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.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

45537 

Vol. 74, No. 170 

Thursday, September 3, 2009 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Federal Crop Insurance Corporation 

7 CFR Parts 402, 407, and 457 

RIN 0563–AC19 

Catastrophic Risk Protection 

Endorsement; Group Risk Plan of 

Insurance Regulations; and the 

Common Crop Insurance Regulations, 

Basic Provisions 

AGENCY: Federal Crop Insurance 

Corporation, USDA. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Crop Insurance 

Corporation (FCIC) finalizes the 

Catastrophic Risk Protection 

Endorsement, the Group Risk Plan of 

Insurance Regulations, and the Common 

Crop Insurance Regulations, Basic 

Provisions to revise those provisions as 

mandated by the Food, Conservation, 

and Energy Act of 2008 (2008 Farm 

Bill). The changes will apply for the 

2010 and succeeding crop years for all 

crops with a 2010 crop year contract 

change date on or after the effective date 

of this rule and for the 2011 and 

succeeding crop years for all crops with 

a 2010 crop year contract change date 

prior to the effective date of this rule. 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is 

effective October 5, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erin 

Albright, Risk Management Specialist, 

Product Management, Product 

Administration and Standards Division, 

Risk Management Agency, United States 

Department of Agriculture, Beacon 

Facility—Mail Stop 0812, PO Box 

419205, Kansas City, MO 64141–6205, 

telephone (816) 926–7730. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Order 12866 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has determined that this rule is 

non-significant for the purposes of 

Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, it 

has not been reviewed by OMB. 

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 through March 31, 

2012. 

E-Government Act Compliance 

FCIC is committed to complying with 

the E-Government Act of 2002, to 

promote the use of the Internet and 

other information technologies to 

provide increased opportunities for 

citizen access to Government 

information and services, and for other 

purposes. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) establishes 

requirements for Federal agencies to 

assess the effects of their regulatory 

actions on State, local, and tribal 

governments and the private sector. 

This rule contains no Federal mandates 

(under the regulatory provisions of title 

II of the UMRA) for State, local, and 

tribal governments or the private sector. 

Therefore, this rule is not subject to the 

requirements of sections 202 and 205 of 

UMRA. 

Executive Order 13132 

It has been determined under section 

1(a) of Executive Order 13132, 

Federalism, that this rule does not have 

sufficient implications to warrant 

consultation with the States. The 

provisions contained in this rule will 

not have a substantial direct effect on 

States, or on the relationship between 

the national government and the States, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

FCIC certifies that this regulation will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. Program requirements for the 

Federal crop insurance program are the 

same for all producers regardless of the 

size of their farming operation. For 

instance, all producers are required to 

submit an application and acreage 

report to establish their insurance 

guarantees and compute premium 

amounts, 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 

1,000 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 to 

require 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 must be 

exhausted before any action against 

FCIC for judicial review may be brought. 

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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
45538 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 170 / Thursday, September 3, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

Environmental Assessment nor an 

Environmental Impact Statement is 

needed. 

Background 

This rule finalizes changes to the 

Catastrophic Risk Protection 

Endorsement, the Group Risk Plan of 

Insurance Regulations, and the Common 

Crop Insurance Regulations, Basic 

Provisions, mandated by the 2008 Farm 

Bill, that were published by FCIC on 

November 24, 2008, as a notice of 

interim rulemaking in the Federal 

Register at 73 FR 70861–70865. The 

public was afforded 60 days to submit 

written comments and opinions. 

A total of 52 comments were received 

from 14 commenters. The commenters 

were reinsured companies, conservation 

organizations, a state agricultural 

association, an insurance service 

organization, a grower association, a 

government agency, and other interested 

parties. The public comments received 

are organized below by the issues 

identified in this rule and the specific 

public comments received. The 

comments received and FCIC’s 

responses are as follows: 

General 

Comment: A commenter asked how 

the changes in the interim rule will be 

conveyed to the insureds. The 

commenter asked whether the changes 

will be added to the Basic Provisions as 

an endorsement or whether the 

insurance providers will be required to 

issue a completely new set of Basic 

Provisions. 

Response: The changes will be issued 

in a revised Farm Bill Amendment. 

Therefore, the insurance providers will 

only have to issue the revised 

endorsement rather than reissue the 

entire Basic Provisions. 

Comment: A few commenters stated 

the language in this interim rule has 

already been sent, or is in the process 

of being sent, to all affected 

policyholders. If RMA makes any 

changes to what is in the interim rule, 

the commenters would recommend that 

any such changes to the Farm Bill 

Amendment necessitated by the final 

rule be issued in conjunction with the 

Administrative Remedies for NonCompliance Final Rule language (7 CFR 

Part 400, 407, and 457; RIN 0563–AB73 

published on December 18, 2008) 

instead of having another separate 

revised Farm Bill Amendment. 

Response: FCIC has already issued the 

Administrative Remedies for NonCompliance final rule language in the 

Sanctions Amendment. Therefore, any 

changes made in this final rule will 

result in the revision of the Farm Bill 

Amendment. 

Comment: A few commenters stated 

the Supplementary Information for 

Executive Order 12866 in item number 

(3) indicates that this will not impact a 

large number of insured producers. 

There are a large number of current 

policyholders who have their own 

structures for farm-stored harvested 

production, and if a substantial 

percentage of these producers elect to 

extend the settlement of their claims, 

this could result in a large number of 

producers being impacted by this rule. 

Response: The provisions only 

provide a producer the option to 

postpone settlement of their claim if 

they have farm-stored production. FCIC 

does not anticipate a large number of 

producers will elect this option. 

Further, the provisions only allow a 

short delay for calculating a claim and 

only when there is farm-stored 

production. Therefore, FCIC does not 

anticipate the changes within this 

provision will significantly impact a 

large number of producers. 

Linkage Requirements 

Comment: A few commenters stated 

FCIC has proposed removing all 

references to other United States 

Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

program benefits (linkage requirements). 

A commenter stated even though the 

question of eligibility is for other 

agencies to determine, their 

recommendation would be to maintain 

this language in the provisions so 

producers are aware of these 

requirements. A commenter stated 

while this makes sense since the 

question of eligibility and the 

requirements are dependent on those 

other programs as they become 

available, and such details should be 

provided by those other agencies, it 

would seem that there should be at least 

some mention of these potential 

requirements in the crop insurance 

policy language so policyholders are 

aware of them. Both commenters stated 

if FCIC chooses to continue with 

removing all language regarding linkage 

requirements from the policies, it would 

be beneficial if insurance providers 

were provided with some kind of 

notification when those linkage 

requirements are imposed or changed. 

Response: Producers are generally 

aware of other USDA program benefits, 

so FCIC does not believe the addition of 

a general provision would be of any 

assistance to them. Further, these 

requirements have changed over the 

years. As stated in the interim rule, any 

program eligibility requirements for a 

particular program are best provided by 

the agency administering such program. 

Delay of Claims for Farm-Stored 

Production 

Comment: A few commenters stated 

section 12014 of the Farm Bill allows 

producers with farm-stored production 

to elect to extend the settlement of their 

claim for up to four additional months 

beyond the 60 days allowed in the 

current policy provisions. The 

commenters stated this language needs 

to clarify that it is applicable only to 

grain crops and also recommended the 

word ‘‘harvested’’ be inserted after the 

word ‘‘Have’’ and in front of the words 

‘‘farm-stored production’’ to preclude 

any arguments from policyholders who 

maintain they are storing such 

production in the field (since there was 

not a definition of ‘‘farm-stored 

production’’ being added to the 

provisions). 

Response: These provisions were 

intended to only apply to harvested 

farm-stored grain and FCIC has revised 

the provisions accordingly. 

Comment: A few commenters stated 

the new farm-stored production 

provisions could potentially present 

some additional problems of extending 

the final determination of production 

for actual production history (APH) 

purposes beyond the applicable 

production reporting date. 

Policyholders may also feel this 

provides them with additional time to 

pay their premium beyond the 

termination date. There could also be 

APH reviews or other quality control 

reviews that are delayed beyond the 

April 30 deadline for reporting such 

information to the RMA because of this 

language. The additional time also 

allows for more things to happen to the 

grain before a final determination of 

production is made. 

Response: FCIC is statutorily 

mandated to allow producers to delay 

their claims. However, FCIC does not 

anticipate many producers will opt to 

wait the full 180 days to determine the 

amount of farm-stored production. FCIC 

has added provisions notifying 

producers they will be assigned their 

prior year’s approved yield in 

accordance with the temporary yield 

procedure contained in the Crop 

Insurance Handbook when extensions 

go beyond the date production reports 

are due. FCIC has also added provisions 

notifying producers that no additional 

time is provided for payment of 

premium nor can damage that occurs 

after grain is stored be covered. When 

quality control reviews cannot be 

completed before reports are due 

because production amounts are not yet 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 170 / Thursday, September 3, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 45539 

available, it should be noted in the 

report remarks that the review is not yet 

complete because of the delayed 

measurement. 

Comment: A few commenters 

questioned what happens if the 

producer elects to delay measurement of 

the grain for an additional four months 

but subsequently removes and sells the 

grain during the four month period. The 

commenters asked whether the 

production from the settlement sheets 

with the buyer would be used in lieu of 

any measurements in this situation. The 

commenters also asked what happens if 

the grain is lost due to tornado or fire 

during this four month period. The 

added policy language does not address 

these issues. 

Response: When production is sold, 

the sales records will be used to 

determine the amount of production 

provided the records are verifiable. 

Since harvest ends the insurance period, 

no coverage is provided for any 

subsequent damage. Provisions have 

been added to make this clear. When 

production is lost after the end of the 

insurance period and no records of 

production are available, no claim can 

be paid because there is no way to 

accurately adjust the claim. 

Native Sod Acreage Located in the 

Prairie Pothole National Priority Area 

Comment: A commenter stated 

placing the Farm Service Agency (FSA) 

in the position of determining if the soil 

has been tilled in the past, without an 

appeals process for the producer, is 

unacceptable. FSA records are available 

for only the last 30 to 40 years while the 

land has been operated for at least 100 

years. With the current definition of 

native sod and no appeals rights, any 

grass area that does not have a farm 

number and a field number will be 

native sod. This goes far beyond the 

intent of the conference committee and 

the managers. 

A few commenters stated there is 

acreage that was farmed over a decade 

ago and now appears to be native sod. 

This acreage was not farmed again until 

after May 22, 2008. Therefore, they 

believe this acreage will not be 

classified as native sod as defined in the 

Farm Bill Amendment. RMA must 

specify the acceptable documentation 

necessary to prove acreage last farmed 

over a decade ago is not native sod. This 

will allow the producer to avoid the 

5-year moratorium on coverage if the 

Governor of a State enacts section 508(o) 

of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (Act). 

Because ‘‘no record of being tilled’’ is 

based on FSA records and FSA records 

exist for a limited number of years, as 

are the producer’s records, the 

commenters asked if acreage that was 

previously farmed but for which no 

records exist to prove such farming, is 

returned to a ‘‘native sod’’ status by fact 

of ‘‘no record of being tilled.’’ If some 

documentation exists to prove old 

tillage, the commenters asked how the 

insurance providers will know if such 

documentation is considered acceptable 

(e.g., Fish and Wildlife Refuge rental 

agreements). RMA must specify a list of 

documents or document criteria that is 

acceptable to prove prior tillage of a 

piece of ground that appears to be native 

sod but the land owner/producer claims 

is not. The commenter suggests RMA 

simply indicate that any available 

documentation, when outside the 

retention period, must contain an 

acceptable legal description (e.g., 578’s, 

CRP contracts). 

Another commenter recommended 

the rule specify these records must 

consist of some type of official, written 

record tied to the specific piece of 

property under evaluation or 

consideration which indicates the 

property had been tilled at some point 

in the past; producers should not be 

allowed to self-certify any tillage 

records. 

Another commenter stated FSA 

records are not infallible. The 

commenter recommended allowing a 

landowner to present the FSA with hard 

evidence that the land has been tilled 

and cropped in the past. If that evidence 

is persuasive, the FSA should be 

allowed to determine that the land had 

been previously tilled and is thus 

outside the operation of the rule and 

thus eligible for crop insurance. 

A few commenters were concerned 

about the definition of native sod. The 

legislative definition of native sod 

differs from the definition in the 

regulation. The legislation defines 

native sod as land ‘‘that has never been 

tilled for the production of an annual 

crop as of the date of enactment.’’ The 

regulation defines native sod as land 

‘‘that has no record date of being tilled 

(determined in accordance with Farm 

Service Agency (FSA) records) as of the 

date of enactment.’’ The definition in 

the regulation is significantly more 

restrictive. In most cases, FSA records 

are only available for the past 30 or 40 

years while the land may have been in 

production as long as a century ago. It 

appears that the burden is on the grower 

to dispute the FSA records even though 

there is no appeals process available. 

The commenters stated Congress did 

not limit the evidence or information a 

landowner could use to show that the 

land had been used for the production 

of an annual crop at some point in the 

past. Instead of relying on FSA records 

producers should be permitted to 

provide photos, personal records and 

affidavits as evidence that the land in 

question has been tilled in the past. 

Response: FCIC agrees records other 

than those from FSA may be used to 

determine whether land has been tilled 

in the past. The provisions have been 

revised to allow the use of written 

verifiable records from other sources 

that are acceptable to the insurance 

provider. Since the kinds of records that 

could be used to verify prior tillage may 

vary considerably, FCIC does not intend 

to provide a specific list of documents, 

because doing so may eliminate the use 

of some acceptable records that would 

clearly indicate prior tillage. Acceptable 

records of tillage must be verifiable and 

identify the location of the acreage. Selfcertification of past tillage is not 

acceptable. However, past farm records 

provided by a producer may be 

acceptable. 

Comment: A commenter 

recommended considering the phrase 

‘‘tilled’’ in its broadest meaning, which 

they believe agrees with the intent of 

Congress. That is, if land is converted to 

cropland using plowing, disking, 

chemicals like glyphosate, or other 

methods, the effect is the same and the 

conversion should fall under the ‘‘native 

sod’’ rules. 

Another commenter wanted to ensure 

the term ‘‘tilled’’ is understood to 

broadly encapsulate the various means 

by which acreage may be prepared for 

an annual crop, including the 

understanding that the act of seeding an 

annual crop constitutes tilling. Acreage 

may be converted with many methods, 

including chemical treatment and no-till 

drilling, but the determinative factor is 

the acreage has no previous record of 

any means of conversion for an annual 

crop. 

Response: Plowing, disking, no-till 

drilling following the termination of 

existing plants, and chemical tillage 

would all be considered tillage for the 

purpose of these provisions, provided it 

was done for the production of an 

annual crop. FCIC has added a 

definition to so specify. 

Comment: A commenter stated it is 

not clear what constitutes native sod. 

The regulation merely transposes the 

legislative language—this is 

unacceptable. As there is with other 

conservation programs, there should be 

a specific list of criteria for what 

generally constitutes native sod (tall 

grass, mixed grasses and/or short prairie 

grasses), specific varieties of sod grasses 

covered by this provision, and how it 

will be identified and applied. 

A commenter stated there should be 

an opt-out clause in periods of low or 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
45540 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 170 / Thursday, September 3, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

projected low grain stocks, such as 

because of drought or increased grain 

demand. 

The economic implications of this 

provision and the likelihood it could 

discourage much needed economic 

activity on the state level must be 

considered. There needs to be economic 

factors to allow a state to opt into or out 

of the program. 

Response: There are no limitations on 

what factors a Governor may use to 

determine whether they will elect to 

implement the provisions. The choice is 

for the Governor to make. Further, the 

2008 Farm Bill does not provide any 

authority that would allow an opt-out 

clause. Once the Governor makes the 

election, the only exception is for the 

five acre de minimis. FCIC does not 

believe specifying tall grass or short 

prairie grass, etc., provides any 

additional clarification. The term 

‘‘native grasses’’ in the definition is 

clearly inclusive of these grass types. It 

is up to agricultural experts to 

determine what constitutes native 

grasses, grass-like plants, forbs, or 

shrubs suitable for grazing and browsing 

for a particular area. Therefore, no 

changes have been made in response to 

this comment. 

Comment: A commenter stated the 

definition of ‘‘native sod’’ would allow 

brome grass or other grass-like plants to 

be declared native sod. The intent is to 

protect tall-, mixed-, and short-grass 

prairie. The definition should identify 

the grasses in those prairies such as big 

bluestem, Indian grass, green needle 

grass, blue gamma grass, buffalo grass, 

little blue stem, etc. A specific list of 

criteria must be developed for native 

sod including grass types, soils, and 

erosion factors before this program is 

put into effect. 

Another commenter stated it is clear 

the definition specifies native grasses 

but also specifies other plants (grasslike, or forbs, or shrubs) all of which are 

suitable for grazing and browsing. They 

emphasized this for the fact the ‘‘native’’ 

designation of existing grasses is just 

one of multiple possible plants that 

meet the definition. In using ‘‘or’’ the 

definition emphasizes, in effect, the 

native or non-native status of the plants 

present is not the compelling criteria. 

Rather, it is the broadly referenced 

native grass, grass-like plants, forbs, or 

shrubs which are of a type suitable for 

grazing and browsing. 

Secondly, and of ultimately higher 

determinative value, the definition 

requires the suitable plants are present 

on ‘‘land’’ (section 12020 of the 2008 

Farm Bill) or ‘‘acreage’’ (interim rule) 

that has never been tilled for the 

production of an annual crop. The 

commenter emphasized this second 

criteria is of higher determinative value 

because the broad definition of suitable 

plants ultimately depends upon the 

plants simply being suitable for grazing 

and browsing. Additionally, as 

determined by the ‘‘and’’ in the interim 

rules definition which reads ‘‘* * * and 

that has no record of being tilled 

* * *,’’ the prevailing factor is that the 

acreage (‘‘determined in accordance 

with FSA records’’) has not previously 

been in annual crop production. 

The commenter emphasized these 

points to clarify appropriate 

establishment and subsequent 

adherence to the rule should never be 

dependent on the native status or 

specific species of grass or plants. 

Beyond simply consisting of various 

plants being suitable for grazing and 

browsing, the final determining factor is 

that the acreage has not previously been 

converted for an annual crop. 

Another commenter recommended 

reordering the definition of native sod to 

read as follows: ‘‘Acreages on which no 

records exist indicating tillage 

(determined in accordance with FSA 

records) for the production of an annual 

crop on or before May 22, 2008, and the 

plant cover is composed principally of 

grasses, grass-like plants, forbs, or 

shrubs suitable for grazing and 

browsing.’’ 

While the interim rule does not 

suggest there is a priority in the criteria, 

the commenter believed the lack of 

tillage history is a more important 

indicator of native sod than the plant 

community description provided. 

Native sod may also contain nonnative 

species that have invaded from adjacent 

habitat and may encounter changes in 

vegetation composition associated with 

natural succession and wildfire. 

Furthermore, the vegetation 

composition may be difficult to discern 

by FCIC or FSA staff who are not trained 

botanists or biologists because plant 

communities may also vary depending 

on intensity and frequency of drought, 

fire and grazing. For these reasons, the 

commenter recommended the word 

‘‘native’’ be stricken from the definition. 

They believe that doing so, in 

combination with the suggested 

reorganization of the definition, will 

facilitate implementation of the rule and 

fulfill Congressional intent. 

Another commenter stated under the 

law, the definition of ‘‘Native Sod’’ 

includes land ‘‘* * * on which the 

plant cover is composed principally of 

native grasses, grasslike plants, forbs, or 

shrubs suitable for grazing and browsing 

* * *’’ Given the clear Congressional 

intent of the language, USDA need not 

consider arguments about which plants 

should be included as ‘‘native grasses, 

grasslike plants’’ etc. The real test is 

whether the producer is converting land 

to cropland that has not been converted 

before, and upon which there is 

therefore no prior crop insurance 

history. USDA properly relied on 

statutory language in defining ‘‘Native 

Sod.’’ The commenter would oppose 

USDA adopting a substantially different 

definition of Native Sod. One practice 

USDA should be wary of is a landowner 

drilling non-native plant species into a 

native prairie, and then claiming what 

they are breaking is not ‘native sod’ and 

thus outside the operation of the rule. 

The status of the land as of May 22, 

2008, should determine program 

eligibility under this provision. 

Response: The primary consideration 

is whether the acreage has been tilled in 

the past and FCIC has reordered the 

definition accordingly. The term 

‘‘native’’ cannot be removed from the 

definition because it is specified in the 

2008 Farm Bill. Acreage that has never 

been tilled is very likely to contain the 

broad categories of plant types listed in 

the definition. The intent is to protect 

acreage with native plants that has 

never been tilled. Acreage that has been 

tilled and planted with non-native 

species, such as Smooth Brome Grass, 

would not be included under the 

definition of ‘‘native sod.’’ The native 

sod provisions are applicable in a wide 

geographic area and FCIC cannot list all 

the native plants that may be found in 

these areas. In questionable cases, 

agricultural experts in the area may be 

consulted to determine the native plants 

for a specific area. FCIC has added a 

definition of ‘‘tilled’’ to make it clear 

that simply drilling non-native plant 

species into native sod without 

terminating the native plants would not 

be considered tilling. Whether there is 

a prior crop insurance history is not 

material. The paramount question is 

whether the acreage has previously been 

tilled. 

Comment: Several comments were 

received regarding the Governor’s 

authority to determine whether section 

508(o) of the Act will be effective in 

their State. A commenter stated RMA 

must impose a specific deadline that 

limits the amount of time the Governor 

has to make this election. If RMA does 

not establish a deadline to limit the 

decision-making window, there is the 

potential a producer may suffer 

unwarranted penalties. A fixed number 

of days following the applicable acreage 

reporting date is acceptable. In addition, 

RMA must clarify what crop year this 

will apply to if the election is imposed 

after said deadline. (i.e., if section 508(o) 

of the Act becomes effective more than 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 170 / Thursday, September 3, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 45541 

60 days past the applicable acreage 

reporting deadline specified in the 

Special Provisions for the crop year, the 

election will be effective for the 

following crop year and succeeding crop 

years). 

A few commenters stated as the rule 

notes, the Governor of each of the five 

states has the sole authority to 

determine whether the provision will be 

operative in his or her state. The 

commenters appreciated and supported 

USDA’s suggestion that the Governors 

make their designation by February 15, 

2009, to put everyone on notice and 

allow crop insurance to be purchased 

where available. The commenters also 

recognized this as a helpful suggestion 

with practical advantages for avoiding 

the complexities of required benefit 

repayments and premium refunds in the 

first crop year in which the election may 

be made. However, the statute does not 

set a deadline for Governors to make 

this determination. 

A few commenters questioned 

whether the Governor’s election to 

participate or not participate in the 

provision is a one-time permanent 

election or if there is some other time 

period during which the election 

applies. The rule should clarify whether 

the Governors can elect to participate at 

any time in the future or can change 

their decision at a later time. A 

commenter questioned if the Governor 

of a respective state can change their 

election, does the election start at the 

date of the election, is the election for 

one year, or is it a permanent decision. 

If the election can be changed, the 

commenter asked whether FCIC would 

be obligated to ‘‘look-back’’ to the May 

22, 2008 enactment date of the Farm 

Bill. A few commenters stated it is not 

clear whether a future Governor can 

change the election made by a 

predecessor. 

A few commenters recommended the 

decisions made by the Governor during 

the 2009 crop year should be final, and 

language should be inserted into the 

provisions to clarify the finality of these 

decisions. The commenters also 

recommended any decision made by the 

Governor should be maintained for the 

duration of the 2008 Farm Bill 

regardless of whether the Governor who 

made the decision remains in office 

during this period. The commenters 

believed that would ensure consistency 

for the duration of the 2008 Farm Bill, 

in fairness to farmers within the affected 

region who might otherwise be 

impacted by fines or insurance 

repayment should a decision be 

changed after 2009. Another commenter 

stated section 12020 of the 2008 Farm 

Bill and the interim rule clearly do not 

and should not place any limit upon 

when a current or future Governor 

within the Prairie Pothole National 

Priority Area may elect to make section 

508(o) of the Act effective, and section 

12020 of the 2008 Farm Bill and the 

interim rule clearly do not and should 

not enable a current or future Governor 

to nullify section 508(o) of the Act if an 

election has been made previously. 

However, with respect to the 

complexities of future required benefit 

repayments and premium refunds on 

any acreage in the first five years after 

section 508(o) of the Act is made 

effective—on native sod acreage 

converted anytime after May 22, 2008— 

the commenter recommended that 

future elections should become effective 

only prior to February 15 of a given 

year. Or stated alternatively, elections 

made after February 15 will become 

effective for the next crop year. 

A few commenters stated it is not 

clear what constitutes application of a 

Governor’s approval and how the FCIC 

will notify individual farmers of the 

election (e.g., a phone call, a document 

transmitted in writing or by electronic email). To avoid any confusion, it would 

seem prudent for the FCIC to require a 

Governor’s election in writing. Also, an 

application should only apply from the 

date of a Governor’s approval. The 

commenter opposed retroactive ‘‘lookbacks’’ of any indemnities or other 

payments. 

A few commenters had concerns 

growers will be subject to retroactive 

penalty as a result of indemnities or 

disaster assistance payments in the 

event a Governor decides to enroll in 

the program at some future date. A 

producer should only forfeit 

indemnities and disaster payments that 

would be received after a Governor 

elects to make section 508(o) of the Act 

effective in the state since prior to that 

time the statute is not applicable. 

Similarly, the interim rule does not 

explain whether a Governor has the 

authority later to withdraw their state 

from the program once the decision has 

been made to enroll. 

Response: The 2008 Farm Bill does 

not contain any deadlines for the 

Governors to decide whether to 

implement section 508(o) of the Act. 

Therefore, FCIC lacks the authority to 

impose a deadline. However, in 

correspondence to the Governors and in 

the interim rule, FCIC explained the 

potential negative impacts of a delayed 

decision. Any time a Governor makes 

the election, the provision becomes 

effective for any acreage newly tilled 

after May 22, 2008, and insurance is not 

available for the first five years of 

planting. Producers who received an 

indemnity for acreage tilled after this 

date will be required to repay it and any 

premiums paid must be refunded. If the 

election could be changed, it would 

effectively negate the provision. If a 

Governor elects to implement section 

508(o) of the Act, it will be announced 

by RMA via a Manager’s Bulletin and 

posted on the RMA Web site at http:// 

www.rma.usda.gov/. Insurance 

providers will be directed to notify 

individual producers when such 

announcement is made. 

Comment: Several commenters stated 

the interim rule specifies the counties in 

the Prairie Pothole National Priority 

Area by referencing the RMA Web site. 

The commenters recommended the rule 

identify the specific counties within the 

States of Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, 

North Dakota, and South Dakota that are 

included in the RMA Web site map of 

the Prairie Pothole National Priority 

Area to make it clearer, and to avoid 

inadvertently changing the operation of 

the rule should the Web site be changed, 

updated, or become temporarily 

unavailable. The Web site map should 

be cited as a reference tool. 

Response: The counties identified on 

the RMA Web site are consistent with 

the counties identified by the FSA, 

Agricultural Resource Conservation 

Program 2–CRP (Revision 4) dated April 

28, 2008. The Web site would only be 

changed or updated if the designated 

counties change. However, FCIC will 

include the FSA reference in case the 

Web site is unavailable. 

Comment: A few comments were 

received regarding how the native sod 

provisions are only applicable in the 

Prairie Pothole National Priority Area. A 

commenter questioned why the area in 

the Prairie Pothole National Priority 

Area is of more concern than other areas 

in the state. The arbitrary decision 

makes it impossible to explain to 

producers that native sod in the Prairie 

Pothole National Priority Area is a 

higher priority than native sod in other 

parts of the state. A commenter believed 

the native sod provisions of the 2008 

Farm Bill resulted from a clear problem 

that applies well beyond the Prairie 

Pothole National Priority Area. 

Throughout the Great Plains, and in 

other parts of the country, native prairie, 

virgin forest, and other types of native 

habitat are being tilled, cleared and 

converted to cropland. Much of this 

land is marginal and would not be 

farmed if the risk in doing so were not 

underwritten by taxpayer-subsidized 

crop insurance and disaster assistance 

programs, along with commodity 

payments and other USDA programs. 

The commenter stated in sagebrush 

grasslands, the rapid pace of conversion 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
45542 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 170 / Thursday, September 3, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

represents a long-term threat to the 

health and viability of sage-grouse 

populations and other sagebrush 

obligate species. Portions of the Prairie 

Pothole National Priority Area within 

Montana include important sage-grouse 

habitat as well as native grasslands 

important to migratory birds of concern. 

Unfortunately, the current focus on the 

Prairie Pothole National Priority Area 

excludes significant blocks of native 

grasslands within the Great Plains in 

Montana and other states. Putting the 

native sod provisions in effect in the 

Prairie Pothole National Priority Area 

would be a good first step, but the job 

is nowhere near complete if we seek to 

maintain functional working landscapes 

throughout our nation. 

The commenter urged USDA to 

examine this issue carefully, and to 

undertake monitoring and research on 

how much native prairie and other 

native habitat is being converted to 

cropland and the influence of USDA 

insurance, commodity, and other 

programs in those decisions. Should one 

or more Governors choose to have the 

provision apply in their state, it would 

provide an invaluable opportunity to 

study side-by-side comparisons of 

conversion rates with and without the 

availability of Federal crop insurance. 

Another commenter stated USDA data 

shows the loss of rangeland and 

pastureland is not limited to the states 

of the Prairie Pothole National Priority 

Area. In fact, data cited in a Government 

Accountability Office (GAO) report 

shows states like Colorado, New Mexico 

and Texas are experiencing losses as 

bad as or worse than those in the Prairie 

Pothole National Priority Area. 

Landowners throughout the country 

who are maintaining grasslands receive 

none of the Federal farm program 

supports that studies show are an 

important factor in converting 

grasslands to annual crop production. 

Again, the GAO detailed that even 

among annual crop producers, the 

landowners that are converting the most 

native sod are receiving far larger 

insurance benefits than their neighbors 

who are not. Further, the Federal farm 

program is paying landowners to reestablish perennial grass and plants on 

previously converted sod at the very 

same time crop insurance and other 

Federal benefits are prodding the 

conversion of perennial grasslands. 

The commenter recommended the 

‘‘added land’’ provision of crop 

insurance rules be amended to require 

land without production crop history 

prior to May 22, 2008, that is 

subsequently planted to a crop, must 

establish a full four to ten year actual 

production history prior to becoming 

eligible for insurance. 

A commenter strongly recommended 

an incentive-based program to help 

preserve tall-, mixed-, and short-grass 

prairies in the entire state of South 

Dakota, as opposed to the current sod 

saver program for the Prairie Pothole 

National Priority Area. 

Another commenter noted in their 

explanatory language on the new Farm 

Bill, the Managers Report cites a GAO 

report and recommendation that USDA 

should ‘‘(1) track annual conversion and 

provide current data to policymakers, 

and (2) conduct a study of the 

relationship between farm program 

payments and land conversion and 

report findings to Congress * * * The 

Managers intend for the Secretary to 

undertake a study on the influence of 

the crop insurance program on the 

conversion of native sod to crop 

production * * *’’ and to provide 

recommendations to Congress. 

The commenter echoed this call for 

careful study and recommendations. 

They also asked USDA to look for other 

opportunities within the existing 

structure of Federal crop insurance and 

non-insured disaster assistance 

payments to reduce or eliminate the 

taxpayer-paid incentives that are now in 

place that encourage landowners to 

break out native prairie and other native 

habitats, and to work to combat abuses 

of the current system that waste 

taxpayer money. 

Response: Congress created an 

exception to the rule regarding the 

eligibility of acreage for insurance. 

Because it is an exception to the rule, it 

should not be read more broadly than it 

is written. The 2008 Farm Bill 

specifically provided the authority to 

implement these provisions in the 

Prairie Pothole National Priority Area. 

The 2008 Farm Bill also specified the 5- 

year period in which insurance cannot 

be offered after native sod acreage has 

been tilled. In addition, the crop 

insurance policy already contains 

provisions that limit insurance on 

certain acreage on which a crop was not 

previously planted or harvested in the 

previous three years. As conversion data 

is gathered and included in required 

reports to policymakers, policy changes 

may be vetted to determine the best land 

management practices that meet the 

needs of all land users. 

Comment: A commenter stated the 

interim rule makes native sod tilled 

after May 22, 2008, ineligible for crop 

insurance for the first five years an 

annual crop is planted. It appears this 

will also make the crop ineligible for 

any disaster payments because crop 

insurance is a requirement for disaster 

assistance. This reduces a risk 

management tool for the producer in the 

Prairie Pothole National Priority Area. 

The commenters asked for the 

justification for eliminating these tools 

for the producer in the Prairie Pothole 

National Priority Area and not for the 

producer across the road in another 

county that is not in the Prairie Pothole 

National Priority Area. The commenter 

recommended an incentive to not break 

the native sod with a pilot program or 

a CREP-like program of some sort. 

Producers who have gone out of the 

livestock business are limited in the use 

of the land under Sod Saver. The 

producer should make decisions based 

on his or her operation needs, not 

disincentives for change because he or 

she lives in the Prairie Pothole National 

Priority Area. 

Another commenter stated if a 

producer falls under the sod saver 

provisions in the interim rule, they are 

not eligible for disaster assistance. This 

would place these farmers at an 

economic disadvantage relative to other 

farmers. The commenter was opposed to 

that outcome. 

Response: FCIC is required to 

implement the provisions of the 2008 

Farm Bill. Further, its provisions limit 

crop insurance and noninsured crop 

disaster assistance program benefits. It 

does not expressly exclude the payment 

of disaster benefits. FSA provides 

disaster assistance and any program 

requirements for insurance are detailed 

in materials developed and issued by 

FSA. Producers should contact their 

local FSA office to verify disaster 

assistance program requirements. 

Comment: A commenter stated the 

interim rule adds a new subsection in 

section 3 of 7 CFR 407.9 and a new 

subsection in section 9 of 7 CFR 457.8 

to specify when native sod is ineligible 

for crop insurance. The language is 

virtually identical in the two sections 

and is consistent with section 12020 of 

the 2008 Farm Bill, except in the final 

sentence of the sections: ‘‘If the 

Governor makes this election after you 

have received an indemnity or other 

payment for native sod acreage, you 

may be required to repay the amount 

received and any premium for such 

acreage may be refunded to you.’’ 

Section 12020 of the 2008 Farm Bill 

states that, ‘‘* * * native sod acreage 

that has been tilled for the production 

of an annual crop after the date of 

enactment of this subsection shall be 

ineligible during the first 5 crop years of 

planting * * *’’ 

Both section 12020 of the 2008 Farm 

Bill and the interim rule affirm acreage 

tilled for production after May 22, 2008 

is not insurable, so the commenter 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 170 / Thursday, September 3, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 45543 

believed it will be necessary to specify 

that a payment received shall be repaid 

and a premium paid shall be refunded. 

Further to this point, paragraph d. of 

the ‘‘Background’’ section of the interim 

rule contains the same usage of ‘‘may’’ 

that the commenter asserts should be 

‘‘shall.’’ As stated in paragraph d. in 

adherence to section 12020 of the 2008 

Farm Bill, ‘‘The 2008 Farm Bill is 

specific in that, at the election of the 

Governors of these states, any acreage of 

native sod that is tilled for production 

of an annual crop after the date of 

enactment will be ineligible for 

insurance for the first 5 crops years of 

planting.’’ The commenter agreed the 

2008 Farm Bill is specific and that the 

ineligibility shall apply whenever a 

Governor elects to make section 508(o) 

of the Act effective. 

Response: The commenter is correct 

that if the election is made by the 

Governor, acreage first tilled after May 

22, 2008, is ineligible for insurance so 

the provisions should indicate prior 

payments will have to be repaid. FCIC 

has revised the provisions accordingly. 

Comment: A commenter stated the 

statutory language says ‘‘The Secretary 

shall exempt areas of 5 acres or less’’ 

from the clause, which is designed to 

provide a ‘de minimum’ exemption. The 

commenter believed the rule’s language 

is clear that ‘‘any native sod acreage 

greater than 5 acres’’ is not insurable. 

The commenter recommended the 

Secretary, in providing direction to 

USDA employees, ensures landowners 

do not skirt the rule by trying to claim 

an exemption for five acres of an area 

one year, five more acres the following 

year, another five acres the third year, 

etc. 

Another commenter stated section 

12020 of the 2008 Farm Bill specifies a 

‘‘De Minimis Acreage Exemption’’ that 

requires areas of 5 acres or less to be 

exempt from the ineligibility 

designation. The commenter wanted to 

emphasize it would contradict the 

intent and spirit of the law to allow 

incremental conversion of contiguous 

parcels of 5 acres or less. They 

emphasized this point to clarify 

appropriate establishment and 

subsequent adherence to the rule must 

ensure multiple tracts of 5 acres or less 

that become contiguous tracts totaling 

more than 5 acres should be regarded as 

a single tract larger than 5 acres and 

therefore ineligible for crop insurance. 

Response: The intent is to provide an 

exception for acreage that is legitimately 

five acres or less. The intent is not to 

allow incremental increases in the 

amount of converted acreage. FCIC has 

added provisions specifying that adding 

to the acreage so more than 5 acres have 

been converted would subject all the 

converted acreage to the provisions 

beginning the year the producer 

cumulatively converted more than the 5 

acre threshold. 

Comment: A commenter stated they 

live in a wildlife paradise in Central 

North Dakota adjacent to U.S. Fish & 

Wildlife land and the wildlife is every 

bit as plentiful and cared for on their 

land as on the government-owned land. 

They have watched all of these projects 

and land acquisitions over the years and 

the amount of tax-payer money that has 

been spent could surely help eliminate 

the deficit. The commenter asked USDA 

to use its influence to deter another 

costly program. 

Response: Since the program changes 

contained in this rule were mandated by 

the 2008 Farm Bill, FCIC is required by 

law to implement the changes. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Parts 402, 407 

and 457 

Crop insurance, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Final Rule 

■ Accordingly, as set forth in the 

preamble and under the authority of 7 

U.S.C. 1506(l), 1506(o), the interim rule 

amending 7 CFR parts 402, 407 and 457 

which was published at 73 FR 70861– 

70865 on November 24, 2008, is 

adopted as final with the following 

changes. The amendments listed below 

are effective for the 2010 and 

succeeding crop years for all crops with 

a 2010 crop year contract change date 

on or after the effective date of this rule 

and for the 2011 and succeeding crop 

years for all crops with a 2010 crop year 

contract change date prior to the 

effective date of this rule as follows: 

PART 407—GROUP RISK PLAN OF 

INSURANCE REGULATIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR 

Part 407 continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 2. Amend § 407.9 as follows: 

■ a. Amend section 1 by adding the 

definition of ‘‘tilled’’ and revising the 

definitions of ‘‘native sod’’ and ‘‘Prairie 

Pothole National Priority Area;’’ ’’ and 

■ b. Amend section 3 by revising 

paragraph (d). 

The revised and added text reads as 

follows: 

§ 407.9 Group risk plan common policy. 

* * * * * 

1. Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Native sod. Acreage that has no record 

of being tilled (determined in 

accordance with FSA or other verifiable 

records acceptable to us) for the 

production of an annual crop on or 

before May 22, 2008, and on which the 

plant cover is composed principally of 

native grasses, grass-like plants, forbs, or 

shrubs suitable for grazing and 

browsing. 

* * * * * 

Prairie Pothole National Priority Area. 

Consists of specific counties within the 

States of Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, 

North Dakota or South Dakota as 

specified on the RMA Web site at http://

www.rma.usda.gov/, or a successor Web 

site, or the Farm Service Agency, 

Agricultural Resource Conservation 

Program 2–CRP (Revision 4), dated 

April 28, 2008, or a subsequent 

publication. 

* * * * * 

Tilled. The termination of existing 

plants by plowing, disking, burning, 

application of chemicals, or by other 

means to prepare acreage for the 

production of an annual crop. 

* * * * * 

3. Insured and Insurable Acreage. 

* * * * * 

(d) If the Governor of a State 

designated within the Prairie Pothole 

National Priority Area elects to make 

section 508(o) of the Act effective for the 

State, any native sod acreage greater 

than five acres located in a county 

contained within the Prairie Pothole 

National Priority Area that has been 

tilled after May 22, 2008, is not 

insurable for the first five crop years of 

planting following the date the native 

sod acreage is tilled. 

(1) If the Governor makes this election 

after you have received an indemnity or 

other payment for native sod acreage, 

you will be required to repay the 

amount received and any premium for 

such acreage will be refunded to you. 

(2) If we determine you have tilled 

less than five acres of native sod a year 

for more than one crop year, we will 

add all the native sod acreage tilled after 

May 22, 2008, and all such acreage will 

be ineligible for insurance for the first 

five crop years of planting following the 

date the cumulative native sod acreage 

tilled exceeds five acres. 

* * * * * 

PART 457—COMMON CROP 

INSURANCE REGULATIONS 

■ 3. The authority citation for 7 CFR 

part 457 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1506(1), 1506(o). 

■ 4. Amend § 457.8 as follows: 

■ a. Amend section 1 by adding the 

definition of ‘‘tilled’’ and revising the 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
45544 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 170 / Thursday, September 3, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

definitions of ‘‘native sod’’ and ‘‘Prairie 

Pothole National Priority Area;’’ 

■ b. Amend section 9 by revising 

paragraph (e); and 

■ c. Revise section 14(c) (Your Duties). 

The revised and added text reads as 

follows: 

§ 457.8 The application and policy. 

1. Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Native sod. Acreage that has no record 

of being tilled (determined in 

accordance with FSA or other verifiable 

records acceptable to us) for the 

production of an annual crop on or 

before May 22, 2008, and on which the 

plant cover is composed principally of 

native grasses, grass-like plants, forbs, or 

shrubs suitable for grazing and 

browsing. 

* * * * * 

Prairie Pothole National Priority Area. 

Consists of specific counties within the 

States of Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, 

North Dakota or South Dakota as 

specified on the RMA Web site at http://

www.rma.usda.gov/, or a successor Web 

site, or the Farm Service Agency, 

Agricultural Resource Conservation 

Program 2–CRP (Revision 4), dated 

April 28, 2008, or a subsequent 

publication. 

* * * * * 

Tilled. The termination of existing 

plants by plowing, disking, burning, 

application of chemicals, or by other 

means to prepare acreage for the 

production of an annual crop. 

* * * * * 

9. Insurable Acreage. 

* * * * * 

(e) Notwithstanding the provisions in 

section 9(a)(1), if the Governor of a State 

designated within the Prairie Pothole 

National Priority Area elects to make 

section 508(o) of the Act effective for the 

State, any native sod acreage greater 

than five acres located in a county 

contained within the Prairie Pothole 

National Priority Area that has been 

tilled after May 22, 2008, is not 

insurable for the first five crop years of 

planting following the date the native 

sod acreage is tilled. 

(1) If the Governor makes this election 

after you have received an indemnity or 

other payment for native sod acreage, 

you will be required to repay the 

amount received and any premium for 

such acreage will be refunded to you. 

(2) If we determine you have tilled 

less than five acres of native sod a year 

for more than one crop year, we will 

add all the native sod acreage tilled after 

May 22, 2008, and all such acreage will 

be ineligible for insurance for the first 

five crop years of planting following the 

date the cumulative native sod acreage 

tilled exceeds five acres. 

* * * * * 

14. Duties in the Event of Damage, 

Loss, Abandonment, Destruction, or 

Alternative Use of Crop or Acreage. 

Your Duties— 

* * * * * 

(c) In addition to complying with the 

notice requirements, you must submit a 

claim for indemnity declaring the 

amount of your loss: 

(1) Not later than 60 days after the end 

of the insurance period unless, prior to 

the end of the 60 day period, you: 

(i) Request an extension in writing 

and we agree to such request 

(Extensions will only be granted if the 

amount of loss cannot be determined 

within such time period because the 

information needed to determine the 

amount of the loss is not available); or 

(ii) Have harvested farm-stored grain 

production and elect, in writing, to 

delay measurement of your farm-stored 

production and settlement of any 

potential associated claim for indemnity 

(Extensions will be granted for this 

purpose up to 180 days after the end of 

the insurance period). 

(A) For policies that require APH, if 

such extension continues beyond the 

date you are required to submit your 

production report, you will be assigned 

the previous year’s approved yield as a 

temporary yield in accordance with 

applicable procedures. 

(B) Any extension does not extend 

any date specified in the policy by 

which premiums, administrative fees, or 

other debts owed must be paid. 

(C) Damage that occurs after the end 

of the insurance period (for example, 

while the harvested crop production is 

in storage) is not covered; and 

(2) That includes all information we 

require to settle the claim. Failure to 

submit a claim or provide the required 

information will result in no indemnity, 

prevented planting payment or replant 

payment (even though no indemnity or 

other payment is due, you will still be 

required to pay the premium due under 

the policy for the unit). 

* * * * * 

Signed in Washington, DC, on August 28, 

2009. 

William J. Murphy, 

Manager, Federal Crop Insurance 

Corporation. 

[FR Doc. E9–21233 Filed 9–2–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–08–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

10 CFR Parts 55 and 76 

RIN 3150–AI69 

[NRC–2009–0242] 

Administrative Changes 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is making 

administrative changes to its regulations 

to correct errors published in recent 

rulemaking documents. This final rule 

clarifies the term ‘‘Under the Influence’’ 

and corrects erroneous citations and 

typographical errors. This document is 

necessary to inform the public of these 

changes. 

DATES: Effective date is October 5, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Lynn Hall, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, telephone 301–415–3759, 

e-mail Lynn.Hall@nrc.gov. 

ADDRESSES: You can access publicly 

available documents related to this 

document using the following methods: 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and search 

for documents filed under Docket ID 

[NRC–2009–0242]. Address questions 

about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher 

301–492–3668; e-mail 

Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. 

NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR): 

The public may examine and have 

copied for a fee publicly available 

documents at the NRC’s PDR, Public 

File Area O1 F21, One White Flint 

North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 

Maryland. 

NRC’s Agencywide Documents Access 

and Management System (ADAMS): 

Publicly available documents created or 

received at the NRC are available 

electronically at the NRC’s electronic 

Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/ 

reading-rm/adams.html. From this page, 

the public can gain entry into ADAMS, 

which provides text and image files of 

NRC’s public documents. If you do not 

have access to ADAMS or if there are 

problems in accessing the documents 

located in ADAMS, contact the NRC’s 

PDR reference staff at 1–899–397–4209, 

301–415–4737, or by e-mail to 

pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On March 31, 2008, (73 FR 16965), 

the NRC published a final rule 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES