensation provisions
established by the interim rule
technically excluded from applying for
compensation those custom harvesters
whose equipment had been used to
harvest host crops that had not been
tested for Karnal bunt but was
nevertheless required by an inspector to
be cleaned and disinfected. The
compensation provisions also excluded
owners or lessees of other equipment
that came into contact with host crops
that had not been tested for Karnal bunt
but was nevertheless required by an
inspector to be cleaned and disinfected
from applying for compensation.
Therefore, in this final rule, we have
amended the phrases that begin each
subparagraph of the specific
compensation provisions established by
the interim rule in paragraph (d) of
§ 301.89–16 that describe who is eligible
to apply for compensation. As the
interim rule established it in the
paragraphs describing compensation
provided to custom harvesters, this
phrase read:
‘‘Custom harvesters who harvested
host crops that tested positive for Karnal
bunt and that were grown in Archer,
Baylor, Throckmorton, or Young
Counties, TX, during the 2000–2001
crop season * * *’’
We are amending it to read:
‘‘Custom harvesters who harvested
host crops that an inspector determined
to be infected with Karnal bunt and that
were grown in Archer, Baylor,
Throckmorton, or Young Counties, TX,
during the 2000–2001 crop season
* * *’’
Similarly, the phrase that begins the
paragraph providing compensation to
owners or lessees of other equipment
read:
‘‘Owners or lessees of equipment
other than mechanized harvesting
equipment and seed conditioning
VerDate jul<14>2003
17:12 May 06, 2005
Jkt 205001
equipment that came into contact with
host crops that tested positive for Karnal
bunt in Archer, Baylor, Throckmorton,
or Young Counties, TX, during the
2000–2001 crop season * * *’’
We are amending it to read:
‘‘Owners or lessees of equipment
other than mechanized harvesting
equipment and seed conditioning
equipment that came into contact with
host crops that an inspector determined
to be infected with Karnal bunt in
Archer, Baylor, Throckmorton, or Young
Counties, TX, during the 2000–2001
crop season * * *’’
In addition, the regulations
established by the interim rule
described the PPQ–540 certificate
issued according to § 301.89–6 to allow
the movement of equipment from a
regulated area as follows:
‘‘* * * the PPQ–540 certificate issued
to allow the movement of mechanized
harvesting equipment from a regulated
area after it has been used to harvest
Karnal bunt-positive host crops and has
been subsequently cleaned and
disinfected.’’
We are amending this description to
read as follows:
‘‘* * * the PPQ–540 certificate issued
to allow the movement of mechanized
harvesting equipment from a regulated
area after it has been used to harvest
host crops that an inspector determined
to be infected with Karnal bunt and has
been subsequently cleaned and
disinfected.’’
We have also changed other
references to ‘‘Karnal bunt-positive host
crops’’ in these paragraphs to refer to
‘‘Karnal bunt-infected host crops.’’ We
believe these amendments address the
commenters’ concerns.
Several commenters stated that
compensation should only be offered to
members of U.S. Custom Harvesters, an
industry trade group, to ensure that any
compensation paid under the provisions
established by the interim rule would be
paid to a verifiable U.S. custom
harvester.
We believe that any custom harvester
who was required to clean and disinfect
his or her mechanized harvesting
equipment prior to movement from the
four regulated counties in the 2000–
2001 crop season and who submits a
claim in accordance with the
requirements of the interim rule should
be eligible for compensation, regardless
of his or her membership status in an
industry trade group. We are making no
changes to the interim rule in response
to this comment.
Documentation of Claims
Several commenters stated that,
during the outbreak of Karnal bunt in
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
24299
the four Texas counties, APHIS
inspectors told some harvesters who
had harvested wheat in the regulated
area but who had already moved their
equipment from the regulated area that
cleaning and disinfection of their
mechanized harvesting equipment was
necessary to prevent the spread of
Karnal bunt. According to these
commenters, the inspectors stated that a
verbal attestation of having cleaned and
disinfected their mechanized harvesting
equipment according to the
requirements of § 301.89–13(a) was
sufficient to allow further movement
and did not issue a PPQ–540 certificate
to allow the movement of the
mechanized harvesting equipment. The
commenters specifically cited one
custom harvester who had cleaned and
disinfected his equipment in another
county, and another who cleaned and
disinfected his equipment in another
State. Since the compensation
provisions established by the interim
rule required that the claimant present
a copy of the PPQ–540 certificate, these
harvesters would not be able to apply
for compensation. The commenters
suggested that claimants be allowed to
present a ‘‘Certificate of Claim in Good
Faith’’ in lieu of a PPQ–540 certificate.
Another commenter stated that it was
likely that some custom harvesters had
misplaced their PPQ–540 certificates in
the time since the 2000–2001 crop
season and asked that APHIS waive the
requirement for the PPQ–540 provided
that APHIS has a copy of the PPQ–540
issued to the affected custom harvester.
We are aware of claims that certain
custom harvesters cleaned and
disinfected their mechanized harvesting
equipment at the suggestion of APHIS
inspectors after they had moved their
mechanized harvesting equipment from
the regulated counties. However, a
relatively small number of custom
harvesters may have been affected by
this situation, and those custom
harvesters do not all have the same
evidence in support of their claims that
APHIS suggested that they clean and
disinfect their mechanized harvesting
equipment; therefore, we prefer to
evaluate claims for compensation
resulting from this situation on a caseby-case basis rather than providing for
the payment of such compensation in
the regulations. We invite custom
harvesters who cleaned and disinfected
their equipment at the suggestion of an
APHIS inspector to contact the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT or write to Plant Protection and
Quarantine, APHIS, USDA, 304 West
Main Street, Olney, TX 76374, in order
to present their evidence. We are
making no changes to the regulations
E:\FR\FM\09MYR1.SGM
09MYR1
24300
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 88 / Monday, May 9, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
established in the interim rule in
response to these comments.
In response to the second
commenter’s concern, if any custom
harvesters have misplaced their PPQ–
540 certificates, we will provide a copy
of their PPQ–540 certificate upon
request. Custom harvesters needing a
copy of the PPQ–540 certificate should
address their requests to Plant
Protection and Quarantine, APHIS,
USDA, 304 West Main Street, Olney, TX
76374.
Several commenters stated that almost
all contracts between growers and
custom harvesters are verbal contracts.
These commenters requested that we
accept a notarized statement asserting
that a custom harvester harvested wheat
in one of the four counties during the
2000–2001 crop season, along with the
name and address of the producer for
whom he or she harvested, in lieu of a
contract or other signed agreement for
harvesting.
We recognize that almost all contracts
between growers and custom harvesters
are verbal contracts. This is why the
interim rule provided that an affidavit
stating that the custom harvester entered
into an agreement to harvest in Archer,
Baylor, Throckmorton, or Young County
during the 2000–2001 crop season prior
to the designation of the relevant county
as a regulated area for Karnal bunt could
be submitted in lieu of a contract or
other signed agreement as proof that the
custom harvester harvested in the
regulated area. However, due to an
oversight, we did not provide that an
affidavit stating that the custom
harvester entered into an agreement to
harvest could be submitted in lieu of the
contract for harvesting in an area not
regulated for Karnal bunt that had been
lost due to cleaning and disinfecting
harvesting equipment and for which the
custom harvester wished to receive
compensation. This final rule corrects
this oversight. Just as the contract for
which the custom harvester will receive
compensation is required to have been
signed on a date prior to the designation
of the relevant county as a regulated
area for Karnal bunt, the affidavit will
be required to state that the custom
harvester entered into an agreement to
harvest on a date prior to the
designation of the relevant county as a
regulated area for Karnal bunt.
Relating to the submission of
affidavits, we are making one additional
change in this final rule. The regulations
established by the interim rule did not
specify who had to sign the affidavit to
attest that the custom harvester had
entered into an agreement to harvest. In
this final rule, we are amending the
regulations to specify in each case in
VerDate jul<14>2003
17:12 May 06, 2005
Jkt 205001
which an affidavit may be submitted
that the affidavit must be signed by the
customer of the custom harvester with
whom the custom harvester entered into
an agreement to harvest.
Other Compensation
Several commenters stated that the
compensation provided by the interim
rule does not cover the actual loss of
revenue or the devaluation of
equipment associated with cleaning and
disinfection after exposure to Karnal
bunt-infected crops. According to these
commenters, in some cases, custom
harvesters who harvested wheat that
tested positive for Karnal bunt have not
been able to trade or sell their
mechanized harvesting equipment due
to unwarranted fear of contamination.
The commenters stated that custom
harvesters in that situation should
receive compensation similar to that
received by grain handlers in Arizona
who handled Karnal bunt-positive host
crops after the 1996 outbreak of Karnal
bunt in that State; these commenters
stated that the grain handlers received
compensation for 3 years of lost revenue
and contracts.
It is USDA policy to pay
compensation only for documented
costs of complying with the regulations.
The interim rule provided
compensation for the cost of cleaning
and disinfection of mechanized
harvesting equipment and for either a
contract lost due to the downtime
associated with cleaning and
disinfection or for fixed costs incurred
during the downtime associated with
cleaning and disinfection. We
determined the amount of compensation
provided for these items based on data
provided by U.S. Custom Harvesters.
The grain handlers in Arizona were
compensated in accordance with
paragraph (b)(2) of § 301.89–14, which
provided for the payment of
compensation for loss in value of wheat.
The determination of how much value
the wheat had lost was based in part on
any contracts the grain handlers might
have signed; however, compensation for
the wheat did not exceed $2.50 per
bushel under any circumstances.
Contrary to the commenters’ assertion,
compensation was not provided to the
grain handlers for lost revenue or
contracts; contracts were used, when
available, to help determine the loss in
value of the affected wheat.
With regard to the concerns about
devaluation of equipment, it is APHIS’s
priority to ensure that the movement of
mechanized harvesting equipment from
a regulated area does not pose a risk of
spreading Karnal bunt into a
nonregulated area, and the cleaning and
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
disinfection process described in
§ 301.89–13 mitigates that risk. We do
not believe it is appropriate for APHIS
to provide compensation for a possible
loss of equipment value that is
undocumented and that, if it exists, is
due to reluctance on the part of private
buyers rather than to a demonstrable
risk that the equipment might spread
Karnal bunt. We are making no changes
to the interim rule in response to this
comment.
Compensation for Other Custom
Harvesters
Although they did not take issue with
any of the provisions of the interim rule,
several other commenters urged us to
expand its scope to provide
compensation to custom harvesters who
participated in the initial Karnal bunt
survey in Arizona in 1996. These
commenters pointed to the interim rule
as setting a precedent for providing
compensation to custom harvesters that
should be followed in the case of these
Arizona harvesters.
Many of these commenters cited
growers, handlers, seed companies, and
wheat straw producers as other entities
in the wheat marketing chain to whom
APHIS had provided compensation for
lost contract value. Some of these
commenters suggested that APHIS
should provide for the payment of
compensation to the custom harvesters
similar to that provided to seed
companies that lost revenue from wheat
seed they had obtained from a regulated
area because buyers would not accept
APHIS’s certification that the seed was
free of Karnal bunt.
One of these commenters stated that
custom harvesters who had participated
in the initial Karnal bunt survey had
suffered damage to their harvesting
equipment and lost existing contracts as
well as long-standing business
relationships over the 1996–1997, 1997–
1998, and 1998–1999 crop seasons.
After cleaning and disinfection
according to a protocol required by
APHIS, their equipment had suffered
damage that made it unusable. (This
cleaning and disinfection protocol for
mechanized harvesting equipment was
required administratively and was never
added to the regulations; different, and
potentially less damaging, cleaning and
disinfection protocols were added to the
regulations in a final rule published in
the Federal Register on October 4, 1996
[61 FR 52189–52213, Docket No. 96–
016–14].) The harvesters were not
compensated for this damage until after
the 1998–1999 crop season. In addition,
there were reports that growers would
not hire these custom harvesters
because they did not want equipment
E:\FR\FM\09MYR1.SGM
09MYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 88 / Monday, May 9, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
associated with the pre-harvest
sampling program to harvest in their
fields due to fears that the equipment
would spread Karnal bunt.
This commenter requested that APHIS
provide for the payment of
compensation for the revenue that
would have been realized from
contractual relationships that were lost
due to the growers’ reluctance to allow
these custom harvesters’ equipment to
harvest in their fields; the commenter
also suggested appropriate supporting
documentation for such claims. The
commenter suggested the example of
grain handlers in Arizona as a case
where income tax statements had been
used to provide proof of loss as a basis
for compensation.
With regard to the compensation paid
to other entities in the wheat production
and marketing chain, we would like to
clarify that, as described above, APHIS
has only paid compensation to those
entities for loss in value of wheat due
to the presence of Karnal bunt.
Compensation was not provided to any
of these entities, including grain
handlers, for lost revenue or contracts.
It is USDA policy not to provide
compensation for lost income, which is
what the commenters requested.
The commenters do not dispute that
the custom harvesters who participated
in the initial Karnal bunt survey were
compensated for the damage to their
equipment caused by cleaning and
disinfection. In addition, the custom
harvesters participating in this survey
were working under a contract with the
USDA to undertake the survey; they lost
no contracts due to the downtime
necessitated by cleaning and
disinfection when they moved between
fields. Therefore, we believe that we
have provided compensation to the
custom harvesters who participated in
the initial Karnal bunt survey that is
equivalent to the compensation
provided to the custom harvesters who
harvested in Archer, Baylor,
Throckmorton, and Young Counties and
were required to clean and disinfect
their equipment prior to movement from
a regulated area. We are making no
changes to the interim rule in response
to these comments.
Some commenters further requested
that compensation be paid to custom
harvesters in California and Arizona
who must clean their mechanized
harvesting equipment due to Karnal
bunt quarantines in those States.
The commenters did not specify
whether the custom harvesters to whom
they were referring were harvesting host
crops in previously regulated areas or in
previously nonregulated areas. With
regard to previously regulated areas, on
VerDate jul<14>2003
17:12 May 06, 2005
Jkt 205001
August 6, 2001, we published in the
Federal Register a final rule (66 FR
40839–40843, Docket No. 96–016–37)
that established the compensation levels
for the 1999–2000 crop season and
subsequent years and made several
other changes to the compensation
regulations. One of these changes was
that, after the 2000–2001 crop season,
compensation would no longer be made
available to persons growing or
handling host crops that were
knowingly planted in previously
regulated areas. This change applies to
custom harvesters as well as other
parties.
With regard to previously
nonregulated areas, we plan to initiate
rulemaking to amend the regulations to
extend the compensation provisions
established in the May 2004 interim rule
to custom harvesters who harvest host
crops that test positive for Karnal bunt
and owners or lessees of other
equipment that is exposed to host crops
that test positive for Karnal bunt in any
areas not previously regulated for
Karnal bunt. That proposed rule would
apply to the 2002–2003 through 2005–
2006 crop seasons.
Change of Deadline for Compensation
Claims
Claims for the compensation provided
by the interim rule were originally
required to be submitted by September
2, 2004. As noted previously, a
subsequent technical amendment
extended the deadline for submitting
claims for compensation to December
31, 2004. However, in the
Supplementary Information section of
the interim rule, we stated that if a
comment we received in response to the
interim rule caused us to change the
compensation provisions, we would
provide an additional 120-day period
after the effective date of the final rule
during which affected persons could
submit claims for compensation.
Therefore, in addition to the changes
discussed above, we are extending the
deadline for compensation claims in
this final rule from December 31, 2004,
to September 6, 2005.
Therefore, for the reasons given in the
interim rule and in this document, we
are adopting the interim rule as a final
rule, with the changes discussed in this
document.
This action affirms the information
contained in the interim rule concerning
Executive Order 12866 and the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. The potential
increase in compensation under this
final rule is no more than $9,000, which
does not significantly change the
conclusions of the interim rule’s
executive order and regulatory
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
24301
flexibility analyses. This action also
affirms the information contained in the
interim rule concerning Executive
Orders 12372 and 12988.
Further, this action has been
determined to be not significant for the
purposes of Executive Order 12866 and,
therefore, has not been reviewed by the
Office of Management and Budget.
Effective Date
Pursuant to the administrative
procedure provisions in 5 U.S.C. 553,
we find good cause for making this rule
effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. The
interim rule adopted as final by this rule
was effective on May 5, 2004. This rule
indicates that affected parties may apply
for compensation whenever disinfection
was required by an inspector and
extends the deadline by which claims
for compensation must be submitted to
September 6, 2005. Immediate action is
necessary to indicate that affected
parties may apply for compensation
whenever disinfection was required by
an inspector and to extend the deadline
by which claims for compensation must
be submitted in order to relieve the
economic burden placed on small
entities by the domestic quarantine
regulations for Karnal bunt. Therefore,
the Administrator of the Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service has
determined that this rule should be
effective upon publication in the
Federal Register.
Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.), the information collection and
recordkeeping requirements in the
interim rule have been approved by the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB). The assigned OMB control
number is 0579–0248.
Government Paperwork Elimination
Act Compliance
The Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service is committed to
compliance with the Government
Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA),
which requires Government agencies in
general to provide the public the option
of submitting information or transacting
business electronically to the maximum
extent possible. For information
pertinent to GPEA compliance related to
the interim rule, please contact Mrs.
Celeste Sickles, APHIS’ Information
Collection Coordinator, at (301) 734–
7477.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 301
Agricultural commodities, Plant
diseases and pests, Quarantine,
E:\FR\FM\09MYR1.SGM
09MYR1
24302
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 88 / Monday, May 9, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Transportation.
I Accordingly, the interim rule
amending 7 CFR part 301 that was
published at 69 FR 24909–24016 on May
5, 2004, is adopted as a final rule with
the following changes:
PART 301—DOMESTIC QUARANTINE
NOTICES
1. The authority citation for part 301
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7701–7772; 7 CFR 2.22,
2.80, and 371.3.
Section 301.75–15 also issued under Sec.
204, Title II, Pub. L. 106–113, 113 Stat.
1501A–293; sections 301.75–15 and 301.75–
16 also issued under Sec. 203, Title II, Pub.
L. 106–224, 114 Stat. 400 (7 U.S.C. 1421
note).
I 2. In § 301.89–16, paragraph (d) is
amended as follows:
I a. In the introductory text of the
paragraph, by removing the date
‘‘December 31, 2004’’ and adding the
date ‘‘September 6, 2005’’ in its place.
I b. In paragraph (d)(1)(i), in the first
sentence after the paragraph heading, by
removing the words ‘‘tested positive for’’
and adding the words ‘‘an inspector
determined to be infected with’’ in their
place; in the second sentence, by
removing the words ‘‘Karnal buntpositive’’ and adding the words ‘‘Karnal
bunt-infected’’ in their place; and in the
last sentence, by adding the words ‘‘,
signed by the customer with whom the
custom harvester entered into the
agreement’’ before the words ‘‘; a copy
of’’ and by removing the words ‘‘Karnal
bunt-positive host crops’’ and adding the
words ‘‘host crops that an inspector
determined to be infected with Karnal
bunt’’ in their place.
I c. By revising paragraph (d)(1)(ii) to
read as set forth below.
I d. In paragraph (d)(1)(iii), in the first
sentence after the paragraph heading, by
removing the words ‘‘tested positive for’’
and adding the words ‘‘an inspector
determined to be infected with’’ in their
place; and in the last sentence, by adding
the words ‘‘, signed by the customer with
whom the custom harvester entered into
the agreement’’ before the words ‘‘; and
a copy of’’ and by removing the words
‘‘Karnal bunt-positive host crops’’ and
adding the words ‘‘host crops that an
inspector determined to be infected with
Karnal bunt’’ in their place.
I e. In paragraph (d)(2), in the first
sentence after the paragraph heading, by
removing the words ‘‘tested positive for’’
and adding the words ‘‘an inspector
determined to be infected with’’ in their
place; and in the last sentence, by
removing the words ‘‘Karnal buntpositive host crops’’ and adding the
VerDate jul<14>2003
17:12 May 06, 2005
Jkt 205001
words ‘‘host crops that an inspector
determined to be infected with Karnal
bunt’’ in their place.
§ 301.89–16 Compensation for grain
storage facilities, flour millers, National
Survey participants, and certain custom
harvesters and equipment owners for the
1999–2000 and subsequent crop seasons.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) Contracts lost due to cleaning and
disinfection. Custom harvesters who
harvested host crops that an inspector
determined to be infected with Karnal
bunt and that were grown in Archer,
Baylor, Throckmorton, or Young
Counties, TX, during the 2000–2001
crop season are also eligible to be
compensated for the revenue lost if they
lost one contract due to downtime
necessitated by cleaning and
disinfection, if the contract to harvest
Karnal bunt-infected host crops in a
previously nonregulated area was
signed before the area was declared a
regulated area for Karnal bunt.
Compensation will only be provided for
one contract lost due to cleaning and
disinfection. Compensation for any
contract that was lost due to cleaning
and disinfection will be either the full
value of the contract or $23.48 for each
acre that was to have been harvested
under the contract, whichever is less. To
claim compensation, a custom harvester
must provide copies of a contract or
other signed agreement for harvesting in
Archer, Baylor, Throckmorton, or Young
County during the 2000–2001 crop
season, signed on a date prior to the
designation of the county as a regulated
area for Karnal bunt, or an affidavit
stating that the custom harvester entered
into an agreement to harvest in Archer,
Baylor, Throckmorton, or Young County
during the 2000–2001 crop season prior
to the designation of the county as a
regulated area for Karnal bunt, signed by
the customer with whom the custom
harvester entered into the agreement; a
copy of the PPQ–540 certificate issued
to allow the movement of mechanized
harvesting equipment from a regulated
area after it has been used to harvest
host crops that an inspector determined
to be infected with Karnal bunt and had
been subsequently cleaned and
disinfected; and the contract for
harvesting in an area not regulated for
Karnal bunt that had been lost due to
time lost to cleaning and disinfecting
harvesting equipment, signed on a date
prior to the designation of the relevant
county as a regulated area for Karnal
bunt, for which the custom harvester
will receive compensation, or an
affidavit stating that the custom
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
harvester entered into an agreement to
harvest in an area not regulated for
Karnal bunt prior to the designation of
the county as a regulated area for Karnal
bunt and stating the number of acres
that were to have been harvested and
the amount the custom harvester was to
have been paid under the agreement,
signed by the customer with whom the
custom harvester entered into the
agreement.
*
*
*
*
*
Done in Washington, DC, this 3rd day of
May 2005.
Kevin Shea,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 05–9194 Filed 5–6–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–34–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 300
RIN 1901–AB11
Guidelines for Voluntary Greenhouse
Gas Reporting
Office of Policy and
International Affairs, U.S. Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Interim final rule and draft
technical guidelines; extension of
comment period.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: On March 24, 2005, the
Department of Energy published Interim
Final General Guidelines (70 FR 15169)
governing the Voluntary Reporting of
Greenhouse Gases Program established
by section 1605(b) of the Energy Policy
Act of 1992 and a notice of availability
and opportunity to comment on draft
technical guidelines (70 FR 15164)
referenced by the general guidelines.
These notices announced that the
closing date for receiving public
comments on both documents would be
May 23, 2005. Several organizations
requested that the comment period be
extended to allow additional time for
understanding and preparing written
comments on the Interim Final General
Guidelines and draft Technical
Guidelines. The Department has agreed
to extend the comment period to June
22, 2005.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before June 22, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Please submit written
comments to:
1605bguidelines.comments@hq.doe.gov.
Alternatively, written comments may be
sent to: Mark Friedrichs, PI–40; Office of
Policy and International Affairs, U.S.
Department of Energy, 1000
Independence Ave., SW., Washington,
E:\FR\FM\09MYR1.SGM
09MYR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 88 (Monday, May 9, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 24297-24302]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-9194]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
7 CFR Part 301
[Docket No. 03-052-3]
Karnal Bunt; Compensation for Custom Harvesters in Northern Texas
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are adopting as a final rule, with changes, an interim rule
that amended the Karnal bunt regulations to provide for the payment of
compensation to custom harvesters for losses they incurred due to the
requirement that their equipment be
[[Page 24298]]
cleaned and disinfected after four counties in northern Texas were
declared regulated areas for Karnal bunt during the 2000-2001 crop
season. The interim rule also amended the regulations to provide for
the payment of compensation to owners or lessees of other equipment
that came into contact with Karnal bunt-positive host crops in those
counties and was required to be cleaned and disinfected during the
2000-2001 crop season. This final rule amends the interim rule to
indicate that affected parties may apply for compensation whenever
disinfection was required by an inspector and to extend the deadline by
which claims for compensation must have been submitted. The payment of
compensation is necessary to reduce the economic burden imposed by the
regulations and to encourage the participation of, and obtain
cooperation from, affected individuals in our efforts to contain and
reduce the presence of Karnal bunt in the United States.
DATES: Effective Date: May 9, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Matthew H. Royer, Senior Program
Advisor, Pest Detection and Management Programs, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River
Road Unit 26, Riverdale, MD 20737-1234; (301) 734-3769.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Karnal bunt is a fungal disease of wheat (Triticum aestivum), durum
wheat (Triticum durum), and triticale (Triticum aestivum X Secale
cereale), a hybrid of wheat and rye. Karnal bunt is caused by the smut
fungus Tilletia indica (Mitra) Mundkur and is spread primarily through
the movement of infected seed. In the absence of measures taken by the
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to prevent its spread, the
establishment of Karnal bunt in the United States could have
significant consequences with regard to the export of wheat to
international markets.
The regulations regarding Karnal bunt are set forth in 7 CFR
301.89-1 through 301.89-16 (referred to below as the regulations).
Among other things, the regulations define areas regulated for Karnal
bunt and restrict the movement of certain regulated articles, including
wheat seed and grain, from the regulated areas. The regulations have
also provided for the payment of compensation for certain growers,
handlers, seed companies, owners of grain storage facilities, flour
millers, and participants in the National Karnal Bunt Survey who
incurred losses and expenses because of Karnal bunt during certain
years.
In an interim rule effective and published in the Federal Register
on May 5, 2004 (69 FR 24909-24016, Docket No. 03-052-1), we amended the
regulations in Sec. 301.89-16 to provide for the payment of
compensation to custom harvesters whose mechanized harvesting equipment
was used to harvest Karnal bunt-positive host crops in Archer, Baylor,
Throckmorton, and Young Counties, TX, during the 2000-2001 crop season
and was required to be cleaned and disinfected prior to movement from
those counties. This compensation was intended to reimburse custom
harvesters for the cost of that cleaning and disinfection. The interim
rule also provided for the payment of compensation equivalent to the
value of one contract that an eligible custom harvester lost due to the
downtime necessitated by cleaning and disinfection. If an eligible
custom harvester did not lose a contract due to this downtime, the
interim rule provided compensation for the fixed costs he or she
incurred during the time the machine was being cleaned and disinfected.
The interim rule also provided for the payment of compensation for the
expenses associated with the cleaning and disinfection of other types
of equipment used in the four affected counties. The specific amounts
of compensation provided were discussed in detail in the interim rule.
In a subsequent technical amendment effective and published in the
Federal Register on July 8, 2004 (69 FR 41181, Docket No. 03-052-2), we
extended the deadline for submitting claims for compensation under the
regulations established by the interim rule from September 2, 2004, to
December 31, 2004.
Comments on the interim rule were required to be received on or
before July 6, 2004. We received 334 comments by that date. They were
from custom harvesters, a representative of custom harvesters, and a
State plant protection organization. We carefully considered all the
comments we received. They are discussed below by topic.
Eligibility for Compensation
The interim rule provided for the payment of compensation for costs
related to the cleaning and disinfection of mechanized harvesting
equipment that had been used to harvest host crops that had tested
positive for Karnal bunt and for costs related to the cleaning and
disinfection of other equipment that had come into contact with host
crops that had tested positive for Karnal bunt. Several commenters
stated that all mechanized harvesting equipment leaving Archer, Baylor,
Throckmorton, and Young Counties during the 2000-2001 crop season was
required by Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)
inspectors to be cleaned and disinfected, regardless of whether the
host crops the mechanized harvesting equipment had been used to harvest
had been tested and found to be positive for Karnal bunt. The
commenters asked that we amend the rule to provide for the payment of
compensation to custom harvesters whose mechanized harvesting equipment
was used to harvest host crops that had not been tested for Karnal bunt
but was nevertheless required by an inspector to be cleaned and
disinfected prior to movement from the regulated counties.
In an emergency situation, it is important to act quickly to
prevent the spread of Karnal bunt. The inspectors who required cleaning
and disinfection for mechanized harvesting equipment that had been used
to harvest crops that had not been tested for Karnal bunt had
determined that the host crops were infected according to the
definition of infestation (infected) in Sec. 301.89-1 of the
regulations, which specifies that crops may be considered infected if,
among other things, there exist ``circumstances that make it reasonable
to believe that Karnal bunt is present.''
As we discussed in the preamble of the interim rule, any delays
associated with cleaning and disinfection cause custom harvesters to
incur losses. If inspectors had halted the movement of mechanized
harvesting equipment from the regulated counties pending the receipt of
Karnal bunt test results for the host crops the mechanized harvesting
equipment was used to harvest, the delays suffered by the custom
harvesters could have been longer, which could have resulted in
additional costs associated with complying with the regulations. By
requiring that any mechanized harvesting equipment used to harvest host
crops in the four regulated counties be cleaned and disinfected prior
to moving from the regulated area, even if the host crops that the
mechanized harvesting equipment had been used to harvest had not yet
been tested, inspectors were acting to minimize these costs. However,
some costs were still incurred due to cleaning and disinfection, and it
was our intent to provide for the payment of compensation to all custom
harvesters whose equipment was required by an inspector to be cleaned
and disinfected prior to movement from the regulated counties.
[[Page 24299]]
Similar considerations apply to owners or lessees of other
equipment in Archer, Baylor, Throckmorton, or Young Counties during the
2000-2001 crop season who were eligible for compensation under the
interim rule. The owners or lessees of these pieces of equipment had
scheduled the movement of the equipment from the affected area prior to
the designation of these counties as regulated areas and needed to move
the equipment out of the regulated areas to continue their harvesting.
Any delays associated with testing the host crops with which this other
equipment came into contact for Karnal bunt would have further hampered
the harvesting efforts for which the other equipment needed to move
from the regulated counties.
However, the commenters are correct that the compensation
provisions established by the interim rule technically excluded from
applying for compensation those custom harvesters whose equipment had
been used to harvest host crops that had not been tested for Karnal
bunt but was nevertheless required by an inspector to be cleaned and
disinfected. The compensation provisions also excluded owners or
lessees of other equipment that came into contact with host crops that
had not been tested for Karnal bunt but was nevertheless required by an
inspector to be cleaned and disinfected from applying for compensation.
Therefore, in this final rule, we have amended the phrases that begin
each subparagraph of the specific compensation provisions established
by the interim rule in paragraph (d) of Sec. 301.89-16 that describe
who is eligible to apply for compensation. As the interim rule
established it in the paragraphs describing compensation provided to
custom harvesters, this phrase read:
``Custom harvesters who harvested host crops that tested positive
for Karnal bunt and that were grown in Archer, Baylor, Throckmorton, or
Young Counties, TX, during the 2000-2001 crop season * * *''
We are amending it to read:
``Custom harvesters who harvested host crops that an inspector
determined to be infected with Karnal bunt and that were grown in
Archer, Baylor, Throckmorton, or Young Counties, TX, during the 2000-
2001 crop season * * *''
Similarly, the phrase that begins the paragraph providing
compensation to owners or lessees of other equipment read:
``Owners or lessees of equipment other than mechanized harvesting
equipment and seed conditioning equipment that came into contact with
host crops that tested positive for Karnal bunt in Archer, Baylor,
Throckmorton, or Young Counties, TX, during the 2000-2001 crop season *
* *''
We are amending it to read:
``Owners or lessees of equipment other than mechanized harvesting
equipment and seed conditioning equipment that came into contact with
host crops that an inspector determined to be infected with Karnal bunt
in Archer, Baylor, Throckmorton, or Young Counties, TX, during the
2000-2001 crop season * * *''
In addition, the regulations established by the interim rule
described the PPQ-540 certificate issued according to Sec. 301.89-6 to
allow the movement of equipment from a regulated area as follows:
``* * * the PPQ-540 certificate issued to allow the movement of
mechanized harvesting equipment from a regulated area after it has been
used to harvest Karnal bunt-positive host crops and has been
subsequently cleaned and disinfected.''
We are amending this description to read as follows:
``* * * the PPQ-540 certificate issued to allow the movement of
mechanized harvesting equipment from a regulated area after it has been
used to harvest host crops that an inspector determined to be infected
with Karnal bunt and has been subsequently cleaned and disinfected.''
We have also changed other references to ``Karnal bunt-positive
host crops'' in these paragraphs to refer to ``Karnal bunt-infected
host crops.'' We believe these amendments address the commenters'
concerns.
Several commenters stated that compensation should only be offered
to members of U.S. Custom Harvesters, an industry trade group, to
ensure that any compensation paid under the provisions established by
the interim rule would be paid to a verifiable U.S. custom harvester.
We believe that any custom harvester who was required to clean and
disinfect his or her mechanized harvesting equipment prior to movement
from the four regulated counties in the 2000-2001 crop season and who
submits a claim in accordance with the requirements of the interim rule
should be eligible for compensation, regardless of his or her
membership status in an industry trade group. We are making no changes
to the interim rule in response to this comment.
Documentation of Claims
Several commenters stated that, during the outbreak of Karnal bunt
in the four Texas counties, APHIS inspectors told some harvesters who
had harvested wheat in the regulated area but who had already moved
their equipment from the regulated area that cleaning and disinfection
of their mechanized harvesting equipment was necessary to prevent the
spread of Karnal bunt. According to these commenters, the inspectors
stated that a verbal attestation of having cleaned and disinfected
their mechanized harvesting equipment according to the requirements of
Sec. 301.89-13(a) was sufficient to allow further movement and did not
issue a PPQ-540 certificate to allow the movement of the mechanized
harvesting equipment. The commenters specifically cited one custom
harvester who had cleaned and disinfected his equipment in another
county, and another who cleaned and disinfected his equipment in
another State. Since the compensation provisions established by the
interim rule required that the claimant present a copy of the PPQ-540
certificate, these harvesters would not be able to apply for
compensation. The commenters suggested that claimants be allowed to
present a ``Certificate of Claim in Good Faith'' in lieu of a PPQ-540
certificate.
Another commenter stated that it was likely that some custom
harvesters had misplaced their PPQ-540 certificates in the time since
the 2000-2001 crop season and asked that APHIS waive the requirement
for the PPQ-540 provided that APHIS has a copy of the PPQ-540 issued to
the affected custom harvester.
We are aware of claims that certain custom harvesters cleaned and
disinfected their mechanized harvesting equipment at the suggestion of
APHIS inspectors after they had moved their mechanized harvesting
equipment from the regulated counties. However, a relatively small
number of custom harvesters may have been affected by this situation,
and those custom harvesters do not all have the same evidence in
support of their claims that APHIS suggested that they clean and
disinfect their mechanized harvesting equipment; therefore, we prefer
to evaluate claims for compensation resulting from this situation on a
case-by-case basis rather than providing for the payment of such
compensation in the regulations. We invite custom harvesters who
cleaned and disinfected their equipment at the suggestion of an APHIS
inspector to contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT or write to Plant Protection and Quarantine, APHIS, USDA, 304
West Main Street, Olney, TX 76374, in order to present their evidence.
We are making no changes to the regulations
[[Page 24300]]
established in the interim rule in response to these comments.
In response to the second commenter's concern, if any custom
harvesters have misplaced their PPQ-540 certificates, we will provide a
copy of their PPQ-540 certificate upon request. Custom harvesters
needing a copy of the PPQ-540 certificate should address their requests
to Plant Protection and Quarantine, APHIS, USDA, 304 West Main Street,
Olney, TX 76374.
Several commenters stated that almost all contracts between growers
and custom harvesters are verbal contracts. These commenters requested
that we accept a notarized statement asserting that a custom harvester
harvested wheat in one of the four counties during the 2000-2001 crop
season, along with the name and address of the producer for whom he or
she harvested, in lieu of a contract or other signed agreement for
harvesting.
We recognize that almost all contracts between growers and custom
harvesters are verbal contracts. This is why the interim rule provided
that an affidavit stating that the custom harvester entered into an
agreement to harvest in Archer, Baylor, Throckmorton, or Young County
during the 2000-2001 crop season prior to the designation of the
relevant county as a regulated area for Karnal bunt could be submitted
in lieu of a contract or other signed agreement as proof that the
custom harvester harvested in the regulated area. However, due to an
oversight, we did not provide that an affidavit stating that the custom
harvester entered into an agreement to harvest could be submitted in
lieu of the contract for harvesting in an area not regulated for Karnal
bunt that had been lost due to cleaning and disinfecting harvesting
equipment and for which the custom harvester wished to receive
compensation. This final rule corrects this oversight. Just as the
contract for which the custom harvester will receive compensation is
required to have been signed on a date prior to the designation of the
relevant county as a regulated area for Karnal bunt, the affidavit will
be required to state that the custom harvester entered into an
agreement to harvest on a date prior to the designation of the relevant
county as a regulated area for Karnal bunt.
Relating to the submission of affidavits, we are making one
additional change in this final rule. The regulations established by
the interim rule did not specify who had to sign the affidavit to
attest that the custom harvester had entered into an agreement to
harvest. In this final rule, we are amending the regulations to specify
in each case in which an affidavit may be submitted that the affidavit
must be signed by the customer of the custom harvester with whom the
custom harvester entered into an agreement to harvest.
Other Compensation
Several commenters stated that the compensation provided by the
interim rule does not cover the actual loss of revenue or the
devaluation of equipment associated with cleaning and disinfection
after exposure to Karnal bunt-infected crops. According to these
commenters, in some cases, custom harvesters who harvested wheat that
tested positive for Karnal bunt have not been able to trade or sell
their mechanized harvesting equipment due to unwarranted fear of
contamination. The commenters stated that custom harvesters in that
situation should receive compensation similar to that received by grain
handlers in Arizona who handled Karnal bunt-positive host crops after
the 1996 outbreak of Karnal bunt in that State; these commenters stated
that the grain handlers received compensation for 3 years of lost
revenue and contracts.
It is USDA policy to pay compensation only for documented costs of
complying with the regulations. The interim rule provided compensation
for the cost of cleaning and disinfection of mechanized harvesting
equipment and for either a contract lost due to the downtime associated
with cleaning and disinfection or for fixed costs incurred during the
downtime associated with cleaning and disinfection. We determined the
amount of compensation provided for these items based on data provided
by U.S. Custom Harvesters.
The grain handlers in Arizona were compensated in accordance with
paragraph (b)(2) of Sec. 301.89-14, which provided for the payment of
compensation for loss in value of wheat. The determination of how much
value the wheat had lost was based in part on any contracts the grain
handlers might have signed; however, compensation for the wheat did not
exceed $2.50 per bushel under any circumstances. Contrary to the
commenters' assertion, compensation was not provided to the grain
handlers for lost revenue or contracts; contracts were used, when
available, to help determine the loss in value of the affected wheat.
With regard to the concerns about devaluation of equipment, it is
APHIS's priority to ensure that the movement of mechanized harvesting
equipment from a regulated area does not pose a risk of spreading
Karnal bunt into a nonregulated area, and the cleaning and disinfection
process described in Sec. 301.89-13 mitigates that risk. We do not
believe it is appropriate for APHIS to provide compensation for a
possible loss of equipment value that is undocumented and that, if it
exists, is due to reluctance on the part of private buyers rather than
to a demonstrable risk that the equipment might spread Karnal bunt. We
are making no changes to the interim rule in response to this comment.
Compensation for Other Custom Harvesters
Although they did not take issue with any of the provisions of the
interim rule, several other commenters urged us to expand its scope to
provide compensation to custom harvesters who participated in the
initial Karnal bunt survey in Arizona in 1996. These commenters pointed
to the interim rule as setting a precedent for providing compensation
to custom harvesters that should be followed in the case of these
Arizona harvesters.
Many of these commenters cited growers, handlers, seed companies,
and wheat straw producers as other entities in the wheat marketing
chain to whom APHIS had provided compensation for lost contract value.
Some of these commenters suggested that APHIS should provide for the
payment of compensation to the custom harvesters similar to that
provided to seed companies that lost revenue from wheat seed they had
obtained from a regulated area because buyers would not accept APHIS's
certification that the seed was free of Karnal bunt.
One of these commenters stated that custom harvesters who had
participated in the initial Karnal bunt survey had suffered damage to
their harvesting equipment and lost existing contracts as well as long-
standing business relationships over the 1996-1997, 1997-1998, and
1998-1999 crop seasons. After cleaning and disinfection according to a
protocol required by APHIS, their equipment had suffered damage that
made it unusable. (This cleaning and disinfection protocol for
mechanized harvesting equipment was required administratively and was
never added to the regulations; different, and potentially less
damaging, cleaning and disinfection protocols were added to the
regulations in a final rule published in the Federal Register on
October 4, 1996 [61 FR 52189-52213, Docket No. 96-016-14].) The
harvesters were not compensated for this damage until after the 1998-
1999 crop season. In addition, there were reports that growers would
not hire these custom harvesters because they did not want equipment
[[Page 24301]]
associated with the pre-harvest sampling program to harvest in their
fields due to fears that the equipment would spread Karnal bunt.
This commenter requested that APHIS provide for the payment of
compensation for the revenue that would have been realized from
contractual relationships that were lost due to the growers' reluctance
to allow these custom harvesters' equipment to harvest in their fields;
the commenter also suggested appropriate supporting documentation for
such claims. The commenter suggested the example of grain handlers in
Arizona as a case where income tax statements had been used to provide
proof of loss as a basis for compensation.
With regard to the compensation paid to other entities in the wheat
production and marketing chain, we would like to clarify that, as
described above, APHIS has only paid compensation to those entities for
loss in value of wheat due to the presence of Karnal bunt. Compensation
was not provided to any of these entities, including grain handlers,
for lost revenue or contracts. It is USDA policy not to provide
compensation for lost income, which is what the commenters requested.
The commenters do not dispute that the custom harvesters who
participated in the initial Karnal bunt survey were compensated for the
damage to their equipment caused by cleaning and disinfection. In
addition, the custom harvesters participating in this survey were
working under a contract with the USDA to undertake the survey; they
lost no contracts due to the downtime necessitated by cleaning and
disinfection when they moved between fields. Therefore, we believe that
we have provided compensation to the custom harvesters who participated
in the initial Karnal bunt survey that is equivalent to the
compensation provided to the custom harvesters who harvested in Archer,
Baylor, Throckmorton, and Young Counties and were required to clean and
disinfect their equipment prior to movement from a regulated area. We
are making no changes to the interim rule in response to these
comments.
Some commenters further requested that compensation be paid to
custom harvesters in California and Arizona who must clean their
mechanized harvesting equipment due to Karnal bunt quarantines in those
States.
The commenters did not specify whether the custom harvesters to
whom they were referring were harvesting host crops in previously
regulated areas or in previously nonregulated areas. With regard to
previously regulated areas, on August 6, 2001, we published in the
Federal Register a final rule (66 FR 40839-40843, Docket No. 96-016-37)
that established the compensation levels for the 1999-2000 crop season
and subsequent years and made several other changes to the compensation
regulations. One of these changes was that, after the 2000-2001 crop
season, compensation would no longer be made available to persons
growing or handling host crops that were knowingly planted in
previously regulated areas. This change applies to custom harvesters as
well as other parties.
With regard to previously nonregulated areas, we plan to initiate
rulemaking to amend the regulations to extend the compensation
provisions established in the May 2004 interim rule to custom
harvesters who harvest host crops that test positive for Karnal bunt
and owners or lessees of other equipment that is exposed to host crops
that test positive for Karnal bunt in any areas not previously
regulated for Karnal bunt. That proposed rule would apply to the 2002-
2003 through 2005-2006 crop seasons.
Change of Deadline for Compensation Claims
Claims for the compensation provided by the interim rule were
originally required to be submitted by September 2, 2004. As noted
previously, a subsequent technical amendment extended the deadline for
submitting claims for compensation to December 31, 2004. However, in
the Supplementary Information section of the interim rule, we stated
that if a comment we received in response to the interim rule caused us
to change the compensation provisions, we would provide an additional
120-day period after the effective date of the final rule during which
affected persons could submit claims for compensation. Therefore, in
addition to the changes discussed above, we are extending the deadline
for compensation claims in this final rule from December 31, 2004, to
September 6, 2005.
Therefore, for the reasons given in the interim rule and in this
document, we are adopting the interim rule as a final rule, with the
changes discussed in this document.
This action affirms the information contained in the interim rule
concerning Executive Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The potential increase in compensation under this final rule is no more
than $9,000, which does not significantly change the conclusions of the
interim rule's executive order and regulatory flexibility analyses.
This action also affirms the information contained in the interim rule
concerning Executive Orders 12372 and 12988.
Further, this action has been determined to be not significant for
the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been
reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
Effective Date
Pursuant to the administrative procedure provisions in 5 U.S.C.
553, we find good cause for making this rule effective less than 30
days after publication in the Federal Register. The interim rule
adopted as final by this rule was effective on May 5, 2004. This rule
indicates that affected parties may apply for compensation whenever
disinfection was required by an inspector and extends the deadline by
which claims for compensation must be submitted to September 6, 2005.
Immediate action is necessary to indicate that affected parties may
apply for compensation whenever disinfection was required by an
inspector and to extend the deadline by which claims for compensation
must be submitted in order to relieve the economic burden placed on
small entities by the domestic quarantine regulations for Karnal bunt.
Therefore, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service has determined that this rule should be effective upon
publication in the Federal Register.
Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.), the information collection and recordkeeping
requirements in the interim rule have been approved by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB). The assigned OMB control number is 0579-
0248.
Government Paperwork Elimination Act Compliance
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is committed to
compliance with the Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA), which
requires Government agencies in general to provide the public the
option of submitting information or transacting business electronically
to the maximum extent possible. For information pertinent to GPEA
compliance related to the interim rule, please contact Mrs. Celeste
Sickles, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 734-7477.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 301
Agricultural commodities, Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine,
[[Page 24302]]
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
0
Accordingly, the interim rule amending 7 CFR part 301 that was
published at 69 FR 24909-24016 on May 5, 2004, is adopted as a final
rule with the following changes:
PART 301--DOMESTIC QUARANTINE NOTICES
0
1. The authority citation for part 301 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7701-7772; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.
Section 301.75-15 also issued under Sec. 204, Title II, Pub. L.
106-113, 113 Stat. 1501A-293; sections 301.75-15 and 301.75-16 also
issued under Sec. 203, Title II, Pub. L. 106-224, 114 Stat. 400 (7
U.S.C. 1421 note).
0
2. In Sec. 301.89-16, paragraph (d) is amended as follows:
0
a. In the introductory text of the paragraph, by removing the date
``December 31, 2004'' and adding the date ``September 6, 2005'' in its
place.
0
b. In paragraph (d)(1)(i), in the first sentence after the paragraph
heading, by removing the words ``tested positive for'' and adding the
words ``an inspector determined to be infected with'' in their place;
in the second sentence, by removing the words ``Karnal bunt-positive''
and adding the words ``Karnal bunt-infected'' in their place; and in
the last sentence, by adding the words ``, signed by the customer with
whom the custom harvester entered into the agreement'' before the words
``; a copy of'' and by removing the words ``Karnal bunt-positive host
crops'' and adding the words ``host crops that an inspector determined
to be infected with Karnal bunt'' in their place.
0
c. By revising paragraph (d)(1)(ii) to read as set forth below.
0
d. In paragraph (d)(1)(iii), in the first sentence after the paragraph
heading, by removing the words ``tested positive for'' and adding the
words ``an inspector determined to be infected with'' in their place;
and in the last sentence, by adding the words ``, signed by the
customer with whom the custom harvester entered into the agreement''
before the words ``; and a copy of'' and by removing the words ``Karnal
bunt-positive host crops'' and adding the words ``host crops that an
inspector determined to be infected with Karnal bunt'' in their place.
0
e. In paragraph (d)(2), in the first sentence after the paragraph
heading, by removing the words ``tested positive for'' and adding the
words ``an inspector determined to be infected with'' in their place;
and in the last sentence, by removing the words ``Karnal bunt-positive
host crops'' and adding the words ``host crops that an inspector
determined to be infected with Karnal bunt'' in their place.
Sec. 301.89-16 Compensation for grain storage facilities, flour
millers, National Survey participants, and certain custom harvesters
and equipment owners for the 1999-2000 and subsequent crop seasons.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) Contracts lost due to cleaning and disinfection. Custom
harvesters who harvested host crops that an inspector determined to be
infected with Karnal bunt and that were grown in Archer, Baylor,
Throckmorton, or Young Counties, TX, during the 2000-2001 crop season
are also eligible to be compensated for the revenue lost if they lost
one contract due to downtime necessitated by cleaning and disinfection,
if the contract to harvest Karnal bunt-infected host crops in a
previously nonregulated area was signed before the area was declared a
regulated area for Karnal bunt. Compensation will only be provided for
one contract lost due to cleaning and disinfection. Compensation for
any contract that was lost due to cleaning and disinfection will be
either the full value of the contract or $23.48 for each acre that was
to have been harvested under the contract, whichever is less. To claim
compensation, a custom harvester must provide copies of a contract or
other signed agreement for harvesting in Archer, Baylor, Throckmorton,
or Young County during the 2000-2001 crop season, signed on a date
prior to the designation of the county as a regulated area for Karnal
bunt, or an affidavit stating that the custom harvester entered into an
agreement to harvest in Archer, Baylor, Throckmorton, or Young County
during the 2000-2001 crop season prior to the designation of the county
as a regulated area for Karnal bunt, signed by the customer with whom
the custom harvester entered into the agreement; a copy of the PPQ-540
certificate issued to allow the movement of mechanized harvesting
equipment from a regulated area after it has been used to harvest host
crops that an inspector determined to be infected with Karnal bunt and
had been subsequently cleaned and disinfected; and the contract for
harvesting in an area not regulated for Karnal bunt that had been lost
due to time lost to cleaning and disinfecting harvesting equipment,
signed on a date prior to the designation of the relevant county as a
regulated area for Karnal bunt, for which the custom harvester will
receive compensation, or an affidavit stating that the custom harvester
entered into an agreement to harvest in an area not regulated for
Karnal bunt prior to the designation of the county as a regulated area
for Karnal bunt and stating the number of acres that were to have been
harvested and the amount the custom harvester was to have been paid
under the agreement, signed by the customer with whom the custom
harvester entered into the agreement.
* * * * *
Done in Washington, DC, this 3rd day of May 2005.
Kevin Shea,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 05-9194 Filed 5-6-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P