# Common Crop Insurance Regulations; Canola and Rapeseed Crop Insurance Provisions

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A97-32848

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Rule
- **Published:** December 17, 1997
- **Citation:** 62 FR 65991

## Text

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Federal Crop Insurance Corporation

7 CFR Part 457

Common Crop Insurance Regulations; Canola and Rapeseed Crop
Insurance Provisions

AGENCY: Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC) finalizes
specific crop provisions for the insurance of canola and rapeseed. The
provisions will be used in conjunction with the Common Crop Insurance
Policy, Basic Provisions, which contain standard terms and conditions
common to most crops. The intended effect of this action is to convert
the canola and rapeseed pilot insurance program to a permanent
insurance program.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective December 17, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Johnson, Insurance Management
Specialist, Research and Development, Product Development Division,
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, United States Department of
Agriculture, 9435 Holmes Road, Kansas City, MO 64131, telephone (816)
926-3826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined this rule
to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and,
therefore, this rule has not been reviewed by OMB.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507),
those collections of information have been approved by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under control number 0563-0053.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub.
L. 104-4, 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
the UMRA.

Executive Order 12612

It has been determined under section 6(a) of Executive Order No.
12612, Federalism, that this rule does not have sufficient federalism
implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment. The
provisions contained in this rule will not have a substantial direct
effect on States or their political subdivisions, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

This regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. The regulation does not impose
any burden on small entities than is required on the part of large
entities. The amount of work required of insurance companies will not
increase because the information to determine eligibility is already
maintained in their office and the other required information is
already being collected under the pilot program. No additional actions
are required as a result of this rule on the part of the producer or
the insurance companies. All producers must provide the same
information regardless of size, including an application, acreage
report, and notice of loss, if applicable. Therefore, this action is
determined to be exempt from the provisions of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605), and no Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
was prepared.

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 No. 12988 on civil justice reform. The provisions of this rule
will not have retroactive effect. The provisions of this rule will
preempt State and local laws to the extent such State and local laws
are inconsistent herewith. The administrative appeal provisions
published at 7 CFR part 11 must be exhausted before action against FCIC
for judicial review may be brought.

Environmental Evaluation

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

National Performance Review

This regulatory action is being taken as part of the National
Performance Review Initiative to eliminate unnecessary or duplicative
regulations and improve those that remain in force.

Background

On Thursday, September 18, 1997, FCIC published a proposed rule in
the Federal Register at 62 FR 48956 to add to the Common Crop Insurance
Regulations (7 CFR part 457), a new section, 7 CFR 457.161, Canola and
Rapeseed Crop Provisions. The new provisions will be effective for the
1998 and succeeding crop years for canola and rapeseed with a November
30 contract change date and 1999 and succeeding crop years for canola
and rapeseed with a June 30 contract change date. These provisions will
replace and supersede the current unpublished pilot provisions for
insuring canola and rapeseed.
Following publication of the proposed rule, the public was afforded
30 days to submit written comments and opinions. A total of 80 comments
were received from an insurance service organization, reinsured
companies, a national

[[Page 65992]]

commodity group, a regional commodity group, state commodity groups, a
state extension service, a seed company, a State Department of
Agriculture director and producers. The comments received and FCIC's
responses are as follows:
Comment: An insurance company commented that it is impossible to
comment on the accuracy of differences in the late planted period and
associated guarantee reduction from location to location as mentioned
in the Background section, because the Special Provisions are not
available for review.
Response: It is difficult to comment on the potential differences
in the late planting period and associated guarantee reduction when the
commenter does not have the Special Provisions. FCIC has determined
that the variance for dates and guarantee reductions is needed to
address the normal variability of planting conditions, weather
influences, and crop response to late planting on a county-by-county
basis. The dates and guarantee reduction percentages are subject to
change by the contract change date each year. Any inaccuracies can be
addressed at that time. No change has been made.
Comment: A regional commodity group requested specific counties and
states to be covered by the canola and rapeseed insurance program.
These counties were not a part of the original pilot area.
Response: When the canola and rapeseed Crop Provisions are
published as final rule, insurance will be available when counties are
added through the expansion process used for other permanent crop
insurance programs. This process is outlined in the procedure ``General
Guidelines and Criteria for Submitting Multiple and Individual County
Crop Program Expansion Requests,'' dated May 9, 1996. A copy can be
obtained by contacting the Deputy Administrator, Insurance Services
Division, Risk Management Agency, 1400 Independence Avenue S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20250-0801, telephone (202) 690-4494.
Comment: Grower associations, Extension specialists, a State
Agriculture Department, a seed company, and producers submitted
comments requesting that the pilot program be converted to a permanent
program as soon as possible to allow for canola expansion into counties
where canola and rapeseed insurance protection is not available.
Response: This rule converts the pilot program to a permanent
program.
Comment: An insurance service organization recommended that the
conversion of the canola and rapeseed pilot program to a permanent crop
insurance program be deferred until the 1999 crop year since it is
preferable for changes to be effective the same year for fall and
spring.
Response: Many requests and comments have been received to expand
the canola and rapeseed insurance program. Deferring the canola and
rapeseed pilot program conversion until the 1999 crop year would delay
the expansion of the canola and rapeseed insurance coverage to
additional counties. Since the majority of canola and rapeseed
producers are in counties with a March 15 sales closing date,
converting the pilot program for 1998 spring crops will allow FCIC to
meet its goal of converting the pilot program to a permanent program
for most producing areas for the 1998 crop year.
Comment: A reinsured company suggested that the definition and
references to ``FSA'' be deleted since there is no need for reliance on
FSA information in the crop insurance program.
Response: FSA farm serial numbers are required to qualify for
optional unit division in certain crop policies. In certain situations,
FSA information may be used in the crop insurance program whether
required or not. FCIC does not believe that such definitions
``mandate'' such use. No change has been made.
Comment: A reinsured company and an insurance service organization
commented on the definition of ``good farming practices.'' The
commenters questioned whether cultural practices exist that are not
necessarily recognized or known by the Cooperative State Research,
Education and Extension Service (CSREES). In addition it was suggested
that the term ``county'' in the definition of ``good farming
practices'' should be changed to ``area.''
Response: FCIC believes that the CSREES recognizes farming
practices that are considered acceptable for canola and rapeseed. If a
producer is following practices currently not recognized as acceptable
by CSREES, there is no reason why such recognition cannot be sought by
any interested party. The term ``area'' is less clear than the term
``county'' and would tend to make determinations more subjective in
nature. Further, the actuarial documents are on a county basis. No
change has been made.
Comment: A reinsured company recommended that in the definition of
``irrigated practice'' the words ``and quality'' be inserted after the
word ``quantity.''
Response: FCIC agrees that water quality is an important issue.
However, since no standards or procedures have been developed to
measure water quality for insurance purposes, quality cannot be
included in the definition. No change has been made.
Comment: An insurance service organization suggested various
editorial changes, including the updating of certain definitions which
the commenter indicated were generic and would be updated in the Basic
Provisions. In addition, it was suggested that the definition of
``FSA'' be changed either by including the phrase ``an agency of the
USDA'' in parentheses, or by inserting a comma before that phrase. The
commenter also suggested revising the definition of ``practical to
replant,'' by deleting the phrase ``of `Practical to replant'.''
Response: All generic terms have been moved to the Basic
Provisions, and any changes will be made in that rule.
Comment: A reinsured company recommended that in the definition of
``late planted'' the word ``initially'' be added between the words
``acreage'' and ``planted.''
Response: FCIC has revised the definition of ``late planted'' in
the Basic Provisions to include the word ``initially.''
Comment: A reinsured company and an insurance service organization
commented on the definition of ``practical to replant.'' A question was
raised whether ``marketing window'' is appropriate for this crop. In
addition, comments were made whether such items as ``moisture
availability, condition of the field, marketing window and time to crop
maturity'' are subjective and add unnecessary complexity to the
program.
Response: The concept of a ``marketing window'' is most applicable
to processor and fresh market crops and recognizes that canola and
rapeseed are unlike these crops. However, the Federal Crop Insurance
Act mandates that marketing windows be considered in determining if it
is practical to replant the insured crop. Factors such as moisture
availability and condition of the field are necessary to determine
whether the conditions are acceptable for the producer to produce and
harvest the crop before the end of the insurance period. No change has
been made.
Comment: An insurance service organization questioned the use of
the term ``price of damaged production.'' The commenter indicated the
term is used several times in section 12, and questioned whether this
definition adds anything beyond the ``local market price'' definition.

[[Page 65993]]

Response: The term price of damaged production is different from
the local market price. The price of damaged production is used for
quality adjustment if the canola production does not meet the U.S. No.
2 grade canola. No change has been made.
Comment: An insurance service organization suggested that
clarification needs to be made to the current definition of
``replanting'' to ensure that the crop is replanted to the same crop as
originally planted.
Response: FCIC has revised the definition of ``replanting'' in the
Basic Provisions to specify replacing the seed or plants of the same
crop in the insured acreage.
Comment: An insurance service organization suggested to remove the
language describing when a crop must be replanted from section 7(a) for
simplification.
Response: It is necessary to retain the language in section 7(a) of
these Crop Provisions since acreage not replanted when it is practical
to replant is uninsurable. FCIC has revised the condition when the crop
must be replanted.
Comment: An insurance service organization questioned language
regarding differences in conditions for replanting. Section 7(a) refers
to insurable acreage ``damaged before the final planting date, to the
extent that the majority of growers in the area would normally not
further care for the crop,'' while the replanting payment section 10(a)
says ``damaged by an insurable cause of loss to the extent that the
remaining stand will not produce at least 90 percent of the production
guarantee.''
Response: FCIC has made the two provisions consistent.
Comment: An insurance service organization suggested deleting
``if'' at the beginning of the last phrase in section 10(a).
Response: FCIC has simplified the provision and made it consistent
with other practical to replant provisions.
Comment: An insurance service organization recommended the
reference in section 11 to the 10-foot-wide strip in each field should
be more specific. One sample would not be adequate in large fields. The
number of strips needed will depend on the size of the field.
Response: The Basic Provisions and Crop Provisions use the plural
term ``samples'' to allow the insurance provider the discretion to
require more than one 10-foot-wide strip if it is necessary to obtain a
more accurate appraisal of production. No change has been made.
Comment: An insurance service organization recommended a chart be
developed and used for quality adjustment for industrial oil types and
non-industrial types (similar to those in the coarse grains loss
adjustment handbook) instead of settling claims based on prices
obtained from buyers as stated in section 12(4)(ii)(D)(3).
Response: This section has been redesignated as section
12(d)(5)(ii)(C) in these crop provisions. FCIC agrees that there may be
an alternative method to determine quality adjustment. However, the
information needed to develop a chart for quality adjustment is
presently not available. No change has been made.
Comment: An insurance company stated that section 12(d) of these
Crop Provisions should be corrected from ``Mature canola and rapeseed
may be adjusted for excess moisture and quality'' to ``mature canola
may be adjusted for excess moisture and quality deficiencies. Mature
rapeseed may be adjusted for excess moisture only.'' Rapeseed will not
be adjusted for quality.
Response: FCIC has revised the Crop Provisions accordingly.
Comment: An insurance service organization commented that the
calculation sequence in section 12 is difficult to follow because it is
so wordy and it seems unnecessary to refer to the previous item by
number as if it were on another page.
Response: Since some of the calculations involved are not performed
in sequential order, it is necessary to refer to specific section
numbers. Removal of the references would make the provisions less
clear. No change has been made.
Comment: An insurance service organization received one comment
stating that the policy should not allow the insured to defer
settlement and wait for a later, generally lower appraisal.
Response: The provision in section 12(c)(1)(iv) allows deferment of
a claim only if the insurance provider agrees that representative
samples are necessary to more accurately determine the appraised amount
of production and the insured agrees to care for the sample. If the
insured does not provide sufficient care for the sample, the insurance
provider may use the original appraisal. No change has been made.
Comment: A reinsured company commented that it appears that
sections 13 and 14 are copied verbatim, except for one cited item
addressing the percentage reduction for late planting, and that these
sections were left out of other recently published Crop Provisions in
anticipation of approval of the new Basic Provisions. The commenter
questioned the difference with canola and rapeseed and how the
subsequent removal of the sections would be accomplished. The commenter
also questioned whether the comments made to the proposed Basic
Provisions will be incorporated into the Basic Provisions Final Rule.
Response: The new Basic Provisions will be effective for the 1998
crop year for crops with a contract change date of November 30 or
December 31 or later. Therefore, FCIC removed all common late planting
and prevented planting provisions from these Crop Provisions. Sections
13 and 14 contain language that is necessary to recognize the
differences in the late and prevented planting provisions for canola
and rapeseed (as has been done for other crops). Those comments made to
the proposed Basic Provisions deemed appropriate by FCIC have been
incorporated into the Basic Provisions Final Rule.
Comment: An insurance service organization commented that sections
13(a)(1) and (2) of the proposed rule continue the current reductions
for late-planted acreage, and are inconsistent with the Basic
Provisions Proposed Rule, which listed a 1 percent reduction for each
of the 25 days in the late planting period. The commenter noted that if
the Special Provisions will vary by county, it would be better if the
Crop Provisions matched the Basic Provisions. The commenter stated that
different late planting periods determined by the Special Provisions is
acceptable, if input from local people is considered in determining the
late planting period, then the late planting period probably should not
be 25 days for most crops in the northern states. The commenter
questioned whether the current late planting provisions will apply if
the new Basic Provisions Final Rule is not approved in time to be
effective for the 1998 crop year for canola and rapeseed.
Response: FCIC has revised section 13 of these Crop Provisions to
indicate that in lieu of section 16(a) of the Basic Provisions, the
production guarantee for each acre planted to the insured crop during
the late planting period will be reduced by 1 percent per day for each
day planted after the final planting date unless otherwise specified in
the Special Provisions. The new Basic Provisions are effective
beginning the 1998 crop year, in those counties with a November 30
contract change date listed in the revised canola and rapeseed Crop
Provisions. The current (1997 crop year) late planting and prevented
planting provisions apply to all other counties.

[[Page 65994]]

Comment: An insurance service organization questioned whether it is
necessary in sections 13(a) and (b) to include ``amount of insurance''
(in addition to ``production guarantee'') for this APH crop. The
commenter also questioned whether section 13(a) should read ``by each
day planted'' or ``for each day planted.''
Response: Sections 13(a) and (b) have been moved to the Basic
Provisions and, therefore, will need to include ``amount of insurance''
in addition to ``production guarantee.'' FCIC has revised the phrase
from ``by each day planted'' to ``for each day planted'' in section 16
of the Basic Provisions.
Comment: A reinsured company commented that section 13 reinforces
that ``practical to replant'' must be defined as the time period
running through the late planting period.
Response: While section 13, now section 16 of the Basic Provisions,
allows the time period to run through the late planting period, it is
not required. Factors other than time must also be considered. Based on
a consideration of all the factors, it is possible to determine that it
is practical to replant only before the final planting date, during the
late planting period or after the late planting period if replanting is
generally occurring in the area.
Comment: An insurance service organization commented that section
13(a)(3), as written, does not flow from the lead-in sentence in
section 13(a).
Response: The Crop Provisions and Basic Provisions have been
revised to correct any such problem.
Comment: An insurance service organization commented that section
13(b) is confusing because it states that acreage planted after the
late planting period will have the same guarantee as acreage that is
prevented from being planted, and then adds that it must have been
prevented from being planted by an insurable cause of loss occurring
within the insurance period. The commenter pointed out that such
acreage was planted and, therefore, was not prevented from being
planted. Rather, it was prevented from being planted timely or within
the late planting period.
Response: This comment was also received during the proposed rule
comment period for the Basic Provisions. Section 16(b)(2) of the Basic
Provisions has been revised to indicate that planting on such acreage
must have been prevented by the final planting date or during the late
planting period by an insurable cause occurring within the insurance
period for prevented planting coverage.
Comment: An insurance service organization suggested changing
section 13(c) to read ``during the late planting period'' in both
sentences rather than ``after the final planting date'' since this
section deals only with late-planted acreage and not prevented planting
as well.
Response: FCIC has revised section 16(c) of the Basic Provisions to
state that the premium amount for insurable acreage specified in
sections 16 (a) or (b) will be the same as that for timely planted
acreage.
Comment: An insurance service organization commented that because
section 14 is in the canola and rapeseed proposed rule Crop Provisions
only until they are incorporated into the new Basic Provisions, the
``Prevented planting'' definition should be included in the Crop
Provisions.
Response: Since all common provisions, including definitions, have
been incorporated into the Basic Provisions, there is no need to repeat
the definition in this rule. No change has been made.
Comment: An insurance service organization recommended that FCIC
consider reversing phrases in section 14(a)(1)(i) to match the order in
(ii), or vice versa. The commenter is recommending that section
14(a)(1)(i) begin with ``For the crop year the application for
insurance is accepted.''
Response: The different order in these two sections facilitates
readability and comprehension. No change has been made in the
corresponding sections 17(a)(1)(i) and (ii) in the Basic Provisions.
Comment: An insurance service organization recommended that FCIC
consider changing section 14(a)(1)(ii) to ``...since that date
(cancellation for the purpose of transferring the policy...will not be
considered a break in continuity for this purpose); and.''
Response: This change would not significantly add to the
understanding of the statement. No changes have been made in the
corresponding section 17(a)(1)(ii) in the Basic Provisions.
Comment: An insurance service organization commented that section
14(b) seems to suggest that insureds who have chosen additional levels
of coverage may select a different additional level for prevented
planting. The commenter also questioned whether the Special Provisions
will state which prevented planting level will apply by default if one
is not specifically elected, and asked which level would be in the Crop
Provisions.
Response: Insureds who have chosen additional levels of coverage
may, in fact, select a different level for prevented planting. Section
17(b) of the Basic Provisions now specifies that the actuarial
documents may contain additional levels of prevented planting coverage
the insured may purchase. If the insured does not purchase one of those
additional levels by the sales closing date, or the insured has a
Catastrophic Risk Protection Endorsement, the insured will receive the
prevented planting coverage specified in these Crop Provisions.
Comment: An insurance service organization commented that section
14(d)(2) seems to suggest that insureds may choose to claim prevented
planting on irrigated acreage instead of planting non-irrigated
acreage. The commenter added that section 14(d)(2) seems to contradict
section 9(b) of the current Basic Provisions, which states that ``only
that acreage for which you have adequate facilities and water, at the
time coverage begins' can be reported and insured as irrigated. They
also questioned whether carryover insureds could qualify for prevented
planting payments based on an irrigated guarantee even though
facilities or sufficient water did not exist at the time the crop
should have been planted.
Response: To qualify for a prevented planting claim on irrigated
acreage, the acreage must still meet all the requirements for irrigated
acreage. Section 14(d)(2), now section 17(d)(2) of the revised Basic
Provisions, does not contradict section 9(b) of the Basic Provisions
since all it does is specify the date by which the acreage must qualify
as irrigated to qualify for a prevented planting claim on irrigated
acreage.
Comment: An insurance service organization commented on the
organization of the table in section 14(e)(1). The commenter suggested
combining portions of the table and other editorial changes which were
also suggested for the table in the Basic Provisions.
Response: FCIC has revised portions of the table and made other
editorial changes in section 17(e)(1) of the Basic Provisions.
Comment: An insurance service organization commented that there
should be no written agreements for prevented planting acreage, and
that an insured who has not raised a crop should not be able to have
prevented planting acres of that crop on any ground. A reinsured
company indicated it was not interested in more written agreements.
However, it appeared that may be the only way to provide coverage in
many cases.
Response: Based on the comments received on both the Basic
Provisions and the Crop Provisions, FCIC has

[[Page 65995]]

determined that it is appropriate to delete references to ``written
agreements'' in section 17(e) of the Basic Provisions, and to allow the
use of an intended acreage report in certain instances as long as
specified conditions are met.
Comment: A reinsured company commented that the word ``base''
should be deleted in all instances in section 14(e).
Response: This comment was also received on the Basic Provisions
and the word ``base'' has been deleted from section 17 of the Basic
Provisions.
Comment: A reinsured company commented that it presumed the
determination of eligible acres in the table in section 14(e)(1) is
done on a county basis.
Response: This comment was also received on the Basic Provisions
and FCIC responded that eligible acres are determined on a county and
crop basis.
Comment: A reinsured company commented on the determination of
eligible acres for prevented planting in section 14(e)(1). The
commenter stated that using the planted and prevented planting acres
for the last four years will not be difficult for carryover policies.
However, it will be a significant problem for transferred policies, as
the prevented planting acres will not be a part of the APH record that
is transferred. The commenter questioned how FCIC proposes that this
information will be known by the company for a policy it gains by
transfer.
Response: When policies are obtained by transfer, reinsured
companies can obtain previous years' records of prevented planting
acres from the insured, the ceding company, or the FCIC policyholder
tracking system.
Comment: A reinsured company questioned the impact and
acceptability of intended acreage reports concerning eligible prevented
planting acres in section 14(e)(1). The commenter questioned the
guidelines for approval of written agreements, and who has the
authority to approve or disapprove such agreements. The company also
questioned if, since the request for written agreement must be made on
or before the sales closing date, all land added after the sales
closing date by the insured is ineligible for prevented planting.
Response: The Basic Provisions have been amended so that a written
agreement is no longer required to establish eligible acreage. Instead,
intended acreage reports will be used. However, the reinsured company
will be required to verify that the acreage reported does not exceed
the number of acres of cropland in the producer's farming operation at
the time the intended acreage report is submitted. The reinsured
company will have the authority to accept or reject any intended
acreage report based on standards approved by FCIC. This provision has
also been revised to allow the number of acres determined to be
eligible for prevented planting coverage to be increased if after the
sales closing date specified conditions are met. Provisions in this
section also allow producers who, in any of the four most recent crop
years, have not produced any crop for which insurance was available, to
establish eligible acres.
Comment: An insurance service organization commented that section
14(e)(3) says that the total number of acres requested for all crops
cannot exceed the number of acres of cropland in the insured's farming
operation for the crop year, and probably needs to allow for double-
cropping, as in 14(f)(5).
Response: This provision, now located in section 17(e)(1) of the
Basic Provisions, is revised to account for double cropped acreage.
Comment: An insurance service organization commented that section
14(e)(4) does not allow for land added after the sales closing date, or
for business being conducted up to the last day of the sales period.
The commenter also suggested that ``us'' be changed to ``your agent''
(or at least verify that ``us'' includes agents as well as the company
underwriting office).
Response: These provisions, now included in section 17(e)(1)(i) of
the Basic Provisions, have been revised to allow an increase in
eligible prevented planting acres if the producer submits proof that
additional acreage was purchased, leased, or released from any USDA
program in time to plant it for the insured crop year and no cause of
loss that will or could prevent planting is evident at the time the
acreage is purchased, leased, or released from the USDA program. The
term ``us'' refers to the company as provided in the section before the
``Agreement to insure'' in the Basic Provisions, and includes agents
representing the company. No change has been made.
Comment: An insurance service organization questioned if section
14(f)(1) is intended to be a change from current language that allows
prevented planting coverage for acreage less than 20 acres or 20
percent as long as the insured can show ``inputs'' were available.
Response: This change in what is now section 17(f) of the Basic
Provisions, is intentional. FCIC requires the acreage to be contiguous
to reduce prevented planting payments for small portions of fields that
are wet in most years although planting occasionally may be possible.
Comment: A reinsured company suggested that in section 14(f)(1) the
phrase ``whichever is less'' be changed to read ``whichever is larger''
and also suggested that the term ``insurable crop acreage in the unit''
be defined.
Response: The phrase ``whichever is less'' is appropriate. There is
no reason to define the phrase ``insurable crop acreage in the unit''
since units, insured crop, and insured acreage are defined elsewhere in
the policy. No change has been made.
Comment: An insurance service organization recommended that
sections 14(f) (4) and (5) be revised to spell out the numeral ``4'' in
the phrases ``the last 4 years.''
Response: This change does not significantly add to the
understanding of these sections. No change has been made.
Comment: An insurance service organization questioned whether
prevented planting acreage of either crop in a double-cropping history
will maintain or break the continuity of the double-cropping history.
Response: Prevented planting acreage of either crop in a double-
cropping history will not break the continuity of the double-cropping
history. Sections 17(f)(4) and (5) of the Basic Provisions specify the
last 4 years in which the insured crop was grown on the acreage.
Comment: A reinsured company commented on the provisions in section
14(f)(5). Although the commenter agreed with the concept, they
questioned how a company would know if any crop from which a benefit is
derived under any program administered by the USDA is planted and
fails. The company also suggested modifying the sentence from may be
hayed or grazed ``* * * after the final planting date for the insured
crop * * *'' to ``* * * 60 days after the final planting date for the
insured crop * * *''.
Response: Insurance providers must question insureds to determine
if any crop was planted for the crop year on the acreage being claimed
for prevented planting. Producers should not be denied grazing or
haying benefits for 60 days after being prevented from planting. In
many instances, cover crops are grown until preparation for planting
occurs in the spring. If the producer was unable to remove the cover
crop and plant a crop, such a cover crop could be hayed or grazed soon
after the final planting date and a prevented planting payment would
still be owed.

[[Page 65996]]

Comment: A reinsured company questioned how the insurer will know
if a cash lease payment is also received for use of the same acreage in
the same crop year as specified in section 14(f)(6), particularly if
the cash lease payment is made after the prevented planting payment has
already been made by the company.
Response: Insurance providers must question insureds to determine
if a cash lease payment is, or will be, received for the acreage being
claimed for prevented planting. Insureds who claim prevented planting
on acreage they have or will cash lease would be misrepresenting a
material fact and could be subject to civil and criminal false claim
penalties.
Comment: A reinsured company stated that it did not disagree with
the concept of section 14(f)(7) but that the provision is inconsistent
with freedom to farm and is unenforceable.
Response: This section, now section 17(f)(7) of the Basic
Provisions, indicates that prevented planting coverage will not be
provided for any acreage for which planting history or conservation
plans indicate that the acreage would have remained fallow for crop
rotation purposes. This provision is necessary to protect the integrity
of the program. FCIC is charged with establishing an actuarially sound
insurance program, and relying upon ``intentions,'' without evidence to
support such intentions is not an appropriate manner of achieving
actuarial soundness. For example, if half the acreage in a farm has
remained fallow every other year for the past ten years to maintain a
summerfallow rotation, this is ample evidence that this is a normal
practice. If such patterns exist, this provision is easier to
administer than if the reinsured companies were forced to determine
whether the producer actually intended to plant a crop. Since coverage
for prevented planting now begins on the previous crop year's sales
closing date for carry-over policies, producers could decide to claim
an intent to plant acreage where the cause occurred months earlier in
order to profit from the insurance program when they never intended to
plant a crop. While the denial of prevented planting coverage may
occasionally adversely affect some producers who genuinely intended to
plant a crop, the inability to prove intent to plant and the need to
protect the integrity of the program require FCIC to retain the
provision. No change has been made.
Comment: An insurance service organization commented that section
14(f)(8) is unnecessary because it has been covered in 14(e).
Response: FCIC has separated the provisions of section 14(f)(8)
into two separate provisions in section 17 of the Basic Provisions, and
does not feel that either provision has been covered in section 14(e).
No change has been made.
Comment: An insurance service organization commented that section
14(f)(9) has been added and might not be necessary if 14(f)(1) were
changed to require ``proof of inputs'' available to plant and produce a
crop. A reinsured company stated that they did not disagree with the
concept of section 14(f)(9) but that it is an unenforceable provision.
The company asked if capital on hand was considered proof that inputs
were available.
Response: Since the prevented planting period could begin on the
sales closing date for the previous crop year, many producers could
know that they would be prevented from planting prior to the sales
closing date and planting period. These producers would be in a
position to claim the intent to plant higher valued crops than they
normally plant. FCIC has revised the provision to clarify that proof of
inputs is only necessary where there is a deviation from normal
planting practices. For example, if the producer has rotated crops
between corn and soybeans in alternate years and this was the year the
rotational pattern showed that corn would normally be planted, the
reinsured company does not need to determine whether the insured had
sufficient inputs, if the producer seeks a prevented planting payment
for corn. However, if the producer seeks a prevented planting payment
for soybeans, the reinsured company would be required to determine
whether the producer has sufficient inputs. Capital on hand would not
be considered proof of inputs. If the producer could not produce
receipts for seed, fertilizer, herbicides, etc., the lease of equipment
or labor, or specific land preparation, it will be presumed that the
crop usually planted by the producer was the crop that the producer
intended to plant. While this provision may preclude a producer from
receiving benefits for a crop that he or she genuinely intended to
plant, the producer would still be eligible for a benefit on the crop
usually planted and the need to protect program integrity outweighs its
disadvantages. Since this situation should be rare, it should not
impose an undue burden on the reinsured company.
Comment: A reinsured company stated that section 14(f)(11) is
contrary to the freedom to farm concept. The company also questioned
how the insurer would know if the crop was planted in one of the last
four years.
Response: This section is now section 17(f)(12) of the Basic
Provisions. The company should ask the insured if the crop was planted
and this information can be verified from FCIC. This provision is
intended to protect program integrity and avoid the problems associated
with determining producer intent. FCIC has created an exception for new
producers that qualify for coverage under section 17(e)(1)(i)(B).
Comment: An insurance service organization commented that the first
sentence of section 14(f)(11) excludes prevented planting coverage on
any crop types that have not been planted in at least one of the four
most recent years. The commenter stated that the second sentence
specifies that this refers to types requiring separate guarantees,
amounts of insurance or price elections, and then says there must be an
APH database or acreage must have been reported in one of the last four
years. The commenter feels this suggests that, to get prevented
planting coverage, the insured can set up an APH database for a type
even if the insured has no actual history on it, and they recommended
rewording the language if that is not the intent.
Response: Section 14(f)(11), now section 17(f)(12) of the Basic
Provisions, still requires that the crop be planted in at least one of
the four most recent years. The second sentence just specifies the
conditions under which the crops must also be included in the APH
database or reported on the acreage report. No change has been made.
Comment: Reinsured companies and an insurance service organization
commented on the following provisions of section 15: (1) There are
legitimate reasons for written agreements to be valid for more than one
year, especially if no substantive changes occur from one year to the
next. Limiting written agreements to one year only increases
administrative cost, complexity and opportunity for misunderstanding
and error, and flies in the face of efforts to simplify the program and
reduce its administrative expense; (2) Written agreements should be
effective for more than one year because: (a) There is already an
exception since written agreements to establish units are continuous
(unless the farming operation changes significantly); (b) FCIC does not
often incorporate the written agreements into the actuarial documents
within one year; and (c) FCIC's legal counsel objects to the concept of
written agreements, which purportedly allows exceptions for those ``in
the know'' while others may not be aware the possibility exists; (3)
The commenters questioned whether these

[[Page 65997]]

provisions will be revised to simplify renewals; (4) The policy should
require the insured to pay the cost of inspections necessary to obtain
a written agreement because, in many instances there is no economic
reason or incentive for a company to pursue such agreements; (5)
Sections 15(a) and (e) should be combined since both deal with
deadlines for written agreement requests. (The response to this comment
in prior final rules has been that the sales closing date is intended
to be the deadline with only limited exceptions. However, 7 of the 13
written agreement types listed in the 1998 Crop Insurance Handbook
allow requests at acreage reporting time and one allows the request
after acreage reporting. Of the 6 types with a sales closing date
deadline, 4 are specific cases of a practice or type not listed in the
actuarial, which is curious since the general type of unrated practice,
type or variety can be requested at acreage reporting time. So, the
exceptions seem to outnumber the rule. Many of the situations calling
for written agreements do not become apparent until the acreage report
is received. Therefore, the commenter again suggests this provision
might be less misleading if the acreage reporting date exception noted
in (e) were incorporated into (a)); (6) Provisions in section 15 that
specify timing and content of the FCI-2 written agreement should not be
part of the insurance policy. (New insureds would not have this
information until it is too late to request a written agreement. This
should have been reviewed by the insurance agent prior to acceptance of
the application or issuance of the crop insurance policy.); and (7)
Some of the written agreement provisions need to be carefully
considered and compared to current procedures and comments to the
Written Agreement proposed rule before the deadlines and annual status
of written agreements are mandated in the Basic Provisions.
Response: The written agreement section was moved to section 18 of
the Basic Provisions. The following responses address the questions by
referencing changes made to the written agreement section of the Basic
Provisions. Written agreements are intended to change policy terms or
permit insurance in unusual situations. If such practices continue year
to year, they should be incorporated into the policy or Special
Provisions. It is important to keep non-uniform exceptions to a minimum
and to ensure that the insured is well aware of the specific terms of
the policy. There will no longer be exceptions to the timing or
duration of written agreements except as provided in section 18. The
provisions have been amended to indicate that written agreements may be
submitted after the sales closing date only if the producer
demonstrates that he or she was physically unable to apply prior to the
sales closing date or in accordance with any regulation which may be
promulgated under 7 CFR part 400. FCIC will be more vigilant in
incorporating changes to the policy made by written agreement into the
actuarial documents.
FCIC does not believe that a producer should bear the cost
associated with any inspection done for the purposes of a written
agreement. Such costs are a part of servicing the policy and,
therefore, are already compensated by the expense reimbursement under
the Standard Reinsurance Agreement.
In addition to the changes described above and minor editorial
changes, FCIC has made the following changes to these Crop Provisions:
1. Section 1--Removed alphabetic paragraph designations and
definitions of ``days,'' ``final planting date,'' ``FSA,'' ``good
farming practices,'' ``interplanted,'' ``irrigated practice,'' ``late
planted,'' ``late planting period,'' ``practical to replant,''
production guarantee,'' ``replanting,'' ``timely planted,'' and
``written agreement,'' and revised the definition of ``planted
acreage'' for clarification.
2. Section 2--Revised to remove all provisions that were moved to
the Basic Provisions.
3. Section 9(e)--Revised to add wildlife as a cause of loss to be
consistent with other insurable crops.
Good cause is shown to make this rule effective upon publication in
the Federal Register. This rule provides prevented planting coverage
under the Basic Provisions. This rule must be effective prior to the
contract change date for which these revised prevented planting
provisions are effective. Therefore, public interest requires the
agency to act immediately to make these provisions available for the
1998 crop year.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 457

Crop insurance, Canola and rapeseed crop provisions.

Final Rule

Accordingly, as set forth in the preamble, the Federal Crop
Insurance Corporation amends 7 CFR part 457 as follows:

PART 457--COMMON CROP INSURANCE REGULATIONS; REGULATIONS FOR THE
1994 AND SUBSEQUENT CONTRACT YEARS

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

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

2. Section 457.161 is added to read as follows:

Sec. 457.161 Canola and rapeseed crop insurance provisions.

The Canola and Rapeseed Crop Insurance Provisions for the 1998 and
succeeding crop years are as follows:
FCIC policies:
Department of Agriculture

Federal Crop Insurance Corporation

Reinsured policies:

(Appropriate title for insurance provider)
Both FCIC and reinsured policies:

Canola and Rapeseed Crop Provisions

If a conflict exists among the policy provisions, the order of
priority is as follows: (1) the Catastrophic Risk Protection
Endorsement, if applicable; (2) the Special Provisions; (3) these
Crop Provisions; and (4) the Basic Provisions, with (1) controlling
(2), etc.
1. Definitions.
Canola. A crop of the genus Brassica as defined in accordance
with the Official United States Standards for Grain--Subpart C--U.S.
Standards for Canola.
Harvest. Combining or threshing for seed. A crop that is swathed
prior to combining is not considered harvested.
Local market price (Canola). The cash price per pound for U.S.
No. 2 grade canola that reflects the maximum limits of quality
deficiencies allowable for the U.S. No. 2 grade canola.
Planted acreage. In addition to the definition contained in the
Basic Provisions, land on which seed is initially spread onto the
soil surface by any method and subsequently is mechanically
incorporated into the soil in a timely manner and at the proper
depth will be considered planted. Acreage planted in any other
manner will not be insurable unless otherwise provided by the
Special Provisions, actuarial documents, or by written agreement.
Price of damaged production. The cash price per pound available
if the production were sold for canola that qualifies for quality
adjustment in accordance with section 12 of these crop provisions.
Rapeseed. A crop of the genus Brassica that contains at least 30
percent of an industrial type of oil as shown on the Special
Provisions and that is measured on a basis free from foreign
material.
Swathed. Severance of the stem and seed pods from the ground and
placing into windrows without removal of the seed from the pod.
2. Unit Division.
In addition to optional units by section, section equivalent or
FSA farm serial number and by irrigated and non-irrigated practices,

[[Page 65998]]

optional units may be by type if the type is designated on the
Special Provisions.
3. Insurance Guarantees, Coverage Levels, and Prices for
Determining Indemnities.
In addition to the requirements of section 3 of the Basic
Provisions, you may select only one price election for all the
canola and rapeseed in the county insured under this policy unless
the Special Provisions provide different price elections by type, in
which case you may select one price election for each canola and
rapeseed type designated in the Special Provisions. The price
elections you choose for each type must have the same percentage
relationship to the maximum price offered by us for each type. For
example, if you choose 100 percent of the maximum price election for
a specific type, you must also choose 100 percent of the maximum
price election for all other types.
4. Contract Changes.
In accordance with section 4 of the Basic Provisions, the
contract change date is November 30 preceding the cancellation date
for counties with a March 15 cancellation date, and June 30
preceding the cancellation date for all other counties.
5. Cancellation and Termination Dates.
In accordance with section 2 of the Basic Provisions, the
cancellation and termination dates are:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancellation and
State and county Termination dates
------------------------------------------------------------------------
All counties in Georgia.................... Sept. 30.
All other counties without fall planted Mar. 15.
types specified on the actuarial table.
All other counties with fall planted types Aug. 31.
specified on the actuarial table.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Insured Crop.
In accordance with section 8 of the Basic Provisions, the crop
insured will be all canola and rapeseed in the county for which a
premium rate is provided by the actuarial table:
(a) In which you have a share;
(b) That is planted for harvest as seed; and
(c) That is not, unless allowed by Special Provisions or by
written agreement:
(1) Interplanted with another crop; or
(2) Planted into an established grass or legume.
7. Insurable Acreage.
In addition to the provisions of section 9 of the Basic
Provisions,
(a) Any acreage of the insured crop that is damaged before the
final planting date, to the extent that most producers producing
crops on similarly situated acreage in the area would not normally
further care for the crop, must be replanted unless we agree that it
is not practical to replant; and
(b) We will not insure any acreage that does not meet the
rotation requirements contained in the Special Provisions.
8. Insurance Period.
In accordance with the provisions of section 11 of the Basic
Provisions, the end of the insurance period is October 31 of the
calendar year in which the crop is normally harvested.
9. Causes of Loss.
In accordance with the provisions of section 12 of the Basic
Provisions, insurance is provided only against the following causes
of loss which occur during the insurance period:
(a) Adverse weather conditions;
(b) Fire;
(c) Insects, but not damage due to insufficient or improper
application of pest control measures;
(d) Plant disease, but not damage due to insufficient or
improper application of disease control measures;
(e) Wildlife;
(f) Earthquake;
(g) Volcanic eruption; or
(h) Failure of the irrigation water supply, if applicable,
caused by an insured cause of loss that occurs during the insurance
period.
10. Replanting Payment.
(a) In accordance with section 13 of the Basic Provisions, a
replanting payment is allowed if the insured crop is damaged by an
insurable cause of loss to the extent that most producers producing
the crop on similarly situated acreage in the area, would not
continue to care for the crop and it is practical to replant.
(b) The maximum amount of the replanting payment per acre will
be the lesser of 20 percent of the production guarantee or 175
pounds, multiplied by your price election, multiplied by your
insured share.
(c) When the canola or rapeseed is replanted using a practice or
type that is uninsurable as an original planting, the liability for
the unit will be reduced by the amount of the replanting payment
that is attributable to your share. The premium amount will not be
reduced.
11. Duties in the Event of Damage or Loss.
In accordance with the requirements of section 14 of the Basic
Provisions, the representative samples of the unharvested crop that
we may require must be at least 10 feet wide and extend the entire
length of each field in the unit. If you intend to put the acreage
to another use or not harvest the acreage, the samples must not be
harvested or destroyed until our inspection.
12. Settlement of Claim.
(a) We will determine your loss on a unit basis. In the event
you are unable to provide separate acceptable production records:
(1) For any optional units, we will combine all optional units
for which acceptable production records were not provided; or
(2) For any basic units, we will allocate any commingled
production to such units in proportion to our liability on the
harvested acreage for the units.
(b) In the event of loss or damage covered by this policy, we
will settle your claim by:
(1) Multiplying the insured acreage by its respective production
guarantee;
(2) Multiplying each result in section 12(b)(1) by the
respective price election for each type, if applicable;
(3) If there are more than one type, totaling the results in
section 12(b)(2);
(4) Multiplying the total production to be counted of each type,
if applicable, (see section 12(c)) by the respective price election;
(5) If there are more than one type, totaling the results in
section 12(b)(4);
(6) If there are more than one type, subtracting the total in
section 12(b)(5) from the total in section 12(b)(3);
(7) If there is only one type, subtracting the total in section
12(b)(4) from the total in section 12(b)(2); and
(8) Multiplying the result in section 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(7), as
applicable, by your share.
(c) The total production to count (pounds) from all insurable
acreage on the unit will include:
(1) All appraised production as follows:
(i) Not less than the production guarantee for acreage:
(A) That is abandoned;
(B) That is put to another use without our consent;
(C) That is damaged solely by uninsured causes; or
(D) For which you fail to provide acceptable production records;
(ii) Production lost due to uninsured causes;
(iii) Unharvested production (mature unharvested production may
be adjusted for quality deficiencies and excess moisture in
accordance with section 12(d)); and
(iv) Potential production on insured acreage that you intend to
put to another use or abandon, if you and we agree on the appraised
amount of production. Upon such agreement, the insurance period for
that acreage will end when you put the acreage to another use or
abandon the crop. If agreement on the appraised amount of production
is not reached:
(A) If you do not elect to continue to care for the crop, we may
give you consent to put the acreage to another use if you agree to
leave intact, and provide sufficient care for, representative
samples of the crop in locations acceptable to us (The amount of
production to count for such acreage will be based on the harvested
production or appraisals from the samples at the time harvest should
have occurred. If you do not leave the required samples intact, or
you fail to provide sufficient care for the samples, our appraisal
made prior to giving you consent to put the acreage to another use
will be used to determine the amount of production to count); or
(B) If you elect to continue to care for the crop, the amount of
production to count for the acreage will be the harvested
production, or our reappraisal if additional damage occurs and the
crop is not harvested; and
(2) All harvested production from the insurable acreage.
(d) Mature canola may be adjusted for excess moisture and
quality deficiencies. Mature rapeseed may be adjusted for excess
moisture only. If moisture adjustment is applicable, it will be made
prior to any adjustment for quality.
(1) Canola and rapeseed production will be reduced by 0.12
percent for each 0.1 percentage point of moisture in excess of 8.5
percent. We must be permitted to obtain samples of the production to
determine the moisture content.
(2) Canola production will be eligible for quality adjustment
if:

[[Page 65999]]

(i) Deficiencies in quality, in accordance with the Official
United States Standards for Grain, result in the canola not meeting
the grade requirements for U.S. No. 3 or better (U.S. Sample grade)
because of kernel damage (excluding heat damage), or a musty, sour,
or commercially objectionable foreign odor; or
(ii) Substances or conditions are present that are identified by
the Food and Drug Administration or other public health
organizations of the United States as being injurious to human or
animal health.
(3) Quality will be a factor in determining your loss in canola
production only if:
(i) The deficiencies, substances, or conditions resulted from a
cause of loss against which insurance is provided under these Crop
Provisions and which occurs within the insurance period;
(ii) The deficiencies, substances, or conditions result in a net
price for the damaged production that is less than the local market
price;
(iii) All determinations of these deficiencies, substances, or
conditions are made using samples of the production obtained by us
or by a disinterested third party approved by us; and
(iv) The samples are analyzed by a grader licensed to grade
canola under the authority of the United States Grain Standards Act
or the United States Warehouse Act with regard to deficiencies in
quality, or by a laboratory approved by us with regard to substances
or conditions injurious to human or animal health.
(4) Canola production that is eligible for quality adjustment,
as specified in sections 12(d)(2) and (3), will be reduced:
(i) In accordance with the quality adjustment factors contained
in the Special Provisions; or
(ii) As follows if quality adjustment factors are not contained
in the Special Provisions:
(A) Divide the price of damaged production by the local market
price to determine the quality adjustment factor.
(B) The number of pounds remaining after any reduction due to
excessive moisture (the moisture-adjusted gross pounds) of the
damaged or conditioned production will then be multiplied by the
quality adjustment factor to determine the net production to count.
(5) For canola, the price of damaged production and the local
market price will be determined at the earlier of the date such
quality adjusted production is sold or the date of final inspection
for the unit subject to the following conditions:
(i) Discounts used to establish the price of damaged production
will be limited to those that are usual, customary, and reasonable.
(ii) The price of damaged production will not be reduced for:
(A) Moisture content;
(B) Damage due to uninsured causes;
(C) Drying, handling, processing, or any other costs associated
with normal harvesting, handling, and marketing of the canola;
except, if the price of damaged production can be increased by
conditioning, we may reduce the price of damaged production after
the production has been conditioned by the cost of conditioning but
not lower than the price of damaged production before conditioning.
We may obtain prices of damaged production from any buyer of our
choice. If we obtain prices of damaged production from one or more
buyers located outside your local market area, we will reduce such
price of damaged production by the additional costs required to
deliver the canola to those buyers; or
(D) Erucic acid or glucosinolates in excess of the amount
allowed under the definition of canola contained in the Official
United States Standards for Grain; and
(iii) Factors not associated with grading under the Official
United States Standards for Grain including, but not limited to
protein and oil, will not be considered.
(e) Any production harvested from plants growing in the insured
crop may be counted as production of the insured crop on an
unadjusted weight basis.
For example:
You have 100 percent share in 25 acres of Fall Oleic Canola in a
unit with a 650 pound production guarantee and a price election of
$0.11 per pound. You are only able to harvest 14,700 pounds and
there is no appraised production. Your indemnity would be calculated
as follows:

(1) 25 acres x 650 pounds = 16,250 pounds of Fall Oleic Canola;
(2) 16,250 pounds x $0.11 price election = $1,788 value of guarantee
for Fall Oleic Canola;
(3) 14,700 pounds x $0.11 price election = $1,617 total value of
production to count for Fall Oleic Canola;
(4) $1,788 value of guarantee-$1,617 value of production to count =
$171 value of loss; and
(5) $171 value of loss x 100 percent = $171 indemnity payment.

You also have a 100 percent share in 50 acres of Fall High
Erucic Rapeseed in the same unit with a production guarantee of 750
pounds per acre and a price election of $0.15 per pound. You are
only able to harvest 14,000 pounds and there is no appraised
production. Your total indemnity for both Fall Oleic Canola and Fall
High Erucic Rapeseed would be calculated as follows:

(1) 25 acres x 650 pounds = 16,250 pounds guarantee for the Fall
Oleic Canola, and
50 acres x 750 pounds = 37,500 pounds guarantee for the Fall
High Erucic Rapeseed;
(2) 16,250 pounds guarantee x $0.11 price election = $1,788 value of
the guarantee for the Fall Oleic Canola, and
37,500 pounds guarantee x $0.15 price election = $5,625 value of
the guarantee for the Fall High Erucic Rapeseed;
(3) $1,788 + $5,625 = $7,413 total value of the guarantees;
(4) 14,700 pound x $0.11 price election = $1,617 value of production
to count for the Fall Oleic Canola, and
14,000 pounds x $0.15 price election = $2,100 value of
production to count for the Fall High Erucic Rapeseed;
(5) $1,617 + $2,100 = $3,717 total value of production to count;
(6) $7,413 value of guarantee-$3,717 value of production = $3,696
loss; and
(7) $3,696 value of loss x 100 percent = $3,696 indemnity payment.

13. Late Planting.
In lieu of section 16(a) of the Basic Provisions, the production
guarantee for each acre planted to the insured crop during the late
planting period will be reduced by 1 percent per day for each day
planted after the final planting date unless otherwise specified in
the Special Provisions.
14. Prevented Planting.
In addition to the provisions contained in section 17 of the
Basic Provisions, your prevented planting coverage will be 60
percent of your production guarantee for timely planted acreage. If
you have limited or additional levels of coverage, as specified in 7
CFR part 400, subpart T, and pay an additional premium, you may
increase your prevented planting coverage to the levels specified in
the actuarial documents.

Signed in Washington, D.C., on December 11, 1997.
Suzette Dittrich,
Deputy Manager,
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation.
[FR Doc. 97-32848 Filed 12-16-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-08-P

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A97-32848. Public record. Not legal advice.