Common Crop Insurance Regulations; Florida Citrus Fruit Crop Insurance Provisions, 75509-75521 [2012-30842]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
• Federal Crop Insurance Corporation

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 246 (Friday, December 21, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 75509-75521]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-30842]



========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents 
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed 
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published 
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents. 
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each 
week.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2012 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 75509]]



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Federal Crop Insurance Corporation

7 CFR Part 457

[Docket No. FCIC-12-0006]
RIN 0563-AC39


Common Crop Insurance Regulations; Florida Citrus Fruit Crop 
Insurance Provisions

AGENCY: Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC) finalizes the 
Common Crop Insurance Regulations, Florida Citrus Fruit Crop Insurance 
Provisions. The intended effect of this action is to provide policy 
changes and clarify existing policy provisions to better meet the needs 
of insured producers, and to reduce vulnerability to program fraud, 
waste, and abuse. The proposed changes will apply for the 2014 and 
succeeding crop years.

DATES: This rule is effective January 22, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Hoffmann, Director, Product 
Administration and Standards Division, Risk Management Agency, United 
States Department of Agriculture, Beacon Facility, Stop 0812, Room 421, 
P.O. Box 419205, Kansas City, MO, 64141-6205, 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.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    Pursuant to the provisions of 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.

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.

Executive Order 13175

    This rule has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of 
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal 
Governments. The review reveals that this regulation will not have 
substantial and direct effects on Tribal governments and will not have 
significant Tribal implications.

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, and all producers are required to submit a notice of 
loss and production information to determine the amount of 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 that small entities are given the 
same opportunities as large entities 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 final 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 
or action by FCIC directing the insurance provider to take specific 
action under the terms of the crop insurance policy, the administrative 
appeal provisions published at 7 CFR part 11, or 7 CFR part 400, 
subpart J for determinations of good farming practices, as applicable, 
must be exhausted before any action against FCIC for judicial review 
may be brought.

[[Page 75510]]

Environmental Evaluation

    This action is not expected to have a significant economic impact 
on the quality of the human environment, health, or safety. Therefore, 
neither an Environmental Assessment nor an Environmental Impact 
Statement is needed.

Background

    This rule finalizes changes to the Common Crop Insurance 
Regulations (7 CFR part 457), Florida Citrus Fruit Crop Insurance 
Provisions that were published by FCIC on July 16, 2012, as a notice of 
proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register at 77 FR 41709-41716. The 
public was afforded 30 days to submit comments after the regulation was 
published in the Federal Register.
    A total of 80 comments were received from 6 commenters. The 
commenters were insurance providers, an insurance service organization, 
and a grower organization.
    The public comments received regarding the proposed rule and FCIC's 
responses to the comments are as follows:

General

    Comment: A commenter asked that FCIC conduct at least one public 
forum meeting, with current citrus growers, insurance provider loss 
adjustment management, agents, and grower groups, before all the 
proposed changes are implemented and binding in regards to the 2014 
Florida Citrus Fruit policy.
    Response: FCIC representatives have been present at several 
meetings where Florida citrus fruit stakeholders, including loss 
adjusters and grower groups have been present. At these meetings some 
of the proposed changes to the Florida Citrus Fruit Crop Provisions 
(Crop Provisions) were discussed and the stakeholders provided valuable 
input. The information gathered at these meetings was considered when 
drafting the proposed rule. FCIC regrets if all interested parties were 
not in attendance at these meetings or if the topics covered did not 
encompass all of the proposed changes. Further, all interested parties 
have had an opportunity to comment on all the proposed changes. 
Therefore, FCIC does not intend to conduct any additional meetings to 
discuss the proposed changes prior to finalizing the Crop Provisions.
    Comment: A few commenters stated FCIC's proposed system for 
reclassifying citrus fruit is more cumbersome than the one currently 
used by the agency. The commenters stated they can find no reason to 
change the system and doing so will only cause confusion. Growers are 
familiar with the current system as it has been in place for over 50 
years. Changing such a widely accepted, time tested system simply for 
the purpose of standardization with other commodities makes no sense.
    Response: FCIC understands the concerns of the commenters that the 
proposed changes to terminology and policy structure could initially 
create confusion for stakeholders. However, these changes are necessary 
in order to meet the objectives of the Acreage Crop Reporting 
Streamlining Initiative, which has a broader goal of simplifying 
reporting requirements for producers. Currently, different USDA 
programs have different reporting requirements and terminology. In 
order to streamline the reporting process, accommodations have been 
made within all the affected programs to standardize their reporting. 
In the long run, producers will benefit from this streamlined process. 
Stakeholders should become more comfortable with the changes to 
terminology and policy structure over time. No change has been made to 
the final rule.
    Comment: A commenter stated the proposed changes within the policy 
for reclassifying citrus into commodities have their purpose and could 
be perceived as a move in the right direction. However, instead of 
renaming all Florida citrus and citrus fruit nationwide, the commenter 
suggested that FCIC align and broaden coverage. The commenter stated 
that claims should be separated at the variety level and not offset 
another variety. If unit structures and coverage were enhanced and 
broadened, then growers that only purchase catastrophic coverage would 
be inclined to analyze their risk and management thereof and purchase 
better protection.
    Response: FCIC appreciates the commenter's suggestion that allowing 
units to be separated at the varietal level would be more desirable to 
producers and would result in producers selecting higher levels of 
coverage on the varieties with a higher perceived risk. While the 
proposed ``citrus fruit groups'' could be used to allow separate basic 
units and coverage levels by variety, no such changes were proposed and 
such changes would be significant, requiring the public to receive an 
opportunity to comment. In considering such changes in the future, more 
research would be necessary to determine the impact on premium rates 
and the producers' willingness to pay for any increased rates. No 
change has been made to the final rule.
    Comment: A few commenters stated it would be helpful if FCIC would 
clarify and publish all intended unit structures, commodity types, 
intended uses and any other information that would be helpful to 
understanding or explaining the information that will be contained in 
the Special Provisions.
    Response: As stated in the proposed rule, basic units will be 
determined by citrus fruit group. The optional unit structure has not 
changed. Although the commodity types and intended uses are subject to 
change based on price availability and rating needs, the anticipated 
commodity types, intended uses, and citrus fruit groups for the 2014 
crop year are as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Citrus fruit
         Citrus fruit commodity                Commodity type                Intended use              group
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oranges................................  Early-season..............  Juice......................               A
Oranges................................  Mid-season................  Juice......................               A
Oranges................................  Late-season...............  Juice......................               B
Oranges................................  Late-season...............  Fresh......................               C
Oranges................................  Navel.....................  Fresh......................               D
Grapefruit.............................  No Commodity Type           Juice......................               E
                                          Specified.
Grapefruit.............................  No Commodity Type           Fresh......................               F
                                          Specified.
Tangelos...............................  No Commodity Type           Fresh......................               G
                                          Specified.
Mandarins/Tangerines...................  No Commodity Type           Fresh......................               H
                                          Specified.
Tangors................................  Murcotts..................  Fresh......................               I
Tangors................................  Temples...................  Fresh......................               I
Lemons.................................  No Commodity Type           Juice......................               J
                                          Specified.
Limes..................................  No Commodity Type           Juice......................               K
                                          Specified.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 75511]]

    Comment: A commenter stated it would have been helpful if FCIC 
would have provided a sample Special Provisions or some other example 
to illustrate the distinctions between the terms, ``citrus fruit 
commodities'' and ``citrus fruit groups.'' According to the definitions 
and the background information in the proposed rule, it appears that a 
``citrus fruit commodity'' may be subdivided into ``citrus fruit 
groups'' made up of various combinations of ``commodity types'' and 
``intended uses'' (and perhaps also ``classes'' and ``subclasses''). At 
a guess, an example of ``commodity types'' might be early-season, mid-
season and late-season oranges, and ``intended uses'' might be fresh 
and juice. The commenter stated that while the proposed definition of 
``citrus fruit commodity'' includes all oranges together, various types 
of oranges were designated in the current Florida Citrus Fruit Crop 
Provisions as Citrus I (early and mid-season oranges), Citrus II (late 
oranges juice), Citrus VII (late oranges fresh), and Citrus VIII (navel 
oranges), with each of these being separate ``crops'' that the producer 
could choose to insure or not. It appears that the new subdivision of 
``citrus fruit group'' provides for similar insurance choices within 
the ``commodity'' of oranges, so that a producer might choose to insure 
``late-season oranges fresh'' but not ``late-season oranges juice'' (if 
these are separate ``groups'' of ``commodity types'' and ``intended 
uses''). The commenter asked if this correct.
    Response: FCIC agrees with the commenter's interpretation of the 
proposed rule. Within each citrus fruit commodity, such as oranges, the 
producer can elect which citrus fruit groups to insure. However, once a 
producer elects to insure a citrus fruit group, all oranges qualifying 
for the citrus fruit group will be insured. The response to the 
previous comment provides more detail on the commodity types and 
intended uses FCIC plans to offer and how different combinations of the 
commodity types and intended uses will be used to form citrus fruit 
groups.
    Comment: A commenter stated there are numerous references to 
changes being made due to the expansion of type and practice into four 
different new subcategories for each of these items. It would be 
extremely beneficial if RMA would provide a sample of a proposed 
Special Provision as a part of the proposed rule as this would assist 
those reviewing the proposed rule when developing comments. It is 
difficult to review and comment on various parts of this proposed rule 
without knowing what the Special Provisions will contain under this new 
format. The commenter requested that RMA consider publishing a sample 
Special Provision as a part of all future proposed rule changes to Crop 
Provisions.
    Response: FCIC will consider posting a sample Special Provision 
onto regulations.gov along with future proposed rules.
    Comment: A commenter stated they recognize that, as stated in the 
background information in the proposed rule, some of the proposed 
terminology changes are made ``to be consistent with the terms 
developed under the Acreage Crop Reporting Streamlining Initiative'' 
such as changing ``citrus fruit crop'' to ``citrus fruit commodity'' 
and ``citrus fruit type'' to ``commodity type.'' Also, the terms 
``commodity type'' and ``intended use'' are part of the expanded types/
practices that will be implemented. The commenter stated that these 
terms will become easier to deal with as stakeholders become more 
familiar with them. However, the commenter stated that some of the 
distinctions and coordination among the new definitions of ``citrus 
fruit commodities,'' ``citrus fruit groups,'' ``commodity types,'' and 
``intended uses'' (replacing the current definitions of ``citrus fruit 
crop'' and ``citrus fruit type'') are not entirely clear and can result 
in some confusion as to what exactly is being proposed.
    Response: FCIC agrees that the new terminology will become easier 
to understand over time. FCIC also agrees that not all commodity types, 
intended uses, and citrus fruit groups were included in the proposed 
rule. However, FCIC has listed all currently intended commodity types, 
intended uses, and citrus fruit groups in response to a previous 
comment.
    Comment: A commenter stated changes in terminology will result in 
many additional inspections for the 2014 crop year and this is a 
concern.
    Response: FCIC disagrees that changes in terminology will result in 
additional inspections. Inspections will not be required for carryover 
policyholders who have to fill out a new application solely as a result 
of the revised terminology in the Crop Provisions. Inspections may be 
required for carryover policyholders if: damage, production methods, or 
cultural practices will reduce the insured's crop production; trees 
have been removed or replaced with uninsurable trees; new land units 
are added; the insured transfers to a different insurance provider; or 
when spot checks are completed. However, inspection under these 
circumstances was previously required. FCIC approved procedures will 
provide additional information on required inspections.
    Comment: A commenter recommended a series of changes to be made in 
order to maintain consistency with the already-established expanded 
types and practices. The commenter stated that this series of changes 
will be more effective than the proposed changes, while still meeting 
the apparent objectives of the proposed rule. First, the commenter 
suggests removing the term ``citrus fruit group'' from the proposed 
rule. Second, the commenter suggests that each of the citrus fruit 
commodities (oranges, grapefruit, etc.) should reflect the commodities 
upon which separate coverage levels and administrative fees are based. 
More specifically, the commenter states that each commodity should be a 
separate insurable commodity and a separate eligible crop insurance 
contract. Third, the commenter suggests the actuarial documents be 
issued with the commodity of oranges containing commodity types of 
early-season and late-season with intended uses of fresh and processing 
for each commodity type and the rest of the eight type practice fields 
indicating they are unspecified. Fourth, the commenter suggested 
coverage levels should be elected by commodity, and therefore, it is 
important that the Crop Provisions clearly state this in both section 3 
(Insurance Guarantees, Coverage Levels and Prices for Determining 
Indemnity) and section 6 (Insured Crop).
    Response: FCIC disagrees with the commenter that citrus fruit 
groups should be removed from the final rule and that administrative 
fees, basic units, and coverage levels should be based on the citrus 
fruit commodity. The reason the citrus fruit groups were proposed to be 
added was to keep the basis for administrative fees, basic units, and 
coverage levels as similar to the current structure as possible while 
still meeting the objectives of the Acreage Reporting and Streamlining 
Initiative. Basing administrative fees, basic units, and coverage 
levels on the new citrus fruit commodities would constitute a major 
shift in how administrate fees, basic units, and coverage levels are 
determined and restrict the choices available to producers. No change 
has been made to the final rule.

Section 1--Definitions

    Comment: A few commenters recommended FCIC not change the term 
``citrus fruit crop'' to ``citrus fruit commodity.'' The term 
``commodity'' is infrequently used in the industry and would only 
confuse policyholders. The

[[Page 75512]]

commenters stated that presently, the only time that citrus crops are 
called commodities is on the futures market. The goal of any language 
change should be to make the policy more understandable to the 
policyholder who purchased it.
    Response: FCIC proposed changing the term ``crop'' to ``commodity'' 
because of a USDA initiative known as the Acreage Crop Reporting and 
Streamlining Initiative. This initiative has an objective of 
standardizing terms and consolidating acreage reports across 
participating USDA agencies so that information can be shared across 
agencies, thereby reducing the number of times producers are required 
to report the same information to different agencies. As a result of 
the Acreage Crop Reporting and Streamlining Initiative, the term 
``crop'' is being replaced by the more universally used term of 
``commodity'' in RMA's Actuarial Information Browser and where 
applicable as Crop Provisions are revised. Because the term 
``commodity'' is used in the Actuarial Information Browser, changing 
the term ``crop'' to ``commodity'' in the Florida Citrus Fruit Crop 
Provisions should help to eliminate confusion for producers accessing 
the Actuarial Information Browser. No change has been made to the final 
rule.
    Comment: A commenter stated that replacing the existing citrus 
fruit crops (Citrus I, Citrus II, etc.) with oranges, grapefruit, etc. 
will allow for greater clarity as to what commodity is being covered. 
However, because there is not a one-to-one correlation between the old 
and new designations, it is appropriate to require producers to 
complete new applications. Even if the final rule does not include this 
requirement, it is important to include this requirement in any 
announcement that accompanies the publication of the final rule, so 
that insurance providers, agents and producers may prepare accordingly.
    Response: FCIC agrees that the producer will be required to 
complete new applications for certain citrus fruit groups that do not 
have a one-to-one correlation with the old citrus fruit crop. 
Therefore, carryover policyholders with a policy for Citrus IV 
(Tangelos and Tangerines), Citrus VI (Lemons and Limes), or Citrus VII 
(Grapefruit for which freeze damage will be adjusted on a fresh fruit 
basis, and late oranges fresh) will be required to complete a new 
application. FCIC will include information on completing the new 
applications in an informational memorandum and in the Crop Insurance 
Handbook. As stated above, even though new applications may be 
required, this does not mean that new inspections must be performed.
    Comment: A commenter stated the definition of ``citrus fruit 
group'' states that various ``commodity types and intended uses within 
a citrus fruit commodity * * * may be grouped together for the purposes 
of electing coverage levels, establishing basic units, and assessing 
administrative fees.'' According to the background information in the 
proposed rule, this change is intended ``to make the insurance coverage 
as similar to that which was previously provided while still being 
consistent with the Acreage Crop Reporting Streamlining Initiative.'' 
This suggests that, for example, early and mid-season oranges are 
likely to be a citrus fruit group [previously Citrus I] while late 
oranges for juice [Citrus II] and late oranges for fresh [Citrus VII, 
along with grapefruit adjusted on a fresh basis] will be separate 
citrus fruit groups, and producers would be able to choose whether or 
not to insure any or all of these groups, with separate basic units by 
``group,'' and different coverage levels possible, instead of the 
choice of insurance (and level, etc.) being by ``citrus fruit 
commodity'' (so that all oranges would have to be insured). It appears 
that lemons and limes will no longer be grouped together [previously 
Citrus VI] since they are set up as separate ``citrus fruit 
commodities,'' so producers will be able to insure one and not the 
other, which was not possible before. This change for lemons and limes 
is indicated in the background information in the proposed rule, so the 
commenter assumes that perhaps this is the only significant difference 
between the previous ``citrus fruit crops'' and the proposed ``citrus 
fruit groups'' (as opposed to comparing to the proposed ``citrus fruit 
commodities'').
    Response: FCIC agrees with the commenter's interpretation of the 
proposed rule. FCIC has tried to maintain the current insurance options 
and flexibility available to producers to the maximum extent possible. 
However, in addition to Citrus VI (lemons and limes), the citrus fruit 
crops Citrus IV (tangelos and tangerines) and Citrus VII (grapefruit 
for which freeze damage will be adjusted on a fresh fruit basis, and 
late oranges fresh) will also be split apart into separate citrus fruit 
commodities. This increases the insurance options available.
    Comment: A commenter stated that based on the definitions of 
``citrus fruit commodity'' and ``citrus fruit group,'' it appears the 
``citrus fruit group'' is the basis of coverage (similar to the current 
``citrus fruit crops'' of Citrus I through Citrus IX) while ``citrus 
fruit commodity'' is a more generic reference to the different kinds of 
citrus (oranges, grapefruit, etc.). The commenter questioned if there 
is much benefit in identifying ``oranges'' as the ``citrus fruit 
commodity'' if producers will continue to be able to choose to insure 
``late oranges fresh'' while not insuring any other oranges (or 
insuring them at different coverage levels and prices).
    Response: The benefit to changing to commodity names to be 
consistent with commodity names used by other USDA agencies is this 
will allow information to be shared with other USDA agencies. This 
change is intended to reduce the number of times a producer has to 
report the same information to different agencies. Although other USDA 
programs may not use all of the same terminology, some of the added 
terms are necessary to maintain the current flexibility allowed by the 
policy. Additionally, changing the commodity names to be consistent 
between the different regions FCIC insures these commodities will 
simplify the administration of the Federal crop insurance program.
    Comment: A few commenters stated the proposed rule does not appear 
to align with the expanded type and practice attributes established by 
FCIC (commodity type, class, subclass, intended use, cropping practice, 
irrigated practice, organic practice and interval) for some crops with 
the 2013 reinsurance year. The proposed term ``citrus fruit group'' is 
defined as ``a designation in the actuarial documents used to identify 
commodity types and intended uses within a citrus fruit commodity that 
may be grouped together for the purposes of electing coverage levels, 
establishing basic units and assessing administrative fees.'' There is 
no ``group'' attribute in the now established expanded types and 
practices. Adding a ninth attribute will require redesigning the 
actuarial data tables and a significant amount of programming changes. 
It seems as though the citrus fruit commodities listed in the proposed 
rule, should be the ``citrus fruit group'' used to elect coverage 
levels and assess administrative fees since this would be most similar 
to the groups established under the 2009 provisions.
    Response: FCIC disagrees that the citrus fruit commodities should 
be the citrus fruit group. The purpose of the change is to allow for 
the streamlining of reporting while maintaining current flexibility. 
Eliminating the citrus fruit commodities defeats this purpose. However, 
the commenter is correct that adding a ninth attribute to the type/
practice tab in the Actuarial Information

[[Page 75513]]

Browser will require significant programing changes. Therefore, FCIC 
will instead list the citrus fruit groups in a Special Provisions 
statement. FCIC has revised the definition of ``citrus fruit group'' by 
removing the phrase ``actuarial documents'' and adding the phrase 
``Special Provisions'' in its place. Additionally, FCIC has revised the 
definition of ``citrus fruit group'' to clarify that different 
combinations of commodity types and intended uses may grouped together 
to form citrus fruit groups.
    Comment: A few commenters stated if the definition of ``citrus 
fruit group'' is kept, it does not need to state that the group 
designation is used to establish basic units. If each group is 
considered a separate ``crop policy,'' there is no alternative except 
to allow for separate basic units if each group to be insured must be 
designated on the application form.
    Response: FCIC agrees with the commenter that it is not necessary 
to state the citrus fruit group will be used to establish basic units. 
The commenter is correct that since each citrus fruit group would be 
considered a separate insured crop, the producer would be entitled to 
separate basic units by insured crop in accordance with the definition 
of ``basic unit'' in the Basic Provisions. Therefore, FCIC has revised 
the definition of ``citrus fruit group'' by removing references to 
basic units and administrative fees and adding a phrase that indicates 
the citrus fruit group will be used to identify the insured crop in its 
place. FCIC has also revised section 2 to state that basic units will 
be established in accordance with section 1 of the Basic Provisions.
    Comment: A few commenters stated they agree with changing the 
definition of ``Excess Wind'' and expanding the number and location of 
weather recording stations.
    Response: FCIC thanks the commenters for their review and support 
of this proposed change.
    Comment: A commenter requested clarification on the intent of the 
definition of ``intended use.'' The interpretation could go many 
different ways when you get into claim situations. This would be 
another benefit of being able to see a sample Special Provision.
    Response: FCIC agrees that the definition of ``intended use'' is 
ambiguous because there is no indication of what intended uses are 
available. FCIC has revised the provision to clarify that insurable 
intended uses are specified in the Special Provisions. Currently, the 
only intended uses FCIC plans to insure under the Florida Citrus Fruit 
Crop Provisions are fresh and juice. The intended use that is selected 
will be used to determine the dollar amount of insurance and the loss 
adjustment procedures for settling claims. Producers who choose an 
intended use of fresh will be required to provide management records 
upon request to verify good fresh citrus fruit production practices 
were followed from the beginning of bloom stage until harvest. In 
addition, unless otherwise provided in the Special Provisions 
acceptable fresh fruit sales records must be provided upon request from 
at least one of the previous three crop years; or for fresh fruit 
acreage new to the operation or for acreage in the initial year of 
fresh fruit production, a current year fresh fruit marketing contract 
must be provided upon request.
    Comment: A commenter stated according to subsection (a)(3) of the 
definition of ``potential production,'' it includes citrus fruit that 
``Except as provided in (b), was missing, damaged or destroyed from 
either an insured or uninsured cause''; while subsection (b)(1) 
excludes citrus fruit that ``Was missing, damaged, or destroyed before 
insurance attached for any crop year.'' The commenter questioned 
whether this means that subsection (a)(3) applies only when these 
events occur after insurance attached. The commenter also questioned if 
subsection (a)(3) should specifically reference subsection (b)(1), or 
do subsections (b)(2) and (3) also factor into the equation. The 
commenter suggested changing the period at the end of the opening 
sentence to a colon. The commenter also suggested revising subsection 
(b)(3) by removing the phrase ``Any tangerines that'' and adding the 
phrase ``For tangerines,'' to better follow the lead-in.
    Response: No changes were proposed to this provision and the 
comment does not address a conflict or vulnerability in the provision. 
Therefore, FCIC cannot consider any potential changes because the 
public was not given an opportunity to comment. No change has been made 
to the final rule. However, with respect to the question raised by the 
commenter, FCIC agrees subsection (b)(1) includes citrus fruit that was 
missing, damaged, or destroyed from either an insured or uninsured 
causes after insurance attached for the crop year. Additionally, 
potential production does not include citrus fruit that was missing, 
damaged or destroyed due to insured or uninsured causes that are 
damaged or destroyed due to normal dropping as described in subsection 
(b)(2) or that are tangerines that normally would not meet the 210 pack 
size as described in subsection (b)(3).

Section 3--Insurance Guarantees, Coverage Levels, and Prices for 
Determining Indemnities

    Comment: A commenter stated as reworded, the first sentence of 
section 3(a) [``You may select only one coverage level for each citrus 
fruit group designated within a citrus fruit commodity in the actuarial 
documents that you elect to insure.''] might be interpreted either as 
being able to elect insurance by citrus fruit group or by citrus fruit 
commodity. This could be clarified by putting parentheses around the 
phrase ``designated within a citrus fruit commodity in the actuarial 
documents.''
    Response: FCIC agrees that as proposed section 3(a) may be 
misinterpreted. Since the definition of ``citrus fruit group'' 
specifies that the citrus fruit group is within a citrus fruit 
commodity, it is not necessary to restate this everywhere the term 
``citrus fruit group'' is used. Therefore, FCIC has revised section 
3(a) by removing the phrase ``designated within a citrus fruit 
commodity in the actuarial documents.''
    Comment: A few commenters requested clarification of the purpose of 
section 3(c)(1). The commenters stated it is unclear exactly what the 
provision is requiring producers to report. The provision states ``you 
must report any event or action that could reduce the yield per acre'' 
but it is unclear what the starting point is for assessing if a 
reduction has occurred. The commenters stated that if the purpose of 
section 3(c)(1) is to have the grower report any condition that will 
prevent the acreage from being capable of producing a crop that will 
have a value at least equal to the amount it is insured for, it should 
state it that way. The commenters stated that because this is a dollar 
plan of insurance and losses are determined by the percent of damage 
and not historical yields, reduction in productive capacity should be 
irrelevant. The commenters stated the same coverage should be provided 
for a unit regardless of the productive capacity. The commenters 
questioned how units with different productive capacities can be 
treated differently under this type of plan. The commenters questioned 
if the true intent is to notate and capture uninsured damage, tree 
removal, etc. The commenters also questioned how greening effects are 
reported and suggested that this might already be handled with the 
current 10% tolerance factors.

[[Page 75514]]

    Response: The purpose of section 3(c)(1) is to collect information 
that can be used to establish the amount of insurance and insurable 
acreage. The Reference Maximum Dollar Amount used to establish the 
amount of insurance per acre is based on the productive capacity of a 
healthy, fully stocked citrus grove. When the productive capacity of 
trees in a grove is reduced, it is not appropriate to maintain the same 
amount of insurance because that would result in over-insuring the 
grove because situations could occur that would make it impossible to 
produce the amount of insurance even if no insurable loss has occurred. 
Therefore, in section 3(c), FCIC is capturing the information needed to 
evaluate the productive capacity of the grove so it can be compared 
with the Reference Maximum Dollar Amount. Further, section 3(d) 
specifies that if the productive capacity of the grove is reduced, the 
acreage or amount of insurance can be reduced. Procedures for reporting 
damage, disease, etc. and reducing acreage or the amount of insurance 
will be included in the Crop Insurance Handbook. No change has been 
made to the final rule.
    Comment: A commenter stated the proposed provision in section 3(c) 
changes the deadline from sales closing date to acreage reporting date 
and would require reporting of the specified information each year 
rather than only the first year of interplanting and any time the 
interplanted acreage's planting pattern changes. The commenter stated 
the significance of this change is not clearly specified in the 
background information in the proposed rule. The commenter stated the 
current section 3(c) also requires the additional information listed 
when citrus trees were interplanted for the first time, and when the 
planting pattern of the interplanted acreage subsequently changed. The 
proposed language removes all but one reference to ``interplanted 
trees,'' making the reporting requirement applicable in all cases every 
year rather than only when there is interplanting and any subsequent 
change. The commenter stated that this change, along with the change in 
deadline to the acreage reporting date, seems to make this provision 
more applicable to a ``Report of Acreage'' section corresponding to 
section 6 of the Basic Provisions, rather than additional information 
required in certain circumstances. The commenter requested FCIC 
consider moving these provisions to a ``Report of Acreage'' section 
corresponding to section 6 of the Basic Provisions.
    Response: FCIC disagrees with the commenter that the provisions in 
section 3(c) should be moved to a ``Report of Acreage'' section 
corresponding to section 6 of the Basic Provisions. While the deadline 
may have changed to the acreage reporting date, the purpose of the 
provisions is to establish the amount of insurance for the crop, which 
has been contained in section 3 in many of the other perennial crops 
and does not affect the purpose or the meaning of the provisions. FCIC 
agrees that certain reporting requirements in section 3(c) are annual. 
However, the Florida Citrus Fruit Crop Provisions does not currently 
contain a section for report of acreage and adding a new section would 
require redesignating other sections. Further, the possibility exists 
that cross references may be missed. The risk of this outweighs any 
benefit from creating a new section especially since it would not 
clarify or change the meaning of the proposed provisions. FCIC's 
proposal to revise section 3(c) by changing the deadline for reporting 
from the sales closing date to the acreage reporting date has no impact 
on stakeholders because these dates are the same. No change has been 
made to the final rule.
    Comment: A commenter stated the reporting requirements in the 
background information in the proposed rule includes ``age of the 
trees, interplanted trees, planting pattern'' in addition to the new 
requirements in sections 3(c)(1) and (2). The commenter stated this is 
similar to the sequence in sections 3(c)(1) and (2) of the current Crop 
Provisions, but ``interplanted trees'' is not in the proposed section 
3(c)(3). The only mention of ``interplanted trees'' is in the 
parenthetical list in section 3(c)(1) of events or actions that could 
reduce the yield. The commenter questioned whether interplanting of 
citrus trees will always be considered to be likely to result in a 
reduction of potential yield. The commenter stated to consider if 
section 3(c)(1) should be moved to section 3(c)(3) since there will not 
always be an ``event or action that could reduce the yield'' to report 
every year.
    Response: FCIC agrees with the commenter that section 3(c)(1) is 
not the appropriate place to list interplanted trees since section 
3(c)(1) lists circumstances that would result in a reduction in the 
guarantee per acre. Because interplanted trees would result in an 
acreage reduction instead of a reduction in the guarantee per acre, 
FCIC has removed the reference to interplanted trees from section 
3(c)(1) and added a reference to interplanted trees to section 3(c)(2).
    Comment: A commenter stated the proposed provision in section 3(d) 
references a reduction in the yield potential and expected yield. The 
commenter stated this reference is misplaced as this is a dollar plan 
of insurance and not based on an approved yield. If the potential yield 
drops below 100 boxes per acre such acreage would then be addressed by 
sections 6(c) and (d). Since yields normally do change from year to 
year, the commenter questioned what would constitute a yield reduction 
for purposes of this provision. The commenter stated it appears this 
provision could generate additional unnecessary inspections on the part 
of the insurance providers.
    Response: FCIC agrees sections 6(c) and (d) address situations when 
the yield potential drops below 100 boxes. However, FCIC disagrees that 
the amount of insurance or insurable acreage should not be reduced when 
the yield potential is reduced by a quantifiable amount from the 
maximum potential, but remains greater than 100 boxes per acre. Even 
though this is a dollar plan of insurance, FCIC has an obligation to 
ensure that it is not over-insuring the crop. This means that while any 
given grove may have a unique maximum yield potential at any given 
time, FCIC does not consider it appropriate to maintain the same amount 
of insurance when the yield potential of a grove is reduced below a 
certain level due to damage to the trees, disease, reduction in stand 
density, or other causes. Reduction in yield potential will be 
identified by assessing the health and vigor of the trees, as well as 
damage. It may be necessary to review production records to determine 
if a reduction in productive capacity has occurred. Although yields may 
normally fluctuate from year to year, it should still be possible to 
determine if there has been a reduction in productive capacity due to 
damage to the trees, disease, reduction in stand density, or other 
causes. Additional guidance will be provided in the Crop Insurance 
Handbook for determining if a reduction in productive capacity has 
occurred. FCIC does not consider inspections needed to reduce the 
amount of insurance or acreage to the appropriate level unnecessary. No 
change has been made to the final rule.
    Comment: A commenter stated that according to the background 
information in the proposed rule, ``FCIC proposed to revise section 
3(d) by clarifying the reasons FCIC will reduce insurable acreage or 
the amount of insurance, or both. The reasons given for a reduction are 
consistent with the reporting requirements contained in the

[[Page 75515]]

proposed revision of section 3(c).'' However, the commenter stated the 
added details in section 3(d) of what might require a reduction do not 
seem to match what is listed in section 3(c)(1). Both section 3(c) and 
(d) mention ``interplanted trees'' and ``practices,'' although section 
3(d) specifies ``cultural practices,'' ``damage,'' and ``disease.'' The 
commenter questioned if ``a decrease in plant stand'' is supposed to be 
similar to ``removal of trees.'' The commenter also questioned if a 
reference to ``plant stand'' is appropriate for tree crops, but stated 
perhaps it is, since it is used in the Special Provisions statement.
    Response: FCIC considers the phrase ``decrease in plant stand'' 
appropriate for tree crops since trees are technically plants and this 
is a common phrase used in literature referring to trees. Removal of 
trees would be one reason for a decrease in plant stand, but other 
reasons could include natural attrition, blow-down, and mortality due 
to disease. Since section 3(c) includes any event or action that could 
reduce the yield per acre, FCIC did not include an all-encompassing 
list of what must be reported. However, FCIC agrees the reporting terms 
in section 3(c) should match as closely as possible the terms in 
section 3(d). Therefore, FCIC has revised section 3(c)(1) by adding the 
term ``cultural'' prior to the term ``practices'' to be consistent with 
section 3(d)(3). FCIC has also revised section 3(c)(1) by adding the 
term ``disease'' to be consistent with the terminology in section 
3(d)(4).
    Comment: A commenter stated the proposed language in section 3(e) 
refers to circumstances ``that may reduce the yield per acre from 
previous levels'' but no longer refers to the possibility that they 
might reduce the acreage as in the last sentence of current section 
3(d). The commenter questioned if that change was intended.
    Response: FCIC did not intend for the proposed language in section 
3(e) to exclude circumstances that might reduce the acreage. FCIC has 
revised section 3(e) to include circumstances that may reduce the 
acreage.

Section 5--Cancellation and Termination Dates

    Comment: A commenter questioned whether the date changes in 
sections 3(f) and 8(a)(1) should have any effect on the April 30 
cancellation and termination dates that are unchanged in section 5.
    Response: As stated below in response to a comment regarding 
section 8(a)(1), the proposed date changes to sections 3(f) and 8(a)(1) 
have not been retained in the final rule. Therefore, there is no change 
needed to the April 30 cancellation and termination dates contained in 
section 5. No change has been made to the final rule.

Section 6--Insured Crop

    Comment: A commenter suggested revising section 6(a) by adding 
parentheses around the phrase ``designated within a citrus fruit 
commodity in the actuarial documents'' to make it clear that it is the 
``citrus fruit group'' (not the ``citrus fruit commodity'') that a 
producer may elect to insure.
    Response: FCIC agrees that as proposed, section 6(a) may be 
misinterpreted. Because the definition of ``citrus fruit group'' 
specifies the citrus fruit group is within a citrus fruit commodity, it 
is not necessary to restate this everywhere the term ``citrus fruit 
group'' is used. Therefore, FCIC has revised section 6(a) by removing 
the phrase ``designated within a citrus fruit commodity in the 
actuarial documents.''
    Comment: A commenter stated they are disappointed that the age of 
insurability in section 6(b)(2) was not lowered from five years to 
three years. Citrus has moved toward increased production at younger 
ages because of newer varieties and advanced production methods. 
Insurability should be at three years.
    Response: FCIC did not propose to lower the minimum age of 
insurability for citrus trees because section 6(b)(2) already allows 
for trees that have not reached the fifth growing season after set out 
to be insured by written agreement or if allowed by the Special 
Provisions. Since the public was not given the opportunity to comment 
on this change and it does not address a conflict or vulnerability, 
FCIC cannot consider the recommended change. No change has been made to 
the final rule.
    Comment: A commenter stated the insurability of younger trees 
(fruit) should be addressed. Presently, trees have to be in the fifth 
growing season (for their fruit) to be insured. The commenter stated in 
today's commercial citrus growing environment, trees that are three 
years old are producing fruit. Unless the fruit from the younger trees 
is appraised and excluded from production and losses, it is being 
counted as insured production and should be insured. The commenter 
stated this could be addressed by allowing up to 25 percent resets in a 
block/grove to be insured.
    Response: FCIC disagrees the insurability of fruit from younger 
trees could be addressed by allowing up to 25 percent resets in a 
block/grove. FCIC provides guidance for commingled production and stand 
reduction in the Crop Insurance Handbook. Currently the Crop Insurance 
Handbook allows up to a 10 percent decrease in plant stand before 
adjustments are made to acreage. A stand reduction could include resets 
that have not reached the minimum age requirement. However, a stand 
reduction could also include trees that have been removed, but not 
replaced. Therefore, increasing the proportion of the stand that can be 
reduced before acreage is adjusted could result in over-insurance in 
situations where trees have been removed and not replaced or when the 
trees have been replaced and have not yet began producing. Furthermore, 
while the production from younger trees could potentially be considered 
under current procedures when determining the percent of damage, it is 
not likely to affect the overall percent of damage. As stated in 
response to the previous comment, FCIC did not propose to lower the 
minimum age of insurability for citrus trees because section 6(b)(2) 
already allows for trees that have not reached the fifth growing season 
after set out to be insured by written agreement or if allowed by the 
Special Provisions. Since the public was not given the opportunity to 
comment on this change and it does not address a conflict or 
vulnerability, FCIC cannot consider the recommended change. No change 
has been made to the final rule.
    Comment: A few commenters stated that there is no reason to exclude 
Ambersweet oranges from insurability as proposed in section 6(b)(3). 
Ambersweet oranges exhibit typical characteristics of other insured 
varieties of oranges from a risk standpoint. Therefore, the commenters 
stated there is no more risk of loss as compared to other varieties. 
Furthermore, the commenters stated while not grown in large quantities, 
there are commercial blocks of Ambersweet oranges still in production. 
The commenters stated they are puzzled as to why Ambersweet oranges 
have been singled out. Additionally, the commenters would like any new 
varieties to be insurable within the appropriate class and type.
    Response: FCIC agrees with the commenters that Ambersweet oranges 
should not be excluded from insurability in the Crop Provisions at this 
time due to lack of available information to substantiate excluding 
them from insurability. However, FCIC will continue to evaluate 
Ambersweet oranges to determine if it is appropriate to continue to 
offer insurance on this variety. New varieties that are commercially 
available will be

[[Page 75516]]

evaluated on a case by case basis for insurability. The Special 
Provisions will list the varieties that comprise each insurable 
commodity type. FCIC has revised section 6(b)(3) by removing Ambersweet 
oranges from the list of uninsurable citrus fruit.
    Comment: The proposed section 6(f) states, unless otherwise 
provided in the Special Provisions, acceptable fresh fruit sales 
records must be provided upon request from at least one of the previous 
three crop years; or for fresh fruit acreage new to the operation or 
for acreage in the initial year of fresh fruit production, a current 
year fresh fruit marketing contract must be provided upon request. A 
commenter questioned what are considered to be ``acceptable records'' 
for purposes of this provision and if the procedures will indicate what 
are considered to be acceptable records for this purpose.
    Response: Acceptable fresh fruit sales records should indicate the 
citrus fruit commodity, commodity type, name of the insured, name of 
the buyer, date the production was sold, location, the amount of 
production sold, and the price. Acceptable fresh fruit sales records 
may include: Trip tickets, pack-out statements, year-end settlement 
sheets that indicate by citrus fruit commodity/commodity type the 
number of standard size boxes packed or the net weight of the packed 
fruit, daily sales records, and records from a State Marketing Program. 
FCIC will also provide guidance in the Crop Insurance Handbook as to 
what will be considered acceptable fresh fruit sales records.

Section 7--Insurable Acreage

    Comment: A commenter stated to consider if the references to 
``another commodity'' in sections 7(a)(1) and (2) should be changed to 
``another agricultural commodity'' as defined in the Basic Provisions.
    Response: FCIC agrees with the commenter and has changed the 
provisions accordingly. Additionally, FCIC has revised paragraph (a) by 
removing the phrase ``a crop planted with another crop'' and replacing 
it with the phrase ``interplanted acreage'' to be consistent with the 
phrasing in section 9 of the Basic Provisions.
    Comment: A commenter stated to consider if the phrase ``the 
interplanted crop acreage'' in section 7(a)(3) should be revised to 
``the interplanted commodity acreage'' to match other such revisions.
    Response: FCIC agrees the term ``crop'' should be removed from 
section 7(a)(3). FCIC has revised the provision to state the 
combination of the citrus fruit acreage and the interplanted acreage 
cannot exceed the physical amount of acreage.
    Comment: A commenter stated there is no premise in either the Crop 
Provisions or Special Provisions to establish the threshold for 
insurability for acreage that has been abandoned and subsequently 
undergone remediation as proposed in section 7(b). The commenter stated 
this is a dollar plan policy and is not based on actual production. If 
the market price for such citrus fruit is high then even a reduced 
amount of production and/or production that is of poor quality may 
still meet or exceed the Reference Maximum Dollar Amount.
    Response: FCIC agrees with the commenter that FCIC does not 
currently provide a basis for determining the amount of production 
necessary to meet the Reference Maximum Dollar Amount. Therefore, FCIC 
has revised the proposed section 7(b) to simply state any acreage that 
has been abandoned is not insurable.

Section 8--Insurance Period

    Comment: A few commenters stated they do not think moving the date 
insurance attaches from May 1 to April 16 in section 8(a)(1) is a good 
move. A vast majority of fruit that sets after bloom drops from the 
tree naturally by May 1. After that date, fruit drop is minimal and it 
is easy to determine what fruit has been damaged. Therefore, trying to 
accurately assess damage that may occur in April will prove difficult. 
The commenters stated that if the concern is to shrink the time between 
sales closing date and the policy inception date, a better approach 
would be to extend the sales closing date.
    Response: FCIC agrees the date insurance attaches should not be 
moved from May 1 to April 16 because it will be more difficult to 
determine potential production during this period. Additionally, moving 
the sales closing date to April 16 eliminates the time needed to 
perform an inspection to determine insurability prior to insurance 
attaching. Therefore, FCIC has retained the original date of May 1 as 
the date insurance attaches in section 8(a)(1). Consequently, FCIC has 
also retained the original dates in the redesignated section 3(f).
    Comment: A commenter stated they would like FCIC to address the 
issue of insuring young setting fruit that is damaged by an insured 
peril before the current date insurance attaches on May 1. The 
commenter questioned if there is anything that can be done to cover 
such damage while still affording a reasonable sales closing date.
    Response: FCIC proposed changing the date insurance attaches from 
May 1 to April 16. This proposed change would have addressed insuring 
young setting fruit. However, as stated previously this change has not 
been retained in the final rule due to potential problems it could 
cause for determining potential production and determining 
insurability. FCIC has not proposed any other change to address this 
issue and the comment does not address a conflict or vulnerability. 
Therefore, FCIC cannot consider the recommended changes because the 
public was not given an opportunity to comment. No change has been made 
to the final rule.
    Comment: A commenter stated they presume the proposed date change 
from May 1 to April 16 in section 8(a)(1) has no effect on the 
unchanged calendar dates for the end of the insurance period in section 
8(a)(2).
    Response: FCIC agrees with the commenter that the proposed changes 
to section 8(a)(1) would have no effect on the provisions in section 
8(a)(2). However, as stated previously the date changes to section 
8(a)(1) have not been retained in the final rule.
    Comment: A commenter stated they are pleased to see FCIC proposing 
to change the end of insurance period date for early oranges to 
February 28. The commenter stated this date is much more in line with 
current harvesting practices and will provide welcome peace of mind for 
those policyholders with early oranges still on the tree in February.
    Response: FCIC thanks the commenters for their review and support 
of this proposed change.
    Comment: A commenter stated they agree with the proposed shifting 
of the reference to a transfer of coverage and right to indemnity from 
(b)(2) [relinquishing a share on or before the acreage reporting date] 
to (b)(1) [acquiring acreage after the acreage reporting date]. 
However, the commenter questioned whether the removal of the phrase 
``if after inspection we consider the acreage acceptable'' means it is 
not possible for the insurance provider to accept coverage following a 
favorable inspection. The commenter stated maybe this was never an 
option since, as stated in the background information in the proposed 
rule, ``none of the crops insurable under the Florida Citrus Fruit Crop 
Provisions have an acreage reporting date that occurs after the date 
insurance attaches for the crop year.''
    Response: As stated in the proposed rule, the provision in section 
8(b)(2) would never be applicable since none of

[[Page 75517]]

the crops insurable under the Florida Citrus Fruit Crop Provisions have 
an acreage reporting date that occurs after the date insurance attaches 
for the crop year. Therefore, section 8(b)(2) never gave the authority 
to accept coverage following a favorable inspection. However, section 
8(a)(1)(i) contains language giving the insurance provider the 
authority to inspect acreage to determine if it meets the insurability 
requirements prior to insurance attaching.
    Comment: A commenter recommend that in lieu of the proposed 
language in section 8(b)(1), language should be added to allow 
insurance providers the opportunity to inspect and insure any 
additional acreage that is acquired after the acreage reporting date if 
they wish to do so. The commenter stated insurance providers should 
have the opportunity to accept or deny coverage in these types of 
situations. This could be a substantial number of acres that may not 
have coverage for the crop year they were added if they were not 
insured by the previous owner. This would be similar to what is 
currently allowed for acreage not reported in accordance with section 
6(f) of the Basic Provisions.
    Response: This change was not proposed and the comment does not 
address a conflict or vulnerability in the provision. Therefore, FCIC 
cannot consider the recommended changes because the public was not 
given an opportunity to comment. No change has been made to the final 
rule.

Section 9--Causes of Loss

    Comment: A commenter recommended the insured cause of loss in 
section 9(a)(1) be clarified as ``Fire, due to natural causes'' or 
``Fire, if caused by lightning.''
    Response: No changes were proposed to this provision and the 
comment does not address a conflict or vulnerability in the provision. 
Therefore, FCIC cannot consider the recommended changes because the 
public was not given an opportunity to comment. No change has been made 
to the final rule. However, with respect to the concerns expressed by 
the commenter, section 12 of the Basic Provisions already states all 
insured causes of loss must be due to a naturally occurring event. In 
addition, the Federal Crop Insurance Act is clear that only natural 
causes can be covered under the policy. These provisions apply to fire.
    Comment: A commenter stated that feasibility should be considered 
and studied to offer coverage for disease and insect infestation. 
Citrus greening is the largest peril and loss to today's citrus grower. 
Excess rain/flooding should also be a covered peril. Perils of the tree 
and fruit policy should be aligned and duplicated because what affects 
the trees has a direct effect on the fruit production. Maybe adding 
``adverse weather'' as an insurable cause of loss would standardize 
Florida's policy to be more in line with California and Texas.
    Response: The Crop Provisions allow disease to be added as an 
insurable cause of loss through the Special Provisions. However, 
expanding coverage to include insects and disease would likely result 
in significant rate increases due to the prevalence of disease 
affecting citrus in Florida. Additional research would be necessary to 
determine producers' willingness to pay additional premium for coverage 
of disease. With the exception of disease, the suggested changes would 
require changes to the Crop Provisions that were not proposed and the 
comment does not address a conflict or vulnerability. Therefore, FCIC 
cannot consider the recommended changes because the public was not 
given an opportunity to comment. No change has been made to the final 
rule. FCIC will consider the feasibility of expanding coverage to more 
perils the next time the Crop Provisions are revised.
    Comment: A commenter stated the provision in section 9(a)(7) that 
allows ``disease'' as an insured cause of loss, if specified in the 
Special Provisions, continues to cause a great deal of concern from 
both the underwriting and loss adjustment standpoint. The commenter 
questioned how a loss would be worked on groves with a disease that 
causes a decline in condition of trees and yields. The commenter stated 
they believe it would be very difficult to underwrite and adjust losses 
for disease.
    Response: Although the Crop Provisions allow disease to be added as 
an insurable cause of loss through the Special Provisions, the Special 
Provisions do not currently specify disease as an insurable cause of 
loss. Because disease is not currently considered an insurable cause of 
loss, any production damaged by disease is treated like any other 
production damaged by an uninsurable cause of loss. Additionally, since 
losses are adjusted on a percent of damage basis, decline in production 
may not directly affect the percent of damage. Because decline in the 
productive capacity of the trees due to disease may affect the expected 
yield, disease should be considered when establishing or adjusting the 
amount of insurance in accordance with section 3. FCIC intends to 
refine guidance for adjusting the amount of insurance due to the 
incidence of disease in insured groves in the Crop Insurance Handbook.

Section 10--Settlement of Claim

    Comment: A commenter stated sections 10(b)(1), (2), (5), and (6) 
now reference the ``age of trees.'' The commenter questioned if the 
expectation is that the liability and amount of damage will be 
established separately for each tree in the unit. The commenter stated 
this would cause major problems with the adjustment process.
    Response: The amount of insurance will continue to be established 
separately by the age class of trees, but the amount of insurance will 
not be established separately for each individual tree in the unit. 
FCIC has added a definition of ``age class'' to specify that the trees 
are grouped together by age and that each grouping has a separate 
Reference Maximum Dollar Amount. Guidance in the Crop Insurance 
Handbook explains how age classes will be determined if more than one 
age class exists within a unit. The proposed references to age of trees 
were intended to clarify the amount of insurance per acre is dependent 
on the age class of the trees. FCIC has revised section 10(b) as well 
as the definition of ``amount of insurance per acre'' by adding the 
term ``class'' following the term ``age'' to clarify the intent of the 
provisions.
    Comment: A few commenters stated section 10(b)(1) describes a 
calculation requiring multiplying by the ``age of trees.'' The 
commenter recommended re-wording the provision because any form of this 
calculation multiplied by a tree's actual age does not yield a 
meaningful number. The same comment applies to the language in sections 
10(b)(5) and (6).
    Response: FCIC disagrees with the commenter that section 10(b)(1) 
describes a calculation requiring multiplying by the age of trees. The 
calculation described in section 10(b)(1) requires multiplying the 
number of acres by the respective amount of insurance per acre and 
totaling the results for all acreage in the unit. The amount of 
insurance per acre is determined by multiplying the Reference Maximum 
Dollar Amount shown in the actuarial documents for each applicable 
combination of commodity type, intended use, and age class of trees 
times the coverage level elected times the share. FCIC has revised 
section 10(b) as well as the definition of amount of insurance per acre 
by adding the phrase ``combination of'' prior to the phrase ``commodity

[[Page 75518]]

type, intended use, age class of trees'' to clarify the intent of these 
provisions.
    Comment: A commenter requested clarification of the last part of 
the provision in section 10(b)(2). The commenter questioned what is 
meant by ``divided by the undamaged potential production'' prior to the 
cause of loss and how is this determined.
    Response: The phrase ``undamaged potential production'' in section 
10(b)(2) is referring to the total amount of production that would have 
been produced if damage had not occurred. Since potential production is 
defined as such in section 1 of the Crop Provisions, it is not 
appropriate to use the term ``undamaged'' in section 10(b)(2) because 
it could be misinterpreted to mean only the potential production that 
is not damaged. FCIC has revised section 10(b)(2) by removing the term 
``undamaged.'' In accordance with section 6(e), potential production 
will be determined at the time of loss using FCIC approved procedures.
    Comment: A few commenters stated the proposed section 10(c) should 
be reworded. The proposed policy language does not appear to match the 
explanation given in the background information in the proposed rule, 
which states ``the proposed section 10(c)(1) will contain the 
information from section 10(f), but will be revised to clarify 
individual fruit damaged due to an insurable cause that is on the 
ground and unmarketable is 100 percent damaged.'' This does not have 
the same meaning as the proposed language in 10(c)(1), which states the 
fruit ``is unmarketable because it is: (1) On the ground'' and 
therefore ``will be considered 100 percent damaged.'' The commenters 
stated the proposed revision to section 10(c) presumes the fruit is 
unmarketable. The commenters questioned if it is possible the new 
wording would encourage producers to leave fruit on the ground even if 
it could be collected and marketed. Simply declaring fruit on the 
ground as unmarketable and 100 percent damaged could lead to program 
vulnerability. The commenters also stated the background information in 
the proposed rule refers to an ``insurable'' cause of loss, while the 
proposed provision refers to an ``insured'' cause of loss. Furthermore, 
the commenters suggested trying to rearrange the proposed section 10(c) 
to eliminate the duplication of the phrase ``will be considered as 100 
percent damaged.''
    Response: FCIC agrees with the commenters that the proposed 
language in section 10(c) does not have the same meaning as stated in 
the background information in the proposed rule. FCIC also agrees the 
proposed language could lead to program vulnerability by considering 
production as unmarketable because it is on the ground. Therefore, FCIC 
has revised section 10(c) to be consistent with the explanation 
provided in the background of the proposed rule and the intent of the 
change and specify that individual citrus fruit will be considered 100 
percent damaged if due to an insurable cause it is on the ground and 
unmarketable. Furthermore, FCIC has revised section 10(c) by changing 
the term ``insured'' to ``insurable'' and eliminating the duplication 
of the phrase ``will be considered as 100 percent damaged.''
    Comment: A commenter stated the introductory paragraph of section 
10(d) begins with the phrase ``In addition to section 10(c), any citrus 
fruit that can be processed into products for human consumption will be 
considered marketable.'' The commenter contends this phrase does not 
appear to correspond to redesignated section 10(c), which addresses 
citrus fruit that has been determined to be unmarketable.
    Response: FCIC agrees with the commenters that the phrase ``In 
addition to section 10(c)'' is not necessary, although both the 
unmarketable and marketable fruit must be considered when determining 
the average percent of damage. Therefore, FCIC has revised section 
10(d) by removing the phrase ``In addition to section 10(c).''
    Comment: A commenter stated the proposed rewriting of section 10(d) 
is a significant improvement over the previous language and should help 
in addressing various questions. However, the commenter raised a 
question about the meaning of the word ``relating'' in section 10(d)(1) 
and whether there might be a clearer, more precise term. The commenter 
stated if ``relating'' means ``dividing,'' then perhaps the term 
``dividing'' would be clearer.
    Response: FCIC thanks the commenters for their review and support 
of this proposed change. The term ``relating'' was retained from the 
previous Crop Provisions and refers to a method used in the Florida 
Citrus Fruit Loss Adjustment Standards Handbook that is more 
complicated than simply dividing. FCIC has removed the term 
``relating'' in the final rule and revised the provision to instead 
show the process the term ``relating'' references.
    Comment: A commenter stated section 10(d)(1)(ii) as proposed, still 
uses a comparison for loss purposes to a set of standards for juice 
content in normal fruit. However, the standards have been proposed to 
be removed from the Crop Provisions and instead would be listed in the 
Special Provisions. The commenter stated this change can definitely 
provide some flexibility to the program by allowing FCIC to make 
changes that will keep the standards more current. However, the 
commenter stated it would be helpful to know what standards FCIC is 
planning to put in the Special Provisions for 2014, which would give 
stakeholders comfort this movement of terminology in not in fact 
adverse.
    Response: As stated in the proposed rule FCIC intends to publish 
the default juice contents in the Special Provisions. The default juice 
contents to be listed in the 2014 Special Provisions are not expected 
to change from what was listed in the Crop Provisions for the 2013 crop 
year.
    Comment: A commenter stated section 10(d)(2) does not flow from the 
lead-in of the introductory paragraph of section 10(d) and repeats much 
of the same phrasing. The commenter also suggested revising section 
10(d)(1) by adding the phrase ``For citrus fruit insured as juice,'' to 
the beginning of the provision to clarify the provision only applies to 
fruit insured as juice.
    Response: FCIC agrees section 10(d)(2) does not flow from the lead-
in from section 10(d). Therefore, FCIC has revised section 10(d)(2) to 
make it flow with the lead-in from section10(d). FCIC disagrees that 
section 10(d)(1) should be revised by adding the phrase ``For citrus 
fruit insured as juice'' to the beginning of the provision because this 
provision applies to both citrus fruit insured as fresh and juice. 
However, the provision is not intended to apply to citrus fruit sold as 
fresh or damaged due to uninsured causes. Therefore, FCIC has added a 
parenthetical following the references to marketable fruit in section 
10(d) to clarify the adjustments do not apply to fruit sold as fresh or 
damaged due to uninsured causes.
    Comment: A few commenters stated section 10(d)(2) creates a new 
method for calculating fresh fruit losses when some salvage of fruit 
that cannot be sold as fresh exists. It is impossible to accurately 
judge the effectiveness of this proposed change without seeing the 
actual numbers to be used as Fresh Fruit Factors and working through 
some examples. Consequently, it would be helpful if FCIC would publish 
the Fresh Fruit Factor tables and some examples of claims calculations.
    Response: FCIC disagrees it is not possible to judge the effect of 
the proposed changes without FCIC posting the Fresh Fruit Factors. FCIC 
described the method to be used for determining

[[Page 75519]]

the Fresh Fruit Factors in the proposed rule. FCIC considers the 
information contained in the proposed rule adequate for estimating the 
Fresh Fruit Factors and determining the effect they will have on 
indemnity calculations. FCIC will publish the Fresh Fruit Factors in 
the Special Provisions based on the method described in the proposed 
rule.
    Comment: A commenter requested FCIC consider redesignating section 
10(e) as section 10(d)(3) or an unnumbered paragraph following section 
10(d)(2)(iii) since both sections addresses citrus fruit insured as 
fresh.
    Response: FCIC disagrees section 10(e) should be redesignated as 
section 10(d)(3) or an unnumbered paragraph following section 
10(d)(2)(iii). Although both sections 10(d) and 10(e) address citrus 
fruit insured as fresh, these sections describe different processes for 
determining the percent of damage. Therefore, FCIC considers it more 
appropriate to list these provisions separately. However, since these 
provisions are intended to work together in situations where fruit 
insured as fresh is sold for an alternative use, FCIC has added a 
phrase to section 10(e) to clarify that the percent of damage for any 
production sold for an alternative use will be adjusted in accordance 
with section 10(d). FCIC has also removed the phrase ``a default juice 
content or'' because all commodity types will have a default juice 
content provided in the Special Provisions.
    In addition to the changes described above, FCIC has made minor 
editorial changes.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 457

    Crop insurance, Florida citrus fruit, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

Final Rule

    Accordingly, as set forth in the preamble, the Federal Crop 
Insurance Corporation amends 7 CFR part 457 effective for the 2014 and 
succeeding crop years as follows:

PART 457--COMMON CROP INSURANCE REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 457 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1506(l), 1506(o).


0
2. Amend Sec.  457.107 as follows:
0
a. In the introductory text by removing ``2009'' and adding ``2014'' in 
its place;
0
b. In section 1:
0
i. By revising the definitions of ``amount of insurance (per acre),'' 
and ``excess wind'';
0
ii. By adding the definitions of ``age class,'' ``citrus fruit 
commodity,'' ``citrus fruit group,'' ``commodity type,'' ``intended 
use,'' and ``unmarketable'' in alphabetical order; and
0
iii. By removing the definitions of ``citrus fruit crop'' and ``citrus 
fruit type (fruit type)'';
0
c. By revising section 2(a);
0
d. In section 3:
0
i. By revising paragraph (a); and
0
ii. By revising paragraphs (c) through (f);
0
e. In section 6:
0
i. By revising paragraph (a);
0
ii. In paragraph (b)(1) by removing the term ``fruit type'' and adding 
the term ``commodity type'' in its place;
0
iii. In paragraph (b)(2) by removing the number ``30'' and adding the 
number ``15'' in its place;
0
iv. By revising paragraph (b)(3);
0
v. By revising paragraph (b)(6); and
0
vi. By adding a new paragraph (f).
0
f. In section 7:
0
i. By designating the undesignated introductory paragraph as paragraph 
(a);
0
ii. In the newly designated paragraph (a) by removing the phrase ``crop 
planted with another crop'' and adding the phrase ``interplanted 
acreage'' in its place;
0
iii. By redesignating paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) as (a)(1), (2), and 
(3) respectively;
0
iv. By revising the redesignated paragraph (a)(1);
0
v. By revising the redesignated paragraph (a)(2);
0
vi. In paragraph (a)(3) by removing the term ``crop''; and
0
vii. By adding a new section 7(b).
0
g. In section 8:
0
i. In paragraph (a)(1)(i) by removing the phrase ``for the fruit type'' 
and by removing the term ``grove'' and adding the term ``acreage'' in 
its place;
0
ii. In paragraph (a)(2)(i) by removing the phrase ``early and'';
0
iii. In paragraph (a)(2)(ii) by adding the phrase ``early-season 
oranges and'' after the phrase ``February 28 for'';
0
iv. In paragraph (a)(2)(iii) by removing the phrase ``and temple 
oranges'' and adding the phrase ``oranges and temples'' in its place;
0
v. In paragraph (a)(2)(iv) by removing the comma after the term 
``lemons'' and adding the term ``and'' before the term ``limes'';
0
vi. In paragraph (a)(2)(v) by removing the phrase ``murcott honey 
oranges'' and adding the term ``murcotts'' in its place;
0
vii. In paragraph (a)(2)(vi) by removing the space between the terms 
``late'' and ``season'' and adding a hyphen in its place; and
0
viii. By revising paragraphs (b)(1) and (2).
0
h. In section 9(a)(6) by removing the phrase ``, but only if it causes 
the individual citrus fruit from Citrus IV, V, VII, and VIII to be 
unmarketable as fresh fruit'';
0
i. In section 10:
0
i. In paragraph (b)(1) by removing the phrase ``fruit type'' and adding 
the phrase ``applicable combination of commodity type, intended use, 
and age class of trees in the unit'' in its place;
0
ii. In paragraph (b)(2) by removing the term ``fruit type'' and adding 
the phrase ``combination of commodity type, intended use, and age class 
of trees'' in its place and by removing the term ``undamaged'';
0
iii. In paragraph (b)(3) by removing the parentheses around the number 
``10'';
0
iv. In paragraph (b)(4) by removing the parentheses around the number 
``10'';
0
v. In paragraph (b)(5) by removing the parentheses around the number 
``10'' and by removing the term ``fruit type'' and adding the phrase 
``combination of commodity type, intended use, and age class of trees'' 
in its place;
0
vi. By revising paragraph (b)(6);
0
vii. Amending the example in paragraph (b) by removing the opening 
parenthesis before the phrase ``For example'' and by removing the 
phrase ``citrus crop, fruit type, and age of trees'' and adding the 
phrase ``commodity type, intended use, and age class of trees'' in its 
place;
0
viii. By removing paragraphs (c) and (d);
0
ix. By adding a new paragraph (c);
0
x. By redesignating paragraph (e) as (d) and revising the newly 
redesignated paragraph (d);
0
xi. By removing paragraph (f) and (g); and
0
xii. By redesignating paragraph (h) as (e) and revising the newly 
redesignated paragraph (e).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  457.107  Florida citrus fruit crop insurance provisions.

* * * * *
    1. * * *
    Age class. Trees in the unit are grouped by age, with each 
insurable age group of a particular citrus fruit commodity, commodity 
type, and intended use receiving a Reference Maximum Dollar Amount 
shown in the actuarial documents that is used to calculate the amount 
of insurance for the unit.
    Amount of insurance (per acre). The dollar amount determined by 
multiplying the Reference Maximum Dollar Amount shown on the actuarial 
documents for each applicable

[[Page 75520]]

combination of commodity type, intended use, and age class of trees, 
within a citrus fruit commodity, times the coverage level percent that 
you elect, times your share.
* * * * *
    Citrus fruit commodity. Citrus fruit as follows:
    (1) Oranges;
    (2) Grapefruit;
    (3) Tangelos;
    (4) Mandarins/Tangerines;
    (5) Tangors;
    (6) Lemons;
    (7) Limes; and
    (8) Any other citrus fruit commodity designated in the actuarial 
documents.
    Citrus fruit group. A designation in the Special Provisions used to 
identify combinations of commodity types and intended uses within a 
citrus fruit commodity that may be grouped together for the purposes of 
electing coverage levels and identifying the insured crop.
    Commodity type. A specific subgroup of a commodity having a 
characteristic or set of characteristics distinguishable from other 
subgroups of the same commodity.
    Excess wind. A natural movement of air that has sustained speeds 
exceeding 58 miles per hour (50 knots) recorded at the U.S. National 
Weather Service (NWS) reporting station (reported as MAX SUST (KT)), 
the Florida Automated Weather Network (FAWN) reporting station 
(reported as 10m Wind (mph)), or any other weather reporting station 
identified in the Special Provisions operating nearest to the insured 
acreage at the time of damage.
* * * * *
    Intended use. The producer's expected end use or disposition of the 
commodity at the time the commodity is reported. Insurable intended 
uses will be specified in the Special Provisions.
* * * * *
    Unmarketable. Citrus fruit that cannot be processed into products 
for human consumption.
    2. * * *
    (a) Basic units will be established in accordance with section 1 of 
the Basic Provisions.
* * * * *
    3. * * *
* * * * *
    (a) You may select only one coverage level for each citrus fruit 
group that you elect to insure. If different amounts of insurance are 
available for commodity types within a citrus fruit group, you must 
select the same coverage level for each commodity type. For example, if 
you choose the 75 percent coverage level for one commodity type, you 
must also choose the 75 percent coverage level for all other commodity 
types within that citrus fruit group.
* * * * *
    (c) You must report, by the acreage reporting date designated in 
the actuarial documents:
    (1) Any event or action that could reduce the yield per acre of the 
insured citrus fruit commodity (including but not limited to removal of 
trees, any damage, disease, change in cultural practices, or any other 
circumstance that may reduce the productive capacity of the trees) and 
the number of affected acres;
    (2) The number of trees on insurable and uninsurable acreage, 
including interplanted trees;
    (3) The age of the trees and the planting pattern; and
    (4) Any other information we request in order to establish your 
amount of insurance.
    (d) We will reduce insurable acreage or the amount of insurance or 
both, as necessary:
    (1) Based on our estimate of the effect of the interplanted trees 
on the insured commodity type;
    (2) Following a decrease in plant stand;
    (3) If cultural practices are performed that may reduce the 
productive capacity of the trees;
    (4) If disease or damage occurs to the trees that may reduce the 
productive capacity of the trees; or
    (5) Any other circumstance that may reduce the productive capacity 
of the trees or that may reduce the yield per acre from previous 
levels.
    (e) If you fail to notify us of any circumstance that may reduce 
the acreage, the productive capacity of the trees, or the yield per 
acre from previous levels, we will reduce the acreage or amount of 
insurance or both as necessary any time we become aware of the 
circumstance.
    (f) 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.
* * * * *
    6. * * *
    (a) In accordance with section 8 of the Basic Provisions, the 
insured crop will be all acreage of each citrus fruit group 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) * * *
* * * * *
    (3) Of ``Meyer Lemons,'' ``Sour Oranges,'' or ``Clementines'';
* * * * *
    (6) Of any commodity type not specified as insurable in the Special 
Provisions.
* * * * *
    (f) For citrus fruit for which fresh fruit coverage is available as 
designated in the actuarial documents:
    (1) Management records must be available upon request to verify 
good fresh citrus fruit production practices were followed from the 
beginning of bloom stage until harvest; and
    (2) Unless otherwise provided in the Special Provisions:
    (i) Acceptable fresh fruit sales records must be provided upon 
request from at least one of the previous three crop years; or
    (ii) For fresh fruit acreage new to the operation or for acreage in 
the initial year of fresh fruit production, a current year fresh fruit 
marketing contract must be provided to us upon request.
    7. * * *
    (a) * * *
    (1) Citrus fruit from trees interplanted with another commodity 
type or another agricultural commodity is insurable unless we inspect 
the acreage and determine it does not meet the requirements contained 
in your policy.
    (2) If the citrus fruit is from trees interplanted with another 
commodity type or another agricultural commodity, acreage will be 
prorated according to the percentage of the acres occupied by each of 
the interplanted commodity types or agricultural commodities. 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.
* * * * *
    (b) In addition to section 9 of the Basic Provisions, any acreage 
of citrus fruit that has been abandoned is not insurable.
    8. * * *
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) Acreage acquired after the acreage reporting date for the crop 
year is not insurable unless a transfer of coverage and right to 
indemnity is executed in

[[Page 75521]]

accordance with section 28 of the Basic Provisions.
    (2) If you relinquish your insurable share on any insurable acreage 
of citrus fruit on or before the acreage reporting date of the crop 
year, insurance will not attach, no premium will be due, and no 
indemnity payable, for such acreage for that crop year.
* * * * *
    10. * * *
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
* * * * *
    (6) Totaling all such results of section 10(b)(5) for all 
applicable combinations of commodity types, intended uses, and age 
classes of trees in the unit and subtracting any indemnities paid for 
the current crop year to determine the amount payable for the unit.
    (c) Any individual citrus fruit will be considered 100 percent 
damaged, if due to an insurable cause of loss it is:
    (1) On the ground and unmarketable; or
    (2) Unmarketable because it is immature, unwholesome, decomposed, 
adulterated, or otherwise unfit for human consumption.
    (d) Any citrus fruit that can be processed into products for human 
consumption will be considered marketable. The percent of damage for 
the marketable citrus fruit (excluding citrus fruit sold as fresh or 
damaged due to uninsured causes) will be determined by:
    (1) Subtracting the juice content of the marketable citrus fruit 
(excluding citrus fruit sold as fresh or damaged due to uninsured 
causes) from:
    (i) 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
    (ii) The default juice content provided in the Special Provisions, 
if at least three years of acceptable juice records are not furnished 
or the citrus fruit is insured as fresh;
    (2) Subtracting the juice content of the marketable citrus fruit 
(excluding citrus fruit sold as fresh or damaged due to uninsured 
causes) from the official weight per box for the applicable commodity 
type provided in the Special Provisions;
    (3) Dividing the result of section 10(d)(1) by the result of 
10(b)(2);
    (4) Dividing the official weight per box for the applicable 
commodity type provided in the Special Provisions by:
    (i) 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
    (ii) The default juice content provided in the Special Provisions, 
if at least three years of acceptable juice records are not furnished 
or the citrus fruit is insured as fresh; and
    (5) Multiplying the result of section 10(b)(3) by the result of 
10(b)(4); and
    (6) For citrus fruit insured as fresh that has a Fresh Fruit Factor 
listed in the Special Provisions, making an additional adjustment to 
the percent of damage by:
    (i) Subtracting the result of section 10(d)(5) from 100;
    (ii) Multiplying the result of section 10(d)(6)(i) by the 
applicable Fresh Fruit Factor located in the Special Provisions; and
    (iii) Adding the result of section 10(d)(6)(ii) to the result of 
section 10(d)(5).
    (e) Notwithstanding section 10(d), for citrus fruit insured as 
fresh that do not have a Fresh Fruit Factor provided in the Special 
Provisions, any individual citrus fruit not meeting the applicable 
United States Standards for packing as fresh fruit due to an insured 
cause of loss will be considered 100 percent damaged, except that the 
percent of damage for any production sold for an alternative use will 
be adjusted in accordance with section 10(d).
* * * * *

    Signed in Washington, DC, on December 18, 2012.
William J. Murphy,
Manager, Federal Crop Insurance Corporation.
[FR Doc. 2012-30842 Filed 12-20-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-08-P