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.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

33081 

Vol. 86, No. 119 

Thursday, June 24, 2021 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Federal Crop Insurance Corporation 

7 CFR Part 457 

[Docket ID FCIC–21–0004] 

RIN 0563–AC72 

Common Crop Insurance Regulations; 

Dry Pea Crop Insurance Provisions 

and Dry Beans Crop Insurance 

Provisions 

AGENCY: Federal Crop Insurance 

Corporation, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture (USDA). 

ACTION: Final rule with request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Crop Insurance 

Corporation (FCIC) amends the 

Common Crop Insurance Regulations, 

Dry Bean Crop Insurance Provisions and 

Dry Pea Crop Insurance Provisions. For 

the Dry Bean Crop Insurance Provisions 

and Dry Pea Crop Insurance Provisions, 

the intended effect of this action is to 

allow enterprise and optional units by 

type, to clarify policy provisions, and 

for consistency with other crop 

provisions that offer coverage on both 

winter and spring-planted acreage of the 

crop. The changes will be effective for 

the 2022 and succeeding crop years. 

DATES: Effective date: June 24, 2021. 

Comment date: We will consider 

comments that we receive by the close 

of business August 23, 2021. FCIC may 

consider the comments received and 

may conduct additional rulemaking 

based on the comments. 

ADDRESSES: We invite you to submit 

comments on this rule. You may submit 

comments by either of the following 

methods, although FCIC prefers that you 

submit comments electronically through 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and search 

for Docket ID FCIC–21–0004. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Director, Product 

Administration and Standards Division, 

Risk Management Agency (RMA), U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, P.O. Box 

419205, Kansas City, MO 64133–6205. 

In your comment, specify docket ID 

FCIC–21–0004. 

Comments will be available for 

viewing online at www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Francie Tolle; telephone (816) 926– 

7829; or email Francie.Tolle@usda.gov. 

Persons with disabilities who require 

alternative means for communication 

should contact the USDA Target Center 

at (202) 720–2600 or 844–433–2774 

(toll-free nationwide). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The FCIC serves America’s 

agricultural producers through effective, 

market-based risk management tools to 

strengthen the economic stability of 

agricultural producers and rural 

communities. FCIC is committed to 

increasing the availability and 

effectiveness of Federal crop insurance 

as a risk management tool. Approved 

Insurance Providers (AIP) sell and 

service Federal crop insurance policies 

in every state through a public-private 

partnership. FCIC reinsures the AIPs 

who share the risks associated with 

catastrophic losses due to major weather 

events. FCIC’s vision is to secure the 

future of agriculture by providing world 

class risk management tools to rural 

America. 

FCIC amends the Common Crop 

Insurance Regulations by revising 7 CFR 

457.140, Dry Pea Crop Insurance 

Provisions, and by revising 7 CFR 

457.150, Dry Bean Crop Insurance 

Provisions, to be effective for the 2022 

and succeeding crop years. 

For both 7 CFR 457.140, Dry Pea Crop 

Insurance Provisions, and 7 CFR 

457.150, Dry Bean Crop Insurance 

Provisions, FCIC is allowing separate 

enterprise units by type. 

Crop insurance units are an 

identifiable, insurable segment of land 

on which an insurable crop is grown, 

and separate production records have 

been kept. Enterprise units are all 

insurable acreage of an insured crop in 

the county in which the insured has a 

share on the date coverage begins for the 

crop year. Allowing separate enterprise 

units allows producers to be 

indemnified separately by type. The 

benefit for producers is that a gain on 

one type will not be offset by the loss 

on another type. Currently, optional 

units by type are available for all types 

listed in the actuarial documents. 

If an insured elects enterprise units 

for these types, further division of 

enterprise units is not allowed. The 

insured may elect one enterprise unit 

for all types, or a combination of types 

(for example, under the Dry Peas Crop 

Provisions, the insured may elect an 

enterprise unit for spring and smooth 

green types and a separate enterprise 

unit for the Austrian type, or separate 

enterprise units for each). Additionally, 

the acreage must each separately qualify 

for enterprise units and will be subject 

to the current requirements in the Basic 

Provisions. 

If an insured elects enterprise units 

for multiple types and does not qualify 

for separate enterprise units, there are 

options based on the timing of the 

discovery: 

• If the insured elects separate 

enterprise units for multiple types and 

the AIP discovers the enterprise unit 

qualifications are not separately met for 

all types: 

(1) On or before the acreage reporting 

date, the insured may elect: 

(a) All types in which the insured 

elected an enterprise unit for meeting 

the requirements in section 34(a)(4) as 

separate enterprise units, and basic or 

optional units for any acreage that is not 

reported and insured as an enterprise 

unit, whichever the insured reports on 

the acreage report and for which the 

insured qualifies; 

(b) One enterprise unit for all acreage 

of the crop in the county provided the 

insured meets the requirements in 

section 34(a)(4); or 

(c) Basic or optional units for all 

acreage of the crop in the county, 

whichever the insured reports on the 

acreage report and for which the insured 

qualifies. 

(2) After acreage reporting date, the 

insured may have one enterprise unit 

comprised of all acreage in the county 

of the crop provided the insured meets 

requirements in section 34(a)(4), or the 

AIP will assign a basic unit structure for 

all acreage of the crop in the county. 

• If an insured elects an enterprise 

unit for only one type and the AIP 

discovers the enterprise unit 

qualifications are not met for that type: 

(1) On or before the acreage reporting 

date, the insured’s unit division for all 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
33082 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

acreage of the crop in the county will be 

based on basic or optional units, 

whichever the insured reports on the 

acreage report and for which the insured 

qualifies; or 

(2) After the acreage reporting date, 

the AIP will assign the basic unit 

structure for all acreage of the crop in 

the county. 

FCIC is also revising the first sentence 

in redesignated paragraph (b) to 

eliminate the need to list all optional 

unit choices from the Basic Provisions. 

This allows the Dry Pea Crop Provisions 

and Dry Bean Crop Provisions to follow, 

without a new regulation, the Basic 

Provisions optional unit division 

language when and if those provisions 

in the Basic Provisions are updated. 

FCIC is adding a new paragraph (c) to 

state that if types are only available by 

written agreement, separate enterprise 

units or optional units for those types 

are not available. This is consistent with 

enterprise unit and optional unit 

provisions in other Crop Provisions, 

such as Coarse Grains Crop Provisions. 

Other changes specific to 7 CFR 

457.140, Dry Pea Crop Insurance 

Provisions, are as follows: 

1. Throughout the Crop Provisions, 

FCIC is removing the reference to 

United States Standards for Split Peas. 

The standards for Split Peas are used by 

processors but are not applicable to 

producers. 

2. Section 1—FCIC is revising the 

definition of Local Market Price by 

removing the reference to United States 

Standards for Split Peas. Producers, 

grower groups, buyers, and GIPSA 

graders have stated that the Split Pea 

Standards only apply to processors and 

not to growers. Therefore, FCIC is 

removing the Split Pea references to 

reduce any potential confusion for 

growers. 

3. Section 2—FCIC is designating the 

undesignated paragraph in section 2 as 

paragraph (b) and adding a new 

paragraph (a) to allow enterprise and 

optional units by type, regardless of 

whether the type is listed in the 

actuarial documents or the type is 

insured by written agreement. 

4. Section 3—FCIC is revising 

paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) to replace the 

phrase ‘‘insured fall-planted dry pea 

acreage’’ with the phrase ‘‘insurable fallplanted dry pea acreage.’’ Paragraph (c) 

provides guidance regarding the date by 

which producers can make changes to 

their insurance coverage depending on 

the status of their fall-planted acreage. 

The provisions previously stated that if 

producers have ‘‘insured’’ fall-planted 

acreage, no changes can be made after 

the fall sales closing date. FCIC received 

input from insurance companies that 

the phrase ‘‘insured fall planted 

acreage’’ implied that if producers 

planted fall-planted acreage but chose 

not insure it, then they would have until 

the spring sales closing date to make 

changes to the insurance coverage on 

the spring-planted acreage. That was not 

the intent of the provisions. All acreage 

of the crop in the county must be 

insured. If the producer plants fallplanted acreage and it meets the 

insurability requirements in section 6, 

then it must be insured. Therefore, FCIC 

is revising the language to indicate if 

producers planted ‘‘insurable’’ fallplanted acreage, then no changes may 

be made after the fall sales closing date. 

Other changes to 7 CFR 457.150, Dry 

Bean Crop Insurance Provisions, are as 

follows: 

1. Throughout the Crop Provisions, 

FCIC is removing the Basic Provisions 

section titles when the section number 

is a sufficient reference. This is 

consistent with changes being made in 

other Crop Provisions. 

2. Section 1—FCIC is revising the 

definition of Type to allow enterprise 

and optional units for types insured by 

written agreement. Written agreements 

in this instance would allow producers 

to insure dry beans that would 

otherwise not be insurable based on an 

insurance offer unique to that producer. 

This change would address optional 

units (as well as enterprise units by 

type) when the producer has a written 

agreement providing coverage for a type 

not shown in the actuarial documents of 

the county in question. It also would 

give producers the same coverage 

available in the Dry Pea Crop Provisions 

and provide equitable treatment. 

3. Section 2—FCIC is designating the 

undesignated paragraph in section 2 as 

paragraph (b) and adding a new 

paragraph (a) to allow enterprise and 

optional units by type, as described 

above. 

Effective Date, Notice and Comment, 

and Exemptions 

The Administrative Procedure Act 

(APA, 5 U.S.C. 553) provides that the 

notice and comment and 30-day delay 

in the effective date provisions do not 

apply when the rule involves specified 

actions, including matters relating to 

contracts. This rule governs contracts 

for crop insurance policies and therefore 

falls within that exemption. 

This rule is exempt from the 

regulatory analysis requirements of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 

601–612), as amended by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996. 

For major rules, the Congressional 

Review Act requires a delay the 

effective date of 60 days after 

publication to allow for Congressional 

review. This rule is not a major rule 

under the Congressional Review Act, as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Therefore, 

this final rule is effective on the date of 

publication in the Federal Register. 

Although not required by APA or any 

other law, FCIC has chosen to request 

comments on this rule. 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory 

Planning and Review,’’ and Executive 

Order 13563, ‘‘Improving Regulation 

and Regulatory Review,’’ direct agencies 

to assess all costs and benefits of 

available regulatory alternatives and, if 

regulation is necessary, to select 

regulatory approaches that maximize 

net benefits (including potential 

economic, environmental, public health 

and safety effects, distributive impacts, 

and equity). Executive Order 13563 

emphasized the importance of 

quantifying both costs and benefits, of 

reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, 

and of promoting flexibility. The 

requirements in Executive Orders 12866 

and 13563 for the analysis of costs and 

benefits apply to rules that are 

determined to be significant. 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) designated this rule as not 

significant under Executive Order 

12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review,’’ and therefore, OMB has not 

reviewed this rule and analysis of the 

costs and benefits is not required under 

either Executive Order 12866 or 13563. 

Clarity of the Regulation 

Executive Order 12866, as 

supplemented by Executive Order 

13563, requires each agency to write all 

rules in plain language. In addition to 

your substantive comments on this rule, 

we invite your comments on how to 

make the rule easier to understand. For 

example: 

• Are the requirements in the rule 

clearly stated? Are the scope and intent 

of the rule clear? 

• Does the rule contain technical 

language or jargon that is not clear? 

• Is the material logically organized? 

• Would changing the grouping or 

order of sections or adding headings 

make the rule easier to understand? 

• Could we improve clarity by adding 

tables, lists, or diagrams? 

• Would more, but shorter, sections 

be better? Are there specific sections 

that are too long or confusing? 

• What else could we do to make the 

rule easier to understand? 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 33083 

Environmental Review 

In general, the environmental impacts 

of rules are to be considered in a 

manner consistent with the provisions 

of the National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321–4347) and 

the regulations of the Council on 

Environmental Quality (40 CFR parts 

1500–1508). FCIC conducts programs 

and activities that have been determined 

to have no individual or cumulative 

effect on the human environment. As 

specified in 7 CFR 1b.4, FCIC is 

categorically excluded from the 

preparation of an Environmental 

Analysis or Environmental Impact 

Statement unless the FCIC Manager 

(agency head) determines that an action 

may have a significant environmental 

effect. The FCIC Manager has 

determined this rule will not have a 

significant environmental effect. 

Therefore, FCIC will not prepare an 

environmental assessment or 

environmental impact statement for this 

action and this rule serves as 

documentation of the programmatic 

environmental compliance decision. 

Executive Order 12988 

This rule has been reviewed under 

Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice 

Reform.’’ This rule will not preempt 

State or local laws, regulations, or 

policies unless they represent an 

irreconcilable conflict with this rule. 

Before any judicial actions may be 

brought regarding the provisions of this 

rule, the administrative appeal 

provisions of 7 CFR part 11 are to be 

exhausted. 

Executive Order 13175 

This rule has been reviewed in 

accordance with the requirements of 

Executive Order 13175, ‘‘Consultation 

and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments.’’ Executive Order 13175 

requires Federal agencies to consult and 

coordinate with Tribes on a 

government-to-government basis on 

policies that have Tribal implications, 

including regulations, legislative 

comments or proposed legislation, and 

other policy statements or actions that 

have substantial direct effects on one or 

more Indian Tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian Tribes or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian Tribes. 

RMA has assessed the impact of this 

rule on Indian Tribes and determined 

that this rule does not, to our 

knowledge, have Tribal implications 

that require Tribal consultation under 

E.O. 13175. The regulation changes do 

not have Tribal implications that 

preempt Tribal law and are not expected 

have a substantial direct effect on one or 

more Indian Tribes. If a Tribe requests 

consultation, RMA will work with the 

USDA Office of Tribal Relations to 

ensure meaningful consultation is 

provided where changes, additions and 

modifications identified in this rule are 

not expressly mandated by Congress. 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA, Pub. L. 

104–4) requires Federal agencies to 

assess the effects of their regulatory 

actions of State, local, and Tribal 

governments or the private sector. 

Agencies generally must prepare a 

written statement, including cost 

benefits analysis, for proposed and final 

rules with Federal mandates that may 

result in expenditures of $100 million or 

more in any 1 year for State, local or 

Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or 

to the private sector. UMRA generally 

requires agencies to consider 

alternatives and adopt the more cost 

effective or least burdensome alternative 

that achieves the objectives of the rule. 

This rule contains no Federal mandates, 

as defined in Title II of 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. 

Federal Assistance Program 

The title and number of the Federal 

Domestic Assistance Program listed in 

the Catalog of Federal Domestic 

Assistance to which this rule applies is 

No. 10.450—Crop Insurance. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

In accordance with the provisions of 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. chapter 35, subchapter I), the 

rule does not change the information 

collection approved by OMB under 

control numbers 0563–0053. 

USDA Non-Discrimination Policy 

In accordance with Federal civil 

rights law and USDA civil rights 

regulations and policies, USDA, its 

Agencies, offices, and employees, and 

institutions participating in or 

administering USDA programs are 

prohibited from discriminating based on 

race, color, national origin, religion, sex, 

gender identity (including gender 

expression), sexual orientation, 

disability, age, marital status, family or 

parental status, income derived from a 

public assistance program, political 

beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior 

civil rights activity, in any program or 

activity conducted or funded by USDA 

(not all bases apply to all programs). 

Remedies and complaint filing 

deadlines vary by program or incident. 

Persons with disabilities who require 

alternative means of communication for 

program information (for example, 

Braille, large print, audiotape, American 

Sign Language, etc.) should contact the 

responsible Agency or USDA TARGET 

Center at (202) 720–2600 or 844–433– 

2774 (toll-free nationwide). 

Additionally, program information may 

be made available in languages other 

than English. 

To file a program discrimination 

complaint, complete the USDA Program 

Discrimination Complaint Form, AD– 

3027, found online at https://

www.usda.gov/oascr/how-to-file-aprogram-discrimination-complaint and 

at any USDA office or write a letter 

addressed to USDA and provide in the 

letter all the information requested in 

the form. To request a copy of the 

complaint form, call (866) 632–9992. 

Submit your completed form or letter to 

USDA by mail to: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Office of the Assistant 

Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, 

DC 20250–9410 or email: OAC@

usda.gov. 

USDA is an equal opportunity 

provider, employer, and lender. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 457 

Acreage allotments, Crop insurance, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Final Rule 

For the reasons discussed above, FCIC 

amends 7 CFR part 457 as follows: 

PART 457—COMMON CROP 

INSURANCE REGULATIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR 

part 457 continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 2. Amend § 457.140 as follows: 

■ a. In the introductory text, remove 

‘‘2021’’ and add in its place ‘‘2022’’; 

■ b. In section 1, in the definition of 

‘‘Local Market Price’’, remove the term 

‘‘Split Peas,’’; 

■ c. Revise section 2; 

■ d. In section 3, in paragraphs (c)(1) 

and (2), remove the word ‘‘insured’’ and 

add in its place ‘‘insurable’’; and 

■ e. In section 13, in paragraph (e)(2)(i), 

remove the phrase ‘‘Split Peas,’’. 

The revision reads as follows: 

§ 457.140 Dry pea crop insurance 

provisions. 

* * * * * 

2. Unit Division. 

(a) In addition to enterprise units 

provided in section 34(a) of the Basic 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
33084 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

Provisions, you may elect separate 

enterprise units by type, as provided in 

this section, if allowed by the actuarial 

documents. If you elect enterprise units 

by type, you may not elect enterprise or 

optional units by irrigation practices. 

(1) You may elect separate enterprise 

units by type unless otherwise specified 

in the Special Provisions. For example, 

if you have Spring Austrian Peas and 

Spring Desi Chickpea types, you may 

elect one enterprise unit for the Spring 

Austrian Peas type or one enterprise 

unit for the Spring Desi Chickpeas type, 

or separate enterprise units for both 

types. Any acreage which is not 

reported and insured as an enterprise 

unit will be insured as a basic unit or 

optional unit if requirements are met. 

For example, if you only have Spring 

Austrian Peas and Spring Desi Chickpea 

types, you may have an enterprise unit 

for the Spring Austrian Peas type 

acreage and basic or optional units for 

the Spring Desi Chickpeas type acreage. 

(2) You must separately meet the 

requirements in section 34(a)(4) of the 

Basic Provisions for each enterprise 

unit. 

(3) If you elected separate enterprise 

units for multiple types and we discover 

enterprise unit qualifications are not 

separately met for all types in which 

you elected enterprise unit and such 

discovery is made: 

(i) On or before the acreage reporting 

date, you may elect to insure: 

(A) All types in which you elected an 

enterprise unit for meeting the 

requirements in section 34(a)(4) as 

separate enterprise units, and basic or 

optional units for any acreage that is not 

reported and insured as enterprise unit, 

whichever you report on your acreage 

report and for which you qualify; 

(B) One enterprise unit for all acreage 

of the crop in the county provided you 

meet the requirements in section 

34(a)(4); or 

(C) Basic or optional units for all 

acreage of the crop in the county, 

whichever you report on your acreage 

report and for which you qualify; or 

(ii) At any time after the acreage 

reporting date, your unit structure will 

be one enterprise unit for all acreage of 

crop in the county provided you meet 

the requirements in section 34(a)(4). 

Otherwise, we will assign the basic unit 

structure for all acreage of crop in the 

county. 

(4) If you elected an enterprise unit 

for only one type and we discover you 

do not qualify for an enterprise unit for 

that type and such discovery is made: 

(i) On or before the acreage reporting 

date, your unit division for all acreage 

of the crop in the county will be based 

on basic or optional units, whichever 

you report on your acreage report and 

for which you qualify; or 

(ii) At any time after the acreage 

reporting date, we will assign the basic 

unit structure for all acreage of the crop 

in the county. 

(b) In addition to, or instead of, 

establishing optional units as provided 

in section 34(c) in the Basic Provisions, 

separate optional units may be 

established for each dry pea type 

(designated in actuarial documents and 

including any type insured by written 

agreement). 

(c) Enterprise and optional units by 

type may be further divided by acreage 

of contract seed types and dry pea types 

not grown under a processor/seed 

company contract even if they share a 

common variety provided each dry pea 

type is grown on separate acreage and 

the production is kept separate. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 457.150 as follows: 

■ a. In the introductory text, remove 

‘‘2017’’ and add ‘‘2022’’ in its place; 

■ b. In section 1, in the definition of 

‘‘Type’’, add the phrase ‘‘or insured by 

written agreement’’ at the end of the 

definition; 

■ c. Revise section 2; 

■ d. In section 3, in paragraph (a), 

remove the phrase ‘‘(Insurance 

Guarantees, Coverage Levels, and Prices 

for Determining Indemnities)’’; 

■ e. In section 4, remove the phrase 

‘‘(Contract Changes)’’; 

■ f. In section 5, remove the phrase 

‘‘(Life of Policy, Cancellation, and 

Termination)’’; 

■ g. In section 6, remove the phrase 

‘‘(Report of Acreage)’’; 

■ h. In section 7, in paragraph (a) 

introductory text: 

■ i. Remove the phrase ‘‘(Insured 

Crop)’’; and 

■ ii. Add a space between ‘‘Basic 

Provisions’’ and ‘‘(§ 457.8)’’; 

■ i. In section 8, introductory text, 

remove the phrase ‘‘(Insurable 

Acreage)’’; 

■ j. In section 9, introductory text, 

remove the phrase ‘‘(Insurance Period)’’; 

■ k. In section 10, introductory text, 

remove the phrase ‘‘(Causes of Loss)’’; 

■ l. In section 11: 

■ i. In paragraph (a), remove the phrase 

‘‘(Replanting Payment)’’; and 

■ ii. In paragraph (d), remove the 

phrases ‘‘(Insurance Guarantees, 

Coverage Levels, and Prices for 

Determining Indemnities)’’ and 

‘‘(Annual Premium)’’; and 

■ m. In section 12, remove the phrase 

‘‘(Duties in the Event of Damage or 

Loss)’’. 

The revision reads as follows: 

§ 457.150 Dry bean crop insurance 

provisions. 

* * * * * 

2. Unit Division. 

(a) In addition to the definition of 

basic unit in section 1 of the Basic 

Provisions, all acreage of contract seed 

beans qualifies as a separate basic unit. 

For production based seed bean 

processor contracts, the basic unit will 

consist of all the acreage needed to 

produce the amount of production 

under contract, based on the actual 

production history of the acreage. For 

acreage based seed bean processor 

contracts, the basic unit will consist of 

all acreage specified in the contract. 

(b) In addition to enterprise units 

provided in section 34(a) of the Basic 

Provisions, you may elect separate 

enterprise units by type, as provided in 

this section, if allowed by the actuarial 

documents. If you elect enterprise units 

by type, you may not elect enterprise or 

optional units by irrigation practices. 

(1) You may elect separate enterprise 

units by type unless otherwise specified 

in the Special Provisions. For example, 

if you have Great Northern and Pinto 

types, you may elect one enterprise unit 

for the Great Northern type or one 

enterprise unit for the Pinto type, or 

separate enterprise units for both types. 

Any acreage which is not reported and 

insured as an enterprise unit will be 

insured as a basic unit or optional unit 

if requirements are met. For example, if 

you only have Great Northern and Pinto 

types, you may have an enterprise unit 

for the Great Northern type acreage and 

basic or optional units for the Pinto type 

acreage. 

(2) You must separately meet the 

requirements in section 34(a)(4) of the 

Basic Provisions for each enterprise unit 

by type. 

(3) If you elected separate enterprise 

units for multiple types and we discover 

enterprise unit qualifications are not 

separately met for all types in which 

you elected enterprise units and such 

discovery is made: 

(i) On or before the acreage reporting 

date, you may elect to insure: 

(A) All types in which elected an 

enterprise unit for meeting the 

requirements in section 34(a)(4) as 

separate enterprise units, and basic or 

optional units for any acreage that is not 

reported and insured as an enterprise 

unit, whichever you report on your 

acreage report and for which you 

qualify; 

(B) One enterprise unit for all acreage 

of the crop in the county provided you 

meet the requirements in section 

34(a)(4); or 

(C) Basic or optional units for all 

acreage of the crop in the county, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 33085 

2FSIS Notice 22–19 instructs inspection program 

personnel on how to verify that edible blood, 

including coagulated blood, is collected and 

handled in a manner to be fit for use in human food. 

FSIS will periodically review data generated by 

such verification activities to ensure that 

establishments are following proper food safety 

practices pertaining to the collection of edible 

blood. 

whichever you report on your acreage 

report and for which you qualify; or 

(ii) At any time after the acreage 

reporting date, your unit structure will 

be one enterprise unit for all acreage of 

the crop in the county provided you 

meet the requirements in section 

34(a)(4). Otherwise, we will assign the 

basic unit structure for all acreage of the 

crop in the county. 

(4) If you elected an enterprise unit 

for only one type and we discover you 

do not qualify for an enterprise unit for 

that type and such discovery is made: 

(i) On or before the acreage reporting 

date, your unit division for all acreage 

of the crop in the county will be based 

on basic or optional units, whichever 

you report on your acreage report and 

for which you qualify; or 

(ii) At any time after the acreage 

reporting date, we will assign the basic 

unit structure for all acreage of the crop 

in the county. 

(c) In addition to, or instead of, 

establishing optional units as provided 

in section 34(c) in the Basic Provisions, 

a separate optional unit may be 

established for each bean type 

(designated in actuarial documents and 

including any type insured by written 

agreement). 

(d) Enterprise and optional units by 

type may be further divided by acreage 

of contract seed beans if the seed bean 

processor contract specifies the number 

of acres under contract. Contract seed 

beans produced under a seed bean 

processor contract that specifies only an 

amount of production or a combination 

of acreage and production, are not 

eligible for separate enterprise or 

optional units. 

* * * * * 

Richard Flournoy, 

Acting Manager, Federal Crop Insurance 

Corporation. 

[FR Doc. 2021–13115 Filed 6–23–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–08–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Food Safety and Inspection Service 

9 CFR Part 310 

[Docket No. FSIS–2020–0005] 

RIN 0583–AD81 

Elimination of the Requirement To 

Defibrinate Livestock Blood Saved as 

an Edible Product 

AGENCY: Food Safety and Inspection 

Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Food Safety and 

Inspection Service (FSIS) is removing 

from the Federal meat inspection 

regulations a requirement for the 

defibrination of livestock blood saved as 

an edible product. Defibrination is the 

process for removing the protein fibrin, 

which causes blood to clot. Removal of 

the defibrination requirement will not 

affect food safety, but it will allow the 

industry to meet a demand for nondefibrinated blood products. 

DATES: This rule is effective August 23, 

2021. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Rachel Edelstein, Assistant 

Administrator, Office of Policy and 

Program Development, FSIS; Telephone: 

(202)–205–0495. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On June 1, 2020, FSIS proposed to 

remove from the Federal meat 

inspection regulations a provision 

requiring the defibrination of livestock 

blood saved as edible product (85 FR 

33031). The Agency stated in the 

proposed rule that eliminating the 

requirement, along with its associated 

costs to industry, would not affect food 

safety, but would enable industry to 

meet a demand for non-defibrinated 

blood products. 

FSIS noted in the proposal that, 

before 1974, the regulations allowed 

establishments to collect edible blood 

from all livestock, except swine. 

However, in 1974, the Agency 

promulgated 9 CFR 310.20, which 

removed the swine blood prohibition, 

finding that it was not necessary for 

food safety (39 FR 1973, January 16, 

1974). In the 1974 rule, the Agency also 

reasoned that the prohibition was 

burdensome, in that it denied specialty 

food producers a source of swine blood 

for their products. 

Also, FSIS explained in the proposed 

rule that there had been no substantive 

changes governing the saving of 

livestock blood since 1974. Since that 

time, 9 CFR 310.20 has allowed 

establishments to save edible blood 

from all livestock, including swine, 

provided the animals’ carcasses are 

inspected and passed and the blood is 

collected, defibrinated, and handled in 

a manner to prevent its becoming 

adulterated under the FMIA. 

FSIS examined the peer-reviewed 

literature on coagulated, i.e., nondefibrinated, blood and did not identify 

any scientifically supportable food 

safety concerns. Thus, FSIS believes 

coagulated blood, like fluid blood, is 

safe for human consumption, provided 

the blood is saved from inspected and 

passed animals, and the blood is 

otherwise produced and prepared in 

compliance with all other FSIS 

regulations. Therefore, FSIS believes the 

defibrination requirement is not 

necessary to ensure food safety in 

accordance with the FMIA.2

Furthermore, as is explained in the 

proposed rule, FSIS has become aware 

that some establishments are interested 

in collecting coagulated blood for use in 

human food products, including 

specialty and ethnic food products, that 

require coagulated blood as an 

ingredient. Such foods include 

variations of blood sausage, blood 

pudding, and blood tofu. The current 

defibrination requirement denies 

specialty and ethnic food producers a 

source of coagulated blood, thereby 

placing an unnecessary economic 

burden on them and on the livestock 

slaughter establishments that could 

provide coagulated blood. 

FSIS proposed to remove the 

defibrination requirement from the 

Federal meat inspection regulations for 

many of the same reasons it gave for 

eliminating the swine blood prohibition 

in 1974. 

Final Rule 

This final rule is consistent with the 

proposed rule. FSIS is making no 

additional changes to the regulations in 

response to comments. FSIS is removing 

the defibrination requirement from 9 

CFR 310.20. 

Specifically, FSIS is revising the 

codified regulations to remove the word 

‘‘defibrinated’’. Under this final rule, 

official establishments will still have the 

option to defibrinate blood, provided 

they meet all other requirements in 9 

CFR 310.20. The regulations will 

continue to prohibit the defibrination of 

blood by hand. The regulations will also 

continue to require the use of 

anticoagulants that meet cited 

requirements in title 9 and title 21 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations. 

Comments and Response 

Comments: FSIS received two 

comments on the proposed rule. The 

first, from an industry association, was 

in agreement with the Agency’s reasons 

for proposing to eliminate the blood 

defibrination requirement, including the 

lack of a food-safety benefit from the 

requirement and the fact that coagulated 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES