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

51573 

Vol. 73, No. 172 

Thursday, September 4, 2008 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Federal Crop Insurance Corporation 

7 CFR Part 457 

RIN 0563–AC14 

Common Crop Insurance Regulations; 

Dry Pea Crop Provisions 

AGENCY: Federal Crop Insurance 

Corporation, USDA. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Crop Insurance 

Corporation (FCIC) finalizes the 

Common Crop Insurance Regulations; 

Dry Pea Crop Insurance Provisions by 

including the insurability of additional 

types of dry peas, by offering winter 

coverage, by allowing replanting 

payments, and by making chickpeas 

insurable under the Dry Pea Crop 

Provisions. The changes will apply for 

the 2009 and succeeding crop years for 

all Dry Pea counties with a contract 

change date on or after November 30, 

2008. 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is 

effective October 6, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Claire White, Economist, Product 

Management, Product Administration 

and Standards Division, Risk 

Management Agency, United States 

Department of Agriculture, Beacon 

Facility, Stop 0812, Room 421, 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 purpose 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. 

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 

1000 acres, there is no difference in the 

kind of information collected. To ensure 

crop insurance is available to small 

entities, the Federal Crop Insurance Act 

authorizes FCIC to waive collection of 

administrative fees from limited 

resource farmers. FCIC believes this 

waiver helps to ensure that small 

entities are given the same opportunities 

as large entities to manage their risks 

through the use of crop insurance. A 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has not 

been prepared since this regulation does 

not have an impact on small entities, 

and therefore, this regulation is exempt 

from the provisions of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605). 

Federal Assistance Program 

This program is listed in the Catalog 

of Federal Domestic Assistance under 

No. 10.450. 

Executive Order 12372 

This program is not subject to the 

provisions of Executive Order 12372, 

which require intergovernmental 

consultation with State and local 

officials. See the Notice related to 7 CFR 

part 3015, subpart V, published at 48 FR 

29115, June 24, 1983. 

Executive Order 12988 

This 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 

requiring 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 

Environmental Assessment nor an 

Environmental Impact Statement is 

needed. 

Background 

This rule finalizes changes to 7 CFR 

part 457.140 (Dry Pea Crop Insurance 

Provisions) that were published by FCIC 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES
51574 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 172 / Thursday, September 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

on January 18, 2008, as a notice of 

proposed rulemaking in the Federal 

Register at 73 FR 3411–3417. The public 

was afforded 60 days to submit 

comments after the regulation was 

published in the Federal Register. 

A total of 119 comments were 

received from five commenters. The 

commenters were one insurance 

services organization, one grower 

association, and three insurance 

providers. 

The public comments received 

regarding the proposed rule and FCIC’s 

responses to the comments are listed 

below (under applicable subject 

headings) identifying issues and 

concerns, and the changes made, if any, 

to address the comments. 

General 

Comment: One commenter stated 

contract seed peas and contract seed 

beans have their own unique method for 

properly calculating the actual 

production history (APH) as outlined in 

Exhibit 27 of the Crop Insurance 

Handbook (CIH). The commenter claims 

it has to track back and forth between 

dollars and pounds and receive 10 years 

of new Reference (Base) Year 

Adjustment Factors (RYAF) each year. 

All 10 numbers change every year. The 

commenter states that the intent of the 

procedure is good as it tries to provide 

coverage for contract seed peas that do 

not pass germination testing and, 

therefore, receive a reduced price. 

However, the commenter thought this 

could also be accomplished by using the 

same methodology as is used for green 

peas. This would simplify the 

administration of this program and 

remove the need for having Exhibit 27 

of the CIH as the APH would be based 

on ‘Dividing the dollar amount received 

by the contract price per pound for the 

base contract price.’ Using the green pea 

methodology would allow the guarantee 

to be expressed in pounds rather than 

dollars and eliminate the need for 

RYAFs. The approved APH yield would 

no longer have to be converted from 

dollars per acre to pounds per acre for 

entry on the acreage report. The 

commenter states that this APH 

procedure has been in place only for 

contract seed pea types of dry peas and 

contract seed bean types of dry beans. 

The commenter recommended these 

procedures be reevaluated to see if they 

are still necessary and if this procedure 

could be revised to be consistent with 

what is being done for green peas. This 

would simplify the administration of 

this program. 

Response: Since the recommended 

change involves APH procedure and not 

the Dry Pea Crop Provisions, no change 

has been made in the final rule. FCIC 

will evaluate this recommendation to 

determine if APH procedures for 

contract seed dry peas can be made 

consistent with seed green peas. 

Comment: Two commenters 

applauded FCIC for including chickpeas 

(a.k.a. garbanzo beans) in the Dry Pea 

Crop Provisions. Chickpeas are 

produced in dry pea and lentil growing 

regions and producers should have the 

option to purchase coverage for these 

crops under one policy. 

Response: FCIC has retained the 

provisions in the final rule that allow 

chickpeas to be covered under the Dry 

Pea Crop Provisions in applicable States 

and counties as determined by FCIC. 

Comment: Two commenters stated the 

words ‘‘fall planted’’ and ‘‘spring 

planted’’ are most often used without 

hyphens throughout the Crop 

Provisions, though hyphens are used in 

the section 13(b) example. It would be 

helpful to be consistent, and preferably 

use the hyphens to make it easier to 

read. 

Response: FCIC has revised the 

provisions as suggested. 

Section 1—Definitions 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended the definition of ‘‘base 

price’’ be revised to include both ‘‘seed 

company’’ and ‘‘processor’’ contracts 

because dry pea producers often have 

the choice to purchase seed from seed 

companies and processors. 

Response: FCIC has revised the 

definition of ‘‘base contract price’’ to 

include processor contracts and now 

refers to ‘‘processor/seed company 

contract.’’ FCIC has also removed the 

definitions of ‘‘seed company’’ and 

‘‘seed company contract’’ and replaced 

the definitions with ‘‘processor/seed 

company’’ and ‘‘processor/seed 

company contract,’’ respectively. 

Therefore, the phrases ‘‘seed company’’

and ‘‘seed company contract’’ have been 

replaced with the phrases ‘‘processor/ 

seed company’’ and ‘‘processor/seed 

company contract,’’ respectively, 

throughout the policy to be consistent 

with the definition of ‘‘base contract 

price.’’

Comment: Two commenters 

recommended replacing the word 

‘‘place’’ with ‘‘places’’ in the definition 

of ‘‘combining.’’

Response: FCIC has revised the 

definition as suggested. 

Comment: One commenter supported 

the revision to the definition of ‘‘dry 

peas’’ to allow insurability of additional 

types of dry peas in accordance with the 

Special Provisions. Three commenters 

also stated the word ‘‘and’’ before the 

word ‘‘Chickpeas’’ in the definition of 

‘‘dry peas’’ should be removed and 

replaced with a comma. Two 

commenters suggested rewording the 

phrase ‘‘and those types’’ to state ‘‘and 

any other types.’’

Response: FCIC has retained the 

provisions in the final rule, which 

allows insurability of additional types of 

dry peas via the Special Provisions. 

FCIC has removed the word ‘‘and’’ and 

replaced it with a comma. FCIC has 

reworded the phrase ‘‘and those types’’

as ‘‘and other types.’’

Comment: One commenter supported 

adding the sentence, ‘‘dry peas that are 

swathed prior to combining are not 

considered harvested,’’ in the definition 

of ‘‘harvest.’’

Response: FCIC proposed this change 

in the proposed rule and will retain it 

in the final rule. 

Comment: One commenter supported 

revising the definition of ‘‘local market 

price’’ to specify that factors not 

associated with grading factors under 

the United States Standards for Whole 

Dry Peas, Split Peas and Lentils will not 

be considered, unless specified in the 

Special Provisions. 

Response: FCIC has retained the 

proposed definition in the final rule. 

Comment: Two commenters asked, in 

the definition of ‘‘practical to replant,’’

if the added statement that it will not be 

considered practical to replant fallplanted dry peas more than 25 days 

after the final planting date for the 

corresponding spring-planted type of 

dry pea conflicts with the last sentence 

of 8(b), which states ‘‘We will not 

require you to replant if it is not 

practical to replant the type of dry peas 

originally planted.’’ The commenters 

also asked if fall-planted and springplanted dry peas are different types or 

the same type planted at different times. 

Response: The commenter is correct 

that the statement that fall-planted dry 

peas will not be considered practical to 

replant more than 25 days after the final 

planting date for the corresponding 

spring-planted type of dry pea conflicts 

with the last sentence of 8(b). FCIC has 

removed the referenced provisions of 

section 8(b). Fall-planted and springplanted dry peas are different types 

planted at different times. 

Comment: Two commenters suggested 

reformatting the definition of ‘‘practical 

to replant’’ so it is easier to read. 

Response: FCIC has reformatted the 

definition of ‘‘practical to replant’’ to 

make it easier to read. 

Comment: Three commenters 

suggested revising the definition of 

‘‘price election’’ to change the term 

‘‘base price’’ to ‘‘base contract price’’ to 

match the revised definition of ‘‘base 

contract price.’’


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 172 / Thursday, September 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 51575 

Response: FCIC has revised the 

definition as suggested. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

adding a definition of ‘‘sales closing 

date’’ to address the additional sales 

closing date that will be established for 

acreage insured under the Winter 

Coverage Option. 

Response: A definition of ‘‘sales 

closing date’’ does not need to be added. 

Throughout the Dry Pea Crop 

Provisions, when reference is made to 

insurance attaching under the Winter 

Coverage Option, the Crop Provisions 

state the Winter Coverage Option must 

be elected by the sales closing date. 

Further, the Special Provisions will 

contain the sales closing date for 

counties with the Winter Coverage 

Option in effect. No change will be 

made. 

Comment: One commenter stated the 

word ‘‘variety’’ in the definition of 

‘‘seed company contract’’ has been 

changed to ‘‘type.’’ The commenter 

stated the contracts they have received 

in years past make specific reference to 

a variety of seed and not a specific type. 

The commenter asked if it will be 

considered an invalid contract if the 

seed company contracts do not state the 

specific type or if the contract states the 

specific variety whether the insurance 

provider can determine the type. 

The commenter also asked the 

following questions: (1) With the 

proposed change to have the contract 

state a specific type, will separate units 

by each type of dry pea seed under 

contract be allowed; (2) will the Special 

Provisions be changed to identify each 

specific type that is insurable by type 

for contract seed or will the Special 

Provisions remain the same and all 

varieties of dry peas under contract for 

seed will be insured as the contract seed 

pea type. 

Response: The commenter is correct 

that processor contracts and seed 

company contracts make specific 

reference to varieties, rather than types. 

Therefore, FCIC has not retained the 

proposed changes. This means that 

contract seed peas may be insured as a 

separate optional unit only if contract 

seed peas are listed on the Special 

Provisions as an insurable type. The 

distinct varieties listed on the contract 

will not be eligible for separate optional 

units. 

Comment: Two commenters suggested 

revising the definition of ‘‘swathed’’ in 

order to align it with the wording of 

‘‘swathed’’ in other Crop Provisions. In 

the proposed context, one may conclude 

and argue that placing the crop into 

more than one windrow would not be 

considered swathed. 

Response: FCIC has revised the 

definition for clarification. 

Section 2—Unit Division 

Comment: Two commenters stated 

this section may need to be clarified as 

they are not sure how contract seed peas 

fit into the unit structure as defined in 

this section of the policy. The 

commenters asked if Austrian peas 

grown under a seed company contract 

and other Austrian peas not grown 

under a seed company contract in the 

same section would qualify for separate 

optional units. 

Response: Section 2 has been revised 

to clarify that separate optional units 

can be established for contract seed peas 

and dry peas not grown under a 

processor/seed company contract even 

if each type shares a common variety, 

provided each type is grown on separate 

acreage and the production is kept 

separate. This means that Austrian peas 

grown under a processor/seed company 

contract and other Austrian peas not 

grown under a processor/seed company 

contract in the same section qualify for 

separate optional units, provided the 

Austrian peas grown under a processor/ 

seed company contract meet all policy 

requirements for insurability as contract 

seed peas, and the producer has elected 

optional units. Austrian peas grown for 

harvest as mature dry peas would be 

insurable as either a: (1) Fall Austrian 

pea type; or (2) spring Austrian pea 

type, whichever is applicable, if 

provided on the Special Provisions, and 

all qualifying acreage of seed peas 

(regardless of type, e.g. fall Austrian 

peas, spring smooth green and yellow 

peas, etc.) would be insurable as a 

separate optional unit when insured as 

a contract seed pea type. If the acreage 

of Austrian peas grown under contract 

for seed did not meet the policy 

requirements to be insured under the 

contract seed pea type, then this acreage 

and acreage of Austrian peas not grown 

under contract would be included in the 

same unit. 

Comment: Two commenters said the 

proposed rule appears to delete section 

2(b), which currently allows optional 

units for contract seed peas if the seed 

contract specifies the number of acres 

contracted. The commenter asked if this 

means contract seed peas will no longer 

qualify for separate optional units 

(unless there are separate contracts for 

the different dry pea types that qualify), 

or will contract seed peas be listed as a 

separate dry pea type on the Special 

Provisions. Since the Special Provisions 

are not included in the proposed rule, 

it is difficult to know what kind of 

change might be intended. 

Response: Section 2 has been revised 

to clarify that contract seed peas will 

qualify for optional units if contract 

seed peas are listed as a separate type 

on the Special Provisions. 

Section 3—Insurance Guarantees, 

Coverage Levels and Prices for 

Determining Indemnities 

Comment: One commenter stated they 

believe the intent of this section is to 

limit the producer to the same single 

level of coverage for all types of dry 

peas that are planted in the county. It 

also does not change the requirement to 

report all acreage of dry peas planted in 

the county that are planted to insurable 

types as listed in the Special Provisions. 

This would make this policy consistent 

with the Dry Bean Crop Provisions in 

that it would require all acreage of dry 

peas to be insured and all types would 

be insured at the same coverage level. If 

this is not the intent, the commenters 

recommended that it be changed to 

match what is done for dry beans. 

Otherwise, if the insured is allowed to 

have separate coverage levels by type, 

each type should be treated as a 

different crop with a separate 

administrative fee, etc. (i.e., California 

grapes). If the intent is to limit 

producers to the same single level of 

coverage for all types, the language 

could be further clarified as follows: ‘‘In 

lieu of the requirements of section 3 of 

the Basic Provisions, you must select 

the same coverage level for all types 

listed on the Special Provisions.’’ The 

current language indicates only a single 

level can be selected for each type but 

does not stipulate that it must be the 

same. The above language clarifies that 

only one level can be selected and it 

must be the same for all types. 

Response: The intent of the proposed 

provisions in section 3(a) and 3(b) is to 

allow separate coverage levels and price 

election percentages by type listed on 

the Special Provisions. According to 

section 7 of the Dry Pea Crop 

Provisions, all dry pea types in the 

county for which there is a premium 

rate must be insured. Therefore, the 

requirement to report all acreage of dry 

peas planted to insurable types in the 

county remains the same. Offering a 

separate coverage level by type does not 

automatically imply each type be 

treated as a separate crop. No change 

has been made. 

Comment: Two commenters also 

stated the language in proposed section 

3(a) allows separate coverage levels by 

type and proposed section 3(b) allows 

separate price percentages by type. As is 

currently proposed, this would allow 

different coverage levels for different 

types even within the same unit. The 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES
51576 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 172 / Thursday, September 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

commenter does not know of any other 

crop that allows different coverage 

levels within the crop and objects to 

allowing separate coverage levels by 

type. 

Response: The proposed provisions 

would allow different coverage levels 

for different types even within the same 

basic unit. However, since optional 

units are available by type, it is likely 

that most producers will opt for 

optional units for each of their insurable 

types of dry peas. Offering separate 

coverage levels by type provides the dry 

pea producers another method to 

manage their risk. 

Comment: One commenter stated 

there seems to be missing information in 

proposed section 3(a) that surrounds the 

ability for the insured to select different 

coverage levels by type. For example, 

two different types of dry peas are listed 

on the application as being insured at a 

70 percent and 65 percent coverage 

level, respectively. At acreage reporting 

time, the producer identifies a third 

type of dry pea planted that was not 

listed on the application. The 

commenter questions at what coverage 

level would the insurance provider 

insure that type. One suggestion is to 

allow the producer to select a coverage 

level for the crop and if the producer 

wants to insure a specific type of dry 

peas at a different coverage level, he 

must identify that separate coverage 

level on the application for that specific 

type. If the producer does not specify a 

separate coverage level for a specific 

type, the type will be insured under the 

coverage level selected at the crop level. 

Response: The commenter is correct 

that there is missing information. FCIC 

has revised section 3 to include 

provisions stating if a dry pea type is 

added after the sales closing date, the 

dry pea type will be assigned a coverage 

level equal to the lowest coverage level 

selected for any other dry pea types; and 

a price election percentage equal to 100 

percent if additional coverage is elected 

and 55 percent if catastrophic level of 

coverage is elected. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the last portion of 

the lead-in paragraph in proposed 

section 3(b) be revised as follows: 

‘‘* * * in which case you may select a 

different price election percentage for 

each such dry pea type so designated in 

the Special Provisions * * *’’ This 

clarifies that if a different price election 

is offered by type that a different price 

election percentage could be elected for 

each such type and would be consistent 

with the Dry Bean Crop Provisions. 

Response: FCIC has broken section 

3(b) into separate paragraphs for clarity. 

FCIC has revised the newly designated 

section 3(b)(2) to clarify if the Special 

Provisions designate a separate price 

election by type, the producer may 

select one price election for each type 

listed in the Special Provisions. The 

price election the producer chooses for 

one type is not required to have the 

same percentage relationship to the 

maximum price offered for another type. 

Comment: Two commenters stated 

proposed section 3(b) says the producer 

may select only one price election for all 

dry peas in the county insured under 

this policy unless the Special Provisions 

provide different price elections for a 

particular type, in which case the 

producer may select one price election 

for each dry pea type so designated in 

the Special Provisions. The commenters 

asked whether this means that if the 

Special Provisions lists three dry pea 

types, with one type having a different 

price election from the other two types 

(which show the same price because of 

the market), those two types would have 

to have the same price percentage. In 

the alternative, the commenter asks 

whether it means that as long as the 

three types are listed on separate lines, 

each with its own price election, those 

are considered different price elections 

and producers can choose different 

price percentages as well as different 

coverage levels under proposed section 

3(a). If it is the former, the commenter 

asks FCIC to consider revising to ‘‘* * * 

unless the Special Provisions provide a 

different price election for a particular 

type * * *’’ If the latter is correct, the 

commenter asks that FCIC consider 

going back to the current wording, 

‘‘* * * by type’’ [as in (b)(1) & (3)]. 

Depending on the response to these 

questions, the references in (b)(1) & (3) 

to ‘‘different price elections by type’’

may need to be reviewed as well. 

Response: FCIC has revised the 

provisions in section 3(b) to clarify that 

if there is more than one type of dry pea 

listed on the Special Provisions, then 

each type may have a separate price 

election percentage, regardless if the 

price for one type is the same as the 

price for another type. For example, 

type A and type B are listed on the 

Special Provisions. The price for type A 

is $0.12. The price for type B is also 

$0.12. The price election percentage for 

type A and type B do not have to be the 

same even though the price election for 

type A is the same as the price election 

for type B. 

Comment: Two commenters stated 

proposed section 3(b) states that if there 

are different price elections, then the 

producer ‘‘may select one price election 

for each dry pea type,’’ while proposed 

section 3(b)(1) states ‘‘the price elections 

you choose for each type are not 

required to have the same percentage 

relationship to the maximum price 

offered by us for each type.’’ The 

commenter suggested the last phrase of 

(b) should be deleted from (b) and 

combined with (b)(1), which would then 

provide the additional options when 

separate price elections are designated. 

Response: The commenter is correct 

that the last phrase of section 3(b) 

should be deleted from (b) and added to 

the provisions that state what options 

the producers have when separate price 

elections are designated on the Special 

Provisions. As stated above, FCIC has 

also reformatted section 3(b) to make it 

easier to read. 

Comment: Two commenters stated 

proposed section 3(b)(2) should either 

be moved to the end of section 3(a) 

because it refers to the coverage level for 

catastrophic (CAT) level of coverage, 

instead of the percentage of price 

election, or it should be reworded to 

address the percentage of price election 

for CAT level of coverage. If it remains 

in section 3(b), the commenter 

suggested it should be the first or last of 

the three paragraphs under section 3(b) 

instead of between paragraphs (1) and 

(3). 

Response: FCIC has moved the 

provisions related to CAT coverage 

proposed in section 3(b)(2) to section 

3(a). 

Comment: Two commenters suggested 

revising proposed section 3(b)(3) 

because the current wording suggests 

the producer has a choice of price 

elections even if price elections by type 

are not listed on the Special Provisions. 

The commenters suggested revising it to 

say ‘‘* * * the same price election 

percentage applies for each dry pea 

type.’’

Response: The commenter is correct 

that a producer does not have a choice 

of multiple price elections when the 

Special Provisions do not designate 

separate price elections by type. FCIC 

has revised section 3(b) to state if the 

Special Provisions do not designate 

separate price elections by type, the 

producer may select only one price 

election for all dry peas in the county. 

Comment: One commenter supported 

the right of a producer to select his/her 

own separate coverage level on dry 

peas, lentils and chickpeas. 

Response: FCIC has retained the 

provisions in the final rule. The 

producer is allowed to select a separate 

coverage level for each type of dry peas. 

Section 7—Insured Crop 

Comment: Two commenters suggested 

deleting the word ‘‘to’’ before the phrase 

‘‘otherwise not harvest’’ in proposed 

section 7(a)(3)(iv). 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 172 / Thursday, September 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 51577 

Response: FCIC has revised the 

provisions as suggested. 

Section 8—Insurable Acreage 

Comment: Three commenters stated 

the last sentence of proposed section 

8(b), which states, ‘‘We will not require 

you to replant if it is not practical to 

replant the type of dry peas originally 

planted,’’ indicates it is not required 

that the producer replant if it is not 

practical to replant to the same type of 

dry peas originally planted. The 

commenter questioned if this conflicts 

with the new language in proposed 

section 9(d). 

Response: The commenters are correct 

that the provisions in section 8(b) 

conflict with the new language in 

section 9(d). FCIC has removed the 

current provisions in section 8(b) and 

moved the provisions proposed in 

section 9(c), 9(d), and 9(e) to section 8 

as some of the language is duplicative 

and is more appropriate in section 8 

regarding insurable acreage than in 

section 9 regarding the insurance 

period. 

Section 9—Insurance Period 

Comment: Two commenters suggested 

adding a comma after the middle phrase 

‘‘section 11 of the Basic Provisions’’ and 

adding the word ‘‘the’’ before the word 

‘‘provisions’’ in the introductory text of 

section 9. 

Response: FCIC has revised the 

provisions as suggested. 

Comment: Three commenters stated 

the provision proposed in section 9(c) 

states the following: ‘‘Any acreage of the 

insured crop damaged before the final 

planting date, to the extent that 

producers in the surrounding area 

would not further care for the crop, 

must be replanted unless we agree that 

it is not practical to replant.’’ This has 

the current language regarding 

replanting, but otherwise essentially 

duplicates provisions currently 

contained in proposed section 8(b). Two 

commenters also stated the last sentence 

in the provisions currently contained in 

section 8(b) states, ‘‘* * * We will not 

require you to replant if it is not 

practical to replant the type of dry peas 

originally planted.’’ The commenter 

asked if this sentence, and proposed 

section 9(d), belong in section 9 or in 

section 8. The commenters also stated 

similar replanting language also has 

been added in proposed section 9(d), 

particularly (d)(1), and in section 

9(e)(3). The commenter asked that FCIC 

consider if this language must be 

repeated in four different subsections. 

Response: As stated above, the 

commenters are correct that section 9(c) 

duplicates provisions currently 

contained in section 8(b). FCIC has 

removed the provisions currently 

contained in section 8(b) and the 

language proposed in section 9(c) has 

been moved to section 8(b). As stated 

above, the commenter is also correct 

that the entire proposed section 9(d) 

belongs in section 8 because it related 

to insurable acreage. The entire 

proposed section 9(e) has also been 

moved to section 8 because it is more 

appropriate in section 8. 

Comment: One commenter supported 

the proposal to offer the Winter 

Coverage Option for dry peas and using 

the language from the Small Grains Crop 

Provisions as a starting point for 

developing similar language for dry 

peas. However, the commenter believed 

some of the language in the Small 

Grains Crop Provisions that deals with 

counties containing both fall and spring 

final planting dates is not appropriate 

for dry peas and should be clarified as 

indicated below to be more applicable 

for dry peas. The commenter stated the 

second part of proposed section 9(d)(1) 

indicates that if it is not practical to 

replant to a fall-planted type of dry peas 

that the insured must replant to a spring 

type in order to maintain coverage based 

on the fall-planted type. The commenter 

is concerned with the various different 

types of dry peas that could be insured 

in some areas and the different level of 

yields and prices that can exist between 

the different types of dry peas 

(particularly fall types versus spring 

types). The commenter recommended 

that in this situation, coverage would 

revert to the respective spring type that 

is planted rather than remain based on 

the fall-planted type, which may not be 

reflective of the yield or price potential 

of the spring-planted type. In addition, 

the current language would allow 

producers the ability to adversely select 

against the insurance provider by 

planting a lower yielding or priced 

spring type in these types of situations. 

The commenter also stated the above 

comments would impact proposed 

section 9(e) as well. The commenter 

references Austrian winter peas as an 

example of a fall-planted type and they 

are not aware of a spring-planted 

version of this same type of pea. The 

commenter stated that under this 

provision, if they received a request to 

insure Austrian winter peas in a county 

with only a spring final planting date, 

they would not be able to establish a 

yield etc., for a spring seeded type as it 

does not exist. The commenter 

recommended that coverage be based on 

the fall-planted dry pea type in these 

types of situations. In addition, if 

damage occurs after such acreage has 

been accepted for coverage, and must be 

replanted to a spring-planted type, the 

commenter recommended the coverage 

revert to the spring-planted type in 

these situations. 

Response: FCIC has retained the 

Winter Coverage Option provisions in 

the final rule. Coverage for the spring 

peas planted on failed fall acreage 

should not revert to the respective 

spring-planted type rather than remain 

based on the fall-planted type. Allowing 

spring-planted dry peas to be insured as 

fall-planted dry peas when it has been 

replanted on failed fall dry pea acreage 

is permitted because insurance has 

already attached to the fall dry pea crop 

and replanting to the spring crop is a 

means to mitigate the damages 

associated with the failed fall crop. 

FCIC is aware of Austrian pea 

varieties that are spring-planted. 

Austrian peas (a.k.a black peas; dry peas 

with a dark and mottled seed coat) are 

a variety of peas typically characterized 

as having moderate to good winter 

survivability. Their cold temperature 

tolerance and subsequent reproductive 

phase do not have a vernalization 

requirement similar to winter wheat. 

Therefore, it can successfully be 

produced when sown in the fall or 

spring. 

Section 10—Causes of Loss 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

clarifying section 10(b) to state ‘‘Fire, 

due to natural causes.’’

Response: No changes to this section 

were proposed. Further, the current 

introductory text of section 10 states the 

specified causes of loss are in 

accordance with the Basic Provisions. 

The Basic Provisions contain the 

requirement that all causes of loss must 

be due to a naturally occurring event. 

There is no reason to be repetitive. In 

addition, to explicitly state that fire 

must be due to natural causes while not 

including this language with the other 

listed causes losses could create the 

mistaken impression that such other 

causes do not have to be from natural 

causes. No change has been made. 

Section 11—Replanting Payments 

Comment: Two commenters stated the 

wording of the last phrase regarding 

compliance with all replanting payment 

requirements in the Basic Provisions 

‘‘* * * and in the Winter Coverage 

Option for which you are eligible and 

which you have elected’’ sounds as 

though every dry pea producer will be 

eligible and will elect the Winter 

Coverage Option. While the commenters 

realize this language was taken from the 

current Small Grains Crop Provisions, 

they suggested FCIC consider rephrasing 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES
51578 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 172 / Thursday, September 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

it something like ‘‘* * * and in the 

Winter Coverage Option, if applicable.’’

Response: FCIC has revised the 

provisions accordingly. 

Comment: Two commenters suggested 

deleting the period at the end of section 

11(a)(3) and replacing it with a 

semicolon to be consistent with the 

other subsections. 

Response: FCIC has revised the 

provisions as suggested. 

Comment: Two commenters suggested 

deleting ‘‘* * * (see section 15) * * *’’

in proposed section 11(a)(5) since the 

Winter Coverage Option has already 

been referenced in (a)(2). The 

commenter also suggested placing the 

parenthetical reference in proposed 

section 11(a)(2). 

Response: FCIC has revised the 

provisions as suggested. 

Comment: One commenter asked if 

the producer does not select the Winter 

Coverage Option, but does have insured 

fall-planted acreage in a county with a 

fall planting date, and damage occurs 

prior to insurance attaching, are those 

acres still eligible for a replanting 

payment. 

Response: If a producer has insured 

fall-planted acreage in a county with a 

fall and spring final planting date, but 

does not elect the Winter Coverage 

Option, the producer is not eligible for 

a replanting payment. FCIC has revised 

the provisions in section 11 to clarify 

fall-planted acreage not covered under 

the Winter Coverage Option that is 

damaged after it is accepted for 

insurance but before the spring sales 

closing date must be replanted but no 

replanting payment will be made. 

FCIC has also added provisions to 

section 11(a)(5) to clarify if the Winter 

Coverage Option is in effect, damage 

must occur after the fall final planting 

date for the acreage to be eligible for a 

replanting payment. This revision 

clarifies the Winter Coverage Option 

must be in effect in order for the fall 

acreage to be eligible for a replanting 

payment. 

Comment: Two commenters stated 

proposed section 11(b) provides a 

maximum of ‘‘* * * the lesser of 20.0 

percent of the production guarantee or 

200 pounds * * *’’ The commenter 

asks whether the different dry pea types 

will have similar yields so that 200 

pounds will be appropriate for all. For 

example, if chickpeas are shifted from 

the Dry Bean policy to the Dry Pea 

policy, they will have a much higher 

maximum than before. 

Response: The data shows that all dry 

pea types will have similar yields and, 

therefore, the 200 pounds will be 

appropriate for all types. FCIC 

recognizes chickpeas will have a higher 

maximum than they previously did 

under the Dry Bean Crop Provisions but 

it should not be excessive. 

Comment: Two commenters stated the 

lead-in to proposed sections 11(d)(1) 

and (2) will read more smoothly with 

the word ‘‘for’’ added at the end of 

proposed section 11(d). 

Response: The addition of ‘‘for’’

would make the sentence grammatically 

incorrect. No change has been made. 

Comment: One commenter stated the 

last sentence of the lead-in paragraph of 

section 11(d) could be removed in 

addition to items (1) and (2). Damaged 

fall-planted acreage that is replanted to 

a spring-planted type should have the 

coverage revert to the applicable spring 

type that is planted. The commenter 

does not believe that item (d)(2) will 

occur and could be removed as well. 

Response: As stated above, coverage 

on the acreage replanted to a spring type 

on failed fall-planted acreage should not 

revert to the spring type, instead of the 

fall-planted type that was originally 

planted. Allowing spring-planted dry 

peas to be insured as fall-planted dry 

peas when it has been replanted after a 

failed fall dry pea crop is permitted 

because insurance has already attached 

to the fall dry pea crop and replanting 

to the spring crop is a means to mitigate 

the damages associated with the failed 

fall crop. It is not considered a new 

crop. No change has been made in 

response to this comment. 

Section 12—Duties in the Event of 

Damage or Loss 

Comment: One commenter stated 

since there is no change being made to 

section 14 of the Basic Provisions, there 

does not appear to be a need to retain 

this provision and it could be removed. 

Response: Section 14 of the Basic 

Provisions states representative samples 

must be left intact if the Crop Provisions 

require them. If the provisions in 

section 12 were removed, producers 

would not be required to maintain 

representative samples. Therefore, 

section 12 must remain in the Dry Pea 

Crop Provisions in order to require 

representative samples. FCIC is only 

removing provisions in section 12 of the 

Dry Pea Crop Provisions that duplicate 

the provisions in the Basic Provisions. 

No change has been made. 

Comment: Two commenters 

supported changing the language in 

proposed section 12 to delete the details 

and simply refer to section 14 of the 

Basic Provisions regarding 

representative samples. 

Response: FCIC has retained the 

provision in the final rule. 

Section 13—Settlement of Claim 

Comment: Two commenters 

recommended changing the word 

‘‘variety’’ to ‘‘type’’ in proposed section 

13(b)(4) to be consistent with provisions 

throughout the policy. 

Response: The word ‘‘variety’’ should 

not be changed to ‘‘type’’ in section 

13(b)(4). In the definition of ‘‘seed 

company contract,’’ which has been 

renamed as ‘‘processor/seed company 

contract,’’ the word ‘‘variety’’ has been 

retained because varieties, rather than 

types, are stated in the processor/seed 

company contracts. No change has been 

made. 

Comment: Two commenters suggested 

adding the word ‘‘contract’’ between the 

words ‘‘base’’ and ‘‘price’’ in proposed 

section 13(b)(5) to be consistent with the 

revised definition of ‘‘base contract 

price.’’

Response: FCIC has revised the 

provision as suggested. 

Comment: Two commenters suggested 

changing ‘‘400,000 pounds guarantee’’

to ‘‘400,000-pound guarantee’’ in step 

(1) of both examples in proposed section 

13(b), and step (2) of the second 

example in proposed section 13(b). The 

commenter also suggested making a 

similar change to ‘‘500,000-pound 

guarantee’’ in steps (4) and (5) of the 

second example in proposed section 

13(b). 

Response: FCIC has revised the 

provisions as suggested. 

Comment: Two commenters suggested 

changing the word ‘‘variety’’ to ‘‘type’’

in subsection (c) to be consistent with 

provisions throughout the policy; 

changing ‘‘base price’’ to ‘‘base contract 

price’’ in proposed section 13(c)(1) to 

match the revised definition of ‘‘base 

contract price;’’ and changing ‘‘seed pea 

processor contract’’ to ‘‘seed company 

contract’’ in section 13(c)(2) to match 

the term used in the revised ‘‘base 

contract price’’ definition. 

Response: As stated above, the word 

‘‘variety’’ should not be changed to 

‘‘type.’’ In the definition of ‘‘seed 

company contract,’’ which has been 

renamed as ‘‘processor/seed company 

contract,’’ the word ‘‘variety’’ has been 

retained because varieties, rather than 

types, are stated in the processor or seed 

company contracts. FCIC agrees ‘‘base 

price’’ should be changed to ‘‘base 

contract price’’ and ‘‘seed pea processor 

contract’’ should be changed to ‘‘seed 

company contract.’’ Based on a previous 

comment, FCIC has also revised the 

phrase ‘‘seed company contract’’ to 

‘‘processor/seed company contract.’’

This phrase has also been added to 

section 13(c)(1). 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended adding a reference to 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 172 / Thursday, September 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 51579 

‘‘objective, measurable minimum 

quality requirements’’ for mature dry 

pea production in proposed section 

13(c)(2) to be consistent with the same 

language that was added in proposed 

section 13(c)(1). 

Response: FCIC has revised the 

provision as suggested. FCIC has also 

revised proposed section 13(c)(1) by 

adding the word ‘‘mature’’ between the 

words ‘‘for’’ and ‘‘production’’ to be 

consistent with the same language in 

proposed section 13(c)(2). 

Comment: Two commenters suggested 

the reference in proposed section 

13(d)(1)(iii) should be ‘‘section 13(c) or 

(3)’’ instead of ‘‘section 13I or (e).’’

Response: FCIC has revised the 

provision as suggested. 

Comment: Two commenters question 

if chickpeas are moved from the Dry 

Bean policy to the Dry Pea policy 

whether the reference to the United 

States Standards for Whole Dry Peas, 

Split Peas, and Lentils in proposed 

section 13(e)(1)(i) also need to refer to 

the United States Standards for Beans as 

in the Dry Beans policy. 

Response: FCIC does not believe the 

reference to the United States Standards 

for Whole Dry Peas, Split Peas, and 

Lentils also needs to refer to the United 

States Standards for Beans. FCIC has 

provided for additional grade standards 

to be specified in the Special Provisions. 

Therefore, the United States Standards 

for Beans can be referenced in the 

Special Provisions, if needed. The 

flexibility of the Special Provisions also 

allows for different grade standards if 

other types, which require a different 

grade standard, are added on the Special 

Provisions in the future. No change has 

been made. 

Section 14—Prevented Planting 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended eliminating the option to 

increase prevented planting coverage 

levels (in the second sentence), as well 

as reviewing the amount that is being 

paid for prevented planting purposes. 

Response: Since no changes to this 

section were proposed, the 

recommended changes are substantive 

in nature, and the public was not 

provided an opportunity to comment on 

the recommended changes, the 

recommendations cannot be 

incorporated in the final rule. No 

change has been made. 

Section 15—Winter Coverage Option 

Comment: One commenter supported 

the change to allow insurance on fall 

planted dry peas with a Winter 

Coverage Option. The commenter 

assumes the Winter Coverage Option 

will be available for qualified lentil 

varieties planted in the fall. 

Response: FCIC has retained the 

Winter Coverage Option in the final 

rule. Coverage for fall-planted lentils 

will be available under the Winter 

Coverage Option if they are designated 

as a type on the Special Provisions and 

the Winter Coverage Option is available 

in the county. 

Comment: One commenter stated they 

are supportive of the proposal to offer 

the Winter Coverage Option for dry peas 

and using the language from the Small 

Grains Crop Provisions Wheat or Barley 

Winter Coverage Endorsement as a 

starting point for developing similar 

language for dry peas. However, the 

commenter believes some of the 

language in the Winter Coverage 

Endorsement is not appropriate for dry 

peas and should be clarified. 

Response: As stated above, FCIC has 

retained the Winter Coverage Option in 

the final rule. Based on other comments 

FCIC has received regarding the Winter 

Coverage Option, FCIC has made 

revisions to section 15 to ensure the 

language is appropriate for dry peas. 

Comment: One commenter asked if 

there would be any rules regarding 

acreage that is insured under the Winter 

Coverage Option and is planted after the 

fall final planting date. The commenter 

also asked if the acreage is still 

insurable under the Winter Coverage 

Option or does the Winter Coverage 

Option not apply to that acreage. 

Response: Acreage planted after the 

fall final planting date is not covered 

under the Winter Coverage Option. 

However, that acreage is potentially 

insurable in the spring provided there is 

an adequate stand in the spring. The late 

planting provisions in the Dry Pea Crop 

Provisions are similar to the late 

planting provisions in the Wheat or 

Barley Winter Coverage Endorsement. 

Comment: Two commenters stated the 

opening statement in the Winter 

Coverage Option that reads ‘‘(This is a 

continuous endorsement)’’ could be 

deleted since this a section of the 

proposed Dry Pea Crop Provisions, not 

a separate endorsement. The 

commenters also stated if the phrase, 

‘‘(This is a continuous endorsement),’’ is 

not removed, then ‘‘endorsement’’

should be changed to ‘‘option.’’

Two commenters also stated the 

Winter Coverage Option is referred to as 

an ‘‘endorsement’’ in the opening 

phrase ‘‘(This is a continuous 

endorsement)’’ but the more appropriate 

reference would be an ‘‘option.’’

One commenter also stated, since this 

is a continuous option, there should be 

some reference to the possibility of 

canceling the Winter Coverage Option 

without also having to cancel the dry 

pea coverage altogether. 

Response: The commenters are correct 

that the phrase, ‘‘(This is a continuous 

endorsement),’’ is not necessary and has 

revised the provisions accordingly. 

Since the opening phrase has been 

removed, there is no need to change the 

word ‘‘endorsement’’ to ‘‘option.’’

The commenters are also correct that 

there should be some reference to 

canceling the Winter Coverage Option 

without also having to cancel the dry 

pea coverage altogether. FCIC has added 

language in section 15(e) to state the 

option will continue in effect until 

canceled or coverage under the Dry Pea 

Crop Provisions is canceled or 

terminated. 

Comment: Two commenters suggested 

removing proposed section 15(a). The 

commenters asked that since some of 

the subsections of section 15 state they 

are ‘‘in lieu of’’ other sections of the Dry 

Pea Crop Provisions whether there are 

any remaining that might conflict. 

Response: Section 15(a) should not be 

removed to ensure that the terms of the 

Winter Coverage Option control in case 

FCIC has failed to catch any other 

conflicts. Under the priority in the Basic 

Provisions, since these provisions are all 

in the Crop Provisions, they would be 

given the same priority without the 

inclusion of section 15(a). However, 

language in redesignated sections 15(g) 

and 15(h) have been revised to remove 

the ‘‘in lieu of’’ language as it is no 

longer necessary because of the 

language in section 15(a). Redesignated 

sections 15(g) and 15(h) have been 

revised to be consistent with provisions 

in the Wheat or Barley Winter Coverage 

Endorsement. 

Comment: Two commenters asked if 

it was necessary to state in proposed 

section 15(b) CAT level of coverage is 

not available under this option when 

the CAT Endorsement already states no 

options or endorsements can apply at 

the CAT level of coverage. 

One commenter stated proposed 

section 15(b) should be reworded to 

state ‘‘This option is not available under 

Catastrophic Risk Protection (CAT).’’

Response: Section 15(b) is necessary 

to make it clear because this is an 

endorsement offered under the Crop 

Provisions, not a stand alone 

endorsement. However, FCIC has 

reworded it to specify the insured must 

have purchased additional coverage 

under the Dry Pea Crop Provisions. 

Comment: Two commenters stated the 

statement in proposed section 15(d) that 

‘‘You must have a Dry Pea Crop 

Insurance Policy in effect and elect to 

insure the dry pea type under such 

policy’’ is unnecessary since the 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES
51580 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 172 / Thursday, September 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

proposed Winter Coverage Option will 

be part of the Dry Pea Crop Provisions, 

not a separate endorsement like the one 

for Wheat and Barley. Also, the 

reference to insuring ‘‘the dry pea type’’

is confusing, suggesting that producers 

would be able to insure one type but not 

have to insure all dry peas in the 

county. 

One commenter suggested proposed 

sections 15(d) and (j) seem to be 

somewhat repetitive and could either be 

removed or combined into a single 

provision. Since this option is built into 

the Dry Pea Crop Provisions, it is 

obvious that the policy would have to 

be in effect and it appears that the intent 

of earlier sections is that, once the crop 

is insured, all insurable acreage of the 

various dry pea types planted in the 

county must be insured. 

Response: Proposed section 15(d) is 

not necessary so FCIC has not retained 

that provision in the final rule. 

Comment: Two commenters stated it 

is unclear if the different references in 

proposed sections 15(d), (e), (h), (j), (l) 

and (l)(3)(iii) to ‘‘dry pea type’’ and ‘‘dry 

pea crop’’ are intended or not. The 

commenters asked if some or all of these 

references could be revised to ‘‘dry 

peas’’ instead. 

Response: FCIC has revised the 

phrases ‘‘dry pea type’’ and ‘‘dry pea 

crop’’ as ‘‘dry peas’’ in all cases in 

section 15, except for redesignated 

section 15(k)(3)(iii). ‘‘Dry pea type’’ in 

redesignated section 15(k)(3)(iii) has 

been retained because the provisions in 

that section pertain to individual dry 

pea types, rather than all dry peas. 

Comment: Two commenters suggested 

changing the word ‘‘coverage’’ to 

‘‘option’’ in proposed section 15(e). 

Response: FCIC has revised the 

provision as suggested. 

Comment: Two commenters stated 

proposed section 15(e) states ‘‘You must 

select this coverage on your application 

for insurance on or before the sales 

closing date * * *’’ While 15(h) would 

change the contract change date to June 

30, the cancellation date to September 

30, and the termination date to 

November 30, there is no change of the 

sales closing date indicated for when 

the Winter Coverage Option is elected. 

The commenters asked if it is intended 

that Winter Coverage on dry peas can be 

applied for on March 15. The 

commenters stated according to 

proposed section 15(f), ‘‘Coverage * * * 

begins on the later of the date we accept 

your application for coverage or on the 

fall final planting date * * *’’ so an 

application signed on the March 15 

sales closing date would not actually 

provide winter coverage that first year. 

Response: The producer will be 

required to elect the Winter Coverage 

Option by the fall sales closing date, 

which will be listed on the Special 

Provisions. Coverage under the Winter 

Coverage Option will attach on the later 

of the date the application is accepted 

or on the fall final planting date. Section 

15 has also been revised by adding a 

new paragraph (d) to clarify the Winter 

Coverage Option is only available in 

counties for which the Special 

Provisions designate both a fall final 

planting date and a spring final planting 

date. 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

a concern about allowing the producer 

the ability to change the coverage level 

or price election percentage once this 

option is in effect, since it is a 

continuous option. For example, assume 

a producer elects this option and plants 

and insures fall-planted dry peas. The 

next year the same producer decides not 

to plant fall-planted dry peas but the 

option remains in effect since it is 

continuous (assume the producer does 

not remove it from the policy). The 

commenter asked if a producer in this 

situation could change the coverage 

level or percentage of price election up 

to the spring sales closing date since no 

acreage was planted in the fall. The 

commenter recommended that 

producers in this situation be allowed to 

make such changes up to the spring 

sales closing date (especially since there 

is a much larger amount of acreage that 

is planted to spring types as compared 

to fall types). The commenter stated this 

is allowed in the Small Grains Crop 

Provisions via the definition of ‘Sales 

Closing Date’. The commenter 

recommended this be done by either 

adding a definition for ‘Sales Closing 

Date’ or by adding some language to this 

effect directly to section 15 to allow 

these types of changes to be made in the 

event that no fall-planted acreage is 

planted while this option is still in 

effect. 

Response: The producer should be 

allowed to make policy changes until 

the spring sales closing date if the 

producer does not have any insured fallplanted dry pea acreage. Provisions 

have been added to section 15(e) to state 

producers may change their coverage 

level or percentage of price election for 

dry pea types until the spring sales 

closing date if the Winter Coverage 

Option is selected, but they do not have 

any insured fall-planted acreage or the 

fall-planted acreage is not eligible for 

this option. Provisions have also been 

added to section 15(e) to allow the 

producer to cancel coverage for any 

succeeding crop year by giving written 

notice on or before the cancellation date 

preceding the crop year for which the 

cancellation of the option is to be 

effective. Without this additional 

language, the Winter Coverage Option 

would continue in effect as long as the 

Dry Pea Crop Provisions are in effect 

since the Winter Coverage Option is a 

continuous option. This language allows 

the producer to cancel the Winter 

Coverage Option if he desires. 

Comment: One commenter stated 

proposed section 15(g) is establishing 

separate optional units for dry peas 

initially planted in the fall versus dry 

peas initially planted in the spring. The 

commenter stated they are not aware of 

any dual types of dry peas and question 

whether this provision is even necessary 

when separate units by type are 

currently allowed. 

Response: As stated above, there are 

dual types of dry peas. An example is 

Austrian peas (a.k.a. black peas; dry 

peas with a dark and mottled seed coat), 

which are a variety of peas typically 

characterized as having moderate to 

good winter survivability. Their cold 

temperature tolerance and subsequent 

reproductive phase do not have a 

vernalization requirement similar to 

winter wheat. Therefore, they can 

successfully be produced when sown in 

the fall or spring. 

Section 15(g) is not needed as the 

provisions in section 2 already allow 

separate units by type and it has been 

removed. Proposed sections 15(h) 

through 15(l) have been redesignated as 

15(g) through 15(k), respectively. 

Comment: One commenter stated 

proposed section 15(g) states ‘‘In 

addition to the provisions of section 

34(b) of the Basic Provisions and section 

2 of the Dry Pea Crop Provisions, 

optional units may be established for 

dry peas if each optional unit contains 

only dry peas initially planted in the fall 

or only dry peas initially planted in the 

spring.’’ The commenter asked if the 

fall-planted acreage in a unit is Austrian 

Winter peas, and within that same unit, 

Lentils are planted in the spring, would 

these two separate types not be allowed 

to have separate optional units since 

one is fall-planted and one is springplanted. 

Response: As stated above, FCIC has 

removed the provisions in proposed 

section 15(g). If Austrian peas are 

planted in the fall and Lentils are 

planted in the same unit in the spring, 

then the Austrian peas and the Lentils 

could be separate optional units, 

provided the producer elected optional 

units, since the Austrian peas and the 

Lentils are different types. 

Comment: One commenter stated 

since the Winter Coverage Option is not 

a separate option to the Dry Pea Crop 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 172 / Thursday, September 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 51581 

Provisions, the phrase ‘‘section 2 of the 

Dry Pea Crop Provisions’’ in section 

15(g) should be changed to ‘‘section 2 of 

these Crop Provisions.’’

Response: As stated above, the 

provisions in section 15(g) have been 

removed from the Winter Coverage 

Option. 

Comment: One commenter stated 

proposed section 15(h) establishes a 

separate contract change date, 

cancellation date, and termination date 

for coverage under this option. The 

commenter assumed the Special 

Provisions will also establish a separate 

sales closing date and acreage reporting 

date as well. 

Response: Proposed section 15(h) is 

now section 15(g). The Special 

Provisions will provide a separate sales 

closing date and acreage reporting date 

for dry peas covered under the Winter 

Coverage Option. Additionally, 

provisions have been added to section 

15(g) to handle situations that arise 

when a policy has amounts due and the 

sales closing date for the next crop year 

occurs before the termination date for 

the previous crop year. For example, dry 

peas insured under the Winter Coverage 

Option have a fall sales closing date of 

September 30, 2009 for the 2010 crop 

year and a termination date of 

November 30 for the 2009 crop year. If 

the insured purchases insurance for dry 

peas by September 30, 2009 for the 2010 

crop year, and does not pay the 

premium by the termination date of 

November 30, 2009, the dry pea 

coverage would be terminated and no 

coverage would be effective for the 2010 

crop year. 

Comment: Two commenters stated 

according to proposed section 15(h), 

whenever a producer requests the 

Winter Coverage Option, the contract 

change date is changed to June 30, the 

cancellation date to September 30, and 

the termination date to November 30 for 

‘‘* * * all your fall planted and spring 

planted dry pea crop in the county.’’

The commenter asks whether this 

means that all future policy changes to 

the Dry Pea Crop Provisions will have 

to be published by the June 30 contract 

change date or whether different 

versions could be in effect for producers 

with and without the Winter Coverage 

Option. The commenter also asks 

whether there will be a different sales 

closing date. 

Response: Proposed section 15(h) is 

now section 15(g). Since the earliest 

contract change date is now June 30 for 

dry peas, all future policy changes to the 

Dry Pea Crop Provisions will have to be 

published by the June 30 contract 

change date. There will also be a 

separate sales closing date listed on the 

Special Provisions for fall-planted 

acreage under the Winter Coverage 

Option. 

Comment: Two commenters stated the 

reference to ‘‘Dry Pea Crop Insurance 

Provisions’’ in proposed section 15(l) 

should be changed to ‘‘these Crop 

Provisions’’ or ‘‘Dry Pea Crop 

Provisions’’ to be consistent with the 

other references in the policy. 

Response: FCIC has revised the 

provision in redesignated section 15(k) 

to read ‘‘these Crop Provisions.’’

Comment: One commenter stated 

proposed section 15(l)(2) indicates that 

if it is not practical to replant to a fallplanted type of dry peas that the insured 

must replant to a spring type in order 

to maintain coverage based on the fallplanted type. The commenter is 

concerned with the various different 

types of dry peas that could be insured 

in some areas and the different level of 

yields and prices that can exist between 

the different types of dry peas 

(particularly fall types versus spring 

types). The commenter recommended 

that in this situation the coverage would 

revert to the respective spring type that 

is planted rather than remain based on 

the fall-planted type, which may not be 

reflective of the yield or price potential 

of the spring-planted type. In addition, 

the current language would allow 

producers the ability to adversely select 

against the insurance provider by 

planting a lower yielding or priced 

spring type in these types of situations. 

Response: Proposed section 15(l)(2) is 

now section 15(k)(2). As stated above, 

coverage should not revert to the 

respective spring-planted type rather 

than remain based on the fall-planted 

type. Allowing spring-planted dry peas 

to be insured as fall-planted dry peas 

when they have been replanted after a 

failed fall dry pea crop is permitted 

because insurance has already attached 

to the fall dry pea crop and replanting 

to the spring crop is a means to mitigate 

the damages associated with the failed 

fall crop. No change has been made. 

In addition to the changes described 

above, FCIC has made the following 

changes: 

1. Revised the definition of ‘‘contract 

seed peas’’ in section 1 to remove the 

phrase ‘‘Dry Peas’’ and replace it with 

the phrase ‘‘Peas (Pisum sativum L.).’’

This revision clarifies contract seed peas 

are only insurable if they are of the 

genera Pisum sativum. The current 

phrase ‘‘Dry Peas’’ in the definition 

implies contract seed peas can be 

categorized as any dry peas type 

specified in the definition of ‘‘dry peas.’’

2. Amended proposed section 3 by 

revising paragraph (a). The proposed 

provision states ‘‘In lieu of the 

requirements of section 3 of the Basic 

Provisions’’ but should state ‘‘In 

addition to the requirements of section 

3 of the Basic Provisions.’’ The phrase 

‘‘In addition to’’ implies section 3 of the 

Dry Pea Crop Provisions supplements 

section 3 of the Basic Provisions; the 

phrase ‘‘In lieu of’’ implies section 3 of 

the Dry Pea Crop Provisions replaces 

section 3 of the Basic Provisions. The 

intent of the provision is to be a 

supplement to the Basic Provisions. 

3. Revised the introductory text in 

redesignated section 13(b) by revising 

the phrase ‘‘your pea crop’’ to ‘‘your dry 

pea crop’’ and in redesignated section 

13(d) by revising the phrase ‘‘total pea 

production’’ to ‘‘total dry pea 

production’’ to be consistent with the 

terminology used throughout the policy. 

4. Revised the examples in 

redesignated section 13(b) to make them 

easier to read. 

5. Revised the introductory text in 

redesignated section 13(d) to add the 

word ‘‘dry’’ before the word ‘‘pea.’’ This 

change is consistent with the phrase 

‘‘dry pea’’ used throughout the policy. 

6. Revised the introductory text in 

redesignated section 13(e) to be 

consistent with the introductory text in 

redesignated sections 13(c)(1) and 

13(c)(2). 

7. Revised redesignated section 14 to 

remove the reference to ‘‘limited 

coverage,’’ since it is no longer 

applicable. 

8. Revised section 15(e). The 

proposed provisions state, ‘‘You must 

select this coverage on your application 

for insurance on or before the sales 

closing date.’’ This language only 

addresses how to select the Winter 

Coverage Option if producers are 

applying for coverage; it does not 

address how to select the Winter 

Coverage Option if producers are 

renewing their coverage. The revised 

provisions state, ‘‘You must select this 

option on your application for 

insurance, or on a form approved by us, 

on or before the sales closing date for 

the initial year in which you wish to 

insure dry peas under this option.’’ This 

language distinguishes how producers 

select the Winter Coverage Option if 

they are applying for coverage and if 

they are renewing their coverage. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 457 

Crop insurance, Dry peas, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

Final Rule 

■ Accordingly, as set forth in the 

preamble, the Federal Crop Insurance 

Corporation amends 7 CFR part 457 

effective for the 2009 and succeeding 

crop years as follows: 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES
51582 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 172 / Thursday, September 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

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(p). 

■ 2. Section 457.140 is amended as 

follows: 

■ A. Amend the introductory text by 

removing ‘‘2003’’ and adding ‘‘2009’’ in 

its place; 

■ B. Remove the undesignated 

paragraph immediately preceding 

section 1; 

■ C. In section 1: 

■ 1. Remove the definition of ‘‘base 

price’’ and add the definition of ‘‘base 

contract price’’ in its place; 

■ 2. Amend the definition of 

‘‘combining’’ by removing the word 

‘‘place’’ and adding the word ‘‘places’’

in its place; 

■ 3. Revise the definition of ‘‘contract 

seed peas’’; 

■ 4. Revise the definition of ‘‘dry peas’’; 

■ 5. Add a new sentence at the end of 

the definition for ‘‘harvest’’; 

■ 6. Amend the definition of ‘‘local 

market price’’ by adding the phrase, ‘‘, 

unless otherwise specified in the 

Special Provisions’’ at the end of the last 

sentence; 

■ 7. Revise the definition of ‘‘nurse crop 

(companion crop)’’; 

■ 8. Revise the definition of ‘‘practical 

to replant’’; 

■ 9. Revise the definition of ‘‘price 

election’’; 

■ 10. Remove the definitions of ‘‘seed 

company’’ and ‘‘seed company 

contract’’; 

■ 11. Add definitions for ‘‘processor/ 

seed company’’, ‘‘processor/seed 

company contract’’, ‘‘swathed’’, ‘‘type’’, 

and ‘‘windrow’’. 

■ D. Revise sections 2 and 3; 

■ E. Amend section 6 removing the 

phrase ‘‘seed company’’ and adding the 

phrase ‘‘processor/seed company’’ in its 

place; 

■ F. Revise section 7; 

■ G. In section 8, revise paragraph (b) 

and add paragraphs (c) and (d); 

■ H. Amend section 9 by revising the 

introductory text and paragraph (a) and 

by removing the phrase ‘‘normally is 

harvested’’ from paragraph (b) and 

adding the phrase ‘‘is normally 

harvested’’ in its place; 

■ I. Redesignate sections 11 through 13 

as sections 12 through 14, respectively; 

■ J. Add a new section 11; 

■ K. Revise newly redesignated section 

12; 

■ L. In newly redesignated section 13: 

■ 1. Throughout the section, remove the 

phrases ‘‘section 12’’ and ‘‘sections 12’’

and add the phrases ‘‘section 13’’ and 

‘‘sections 13’’ in their place, 

respectively; 

■ 2. Revise paragraph (a); 

■ 3. Amend the introductory text of 

paragraph (b) by adding the word ‘‘dry’’

before the word ‘‘pea’’; 

■ 4. Amend paragraph (b)(5) by adding 

the word ‘‘contract’’ after the word 

‘‘base’’; 

■ 5. Revise the examples in paragraph 

(b); 

■ 6. Revise paragraph (c)(1) introductory 

text; 

■ 7. Amend paragraph (c)(1)(i) by 

adding the word ‘‘contract’’ after the 

word ‘‘base’’; 

■ 8. Revise the introductory text in 

paragraph (c)(2); 

■ 9. Amend the introductory text in 

paragraph (d) by adding the word ‘‘dry’’

after the word ‘‘total’’; 

■ 10. Amend paragraph (d)(1)(iii) by 

removing the phrase ‘‘, excluding 

Austrian Winter Peas,’’; 

■ 11. Revise paragraph (e) introductory 

text and (e)(1) introductory text. 

■ M. Amend newly redesignated section 

14 of § 457.140 by removing the phrase 

‘‘limited or’’; and 

■ N. Add a new section 15. 

The additions and revisions read as 

follows: 

§ 457.140 Dry pea crop insurance 

provisions. 

* * * * * 

1. Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Base contract price. The price per 

pound stipulated in the processor/seed 

company contract without regard to 

discounts or incentives that may apply, 

and that will be paid to the producer for 

at least 50 percent of the total 

production under contract with the 

processor/seed company. 

* * * * * 

Contract seed peas. Peas (Pisum 

sativum L.) grown under the terms of a 

processor/seed company contract for the 

purpose of producing seed to be used in 

planting a future year’s crop. 

Dry peas. Peas (Pisum sativum L.), 

Austrian Peas (Pisum sativum spp 

arvense), Lentils (Lens culinaris Medik.), 

Chickpeas (Cicer arietinum L.), and 

other types as listed on the Special 

Provisions. 

* * * * * 

Harvest. * * * Dry peas that are 

swathed prior to combining are not 

considered harvested. 

* * * * * 

Nurse crop (companion crop). A crop 

planted into the same acreage as another 

crop to improve the growing conditions 

for the crop with which it is grown, and 

that is intended to be harvested 

separately. 

* * * * * 

Practical to replant. In addition to the 

definition contained in the Basic 

Provisions, it will not be considered 

practical to replant: 

(a) Contract seed peas unless the 

processor/seed company will accept the 

production under the terms of the 

processor/seed company contract. 

(b) Fall-planted dry peas more than 25 

days after the final planting date for the 

corresponding spring-planted type of 

dry peas. 

(c) All other dry peas more than 25 

days after the final planting date unless 

replanting is generally occurring in the 

area. 

Price election. In addition to the 

provisions of the definition contained in 

the Basic Provisions, the price election 

for contract seed peas will be the 

percentage you elect (not to exceed 100 

percent) of the base contract price and 

used for the purposes of determining 

premium and indemnity for contract 

seed peas under this policy. 

Processor/seed company. Any 

business enterprise regularly engaged in 

the processing of contract seed peas, 

that possesses all licenses and permits 

for marketing contract seed peas 

required by the state in which it 

operates, and that owns, or has 

contracted, sufficient drying, screening, 

and bagging or packaging equipment to 

accept and process the contract seed 

peas within a reasonable amount of time 

after harvest. 

Processor/seed company contract. A 

written agreement between the producer 

and the processor/seed company, 

executed by the acreage reporting date, 

containing at a minimum: 

(a) The producer’s promise to plant 

and grow one or more specific varieties 

of contract seed peas, and deliver the 

production from those varieties to the 

processor/seed company; 

(b) The processor/seed company’s 

promise to purchase all the production 

stated in the contract; and 

(c) A fixed price, or a method to 

determine such price based on 

published information compiled by a 

third party, that will be paid to the 

producer for at least 50 percent of the 

production stated in the contract. 

Swathed. Severance of the stem and 

pods from the ground without removal 

of the seeds from the pods and placing 

them into windrows. 

Type. A category of dry peas 

identified as a type in the Special 

Provisions. 

Windrow. Dry peas where the plants 

are cut and placed in a row. 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 172 / Thursday, September 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 51583 

2. Unit Division. 

In addition to, or instead of, 

establishing optional units by section, 

section equivalent, or FSA farm serial 

number and by irrigated and nonirrigated acreage as provided in the unit 

division provisions contained in the 

Basic Provisions, separate optional units 

may be established for each dry pea type 

as specified on the Special Provisions. 

Contract seed peas and dry pea types 

not grown under a processor/seed 

company contract may qualify for 

separate optional units even if they 

share a common variety provided each 

dry pea type is grown on separate 

acreage and the production is kept 

separate. 

3. Insurance Guarantees, Coverage 

Levels, and Prices for Determining 

Indemnities. 

(a) In accordance with the 

requirements of section 3(b)(1) of the 

Basic Provisions, you may select only 

one coverage level for each type listed 

on the Special Provisions. However, if 

you elect the Catastrophic Risk 

Protection (CAT) level of insurance for 

any dry pea type, the CAT level of 

coverage will be applicable to all 

insured dry pea acreage in the county. 

(b) In addition to the requirements of 

section 3 of the Basic Provisions: 

(1) If the Special Provisions do not 

designate separate price elections by 

type, you may select only one price 

election for all dry peas in the county 

insured under this policy. 

(2) If the Special Provisions designate 

separate price elections by type, you 

may select one price election for each 

dry pea type so designated in the 

Special Provisions even if the prices for 

each type are the same. The price 

elections you choose for each type are 

not required to have the same 

percentage relationship to the maximum 

price offered by us for each type. For 

example, if you choose 100 percent of 

the maximum price election for one 

type, you may choose 75 percent of the 

maximum price election for another 

type. 

(c) In addition to the requirements of 

section 3 of the Basic Provisions, in 

counties with both a fall and spring 

sales closing date for the insured crop: 

(1) If you do not have any insured fallplanted dry pea acreage covered under 

the Winter Coverage Option, you may 

change your coverage level or 

percentage of price election until the 

spring sales closing date; or 

(2) If you have any insured fallplanted dry pea acreage covered under 

the Winter Coverage Option, you may 

not change your coverage level or 

percentage of price election after the fall 

sales closing date. 

(d) If a dry pea type is added after the 

sales closing date, we will assign: 

(1) A coverage level equal to the 

lowest coverage level you selected for 

any other dry pea types; and 

(2) A price election percentage equal 

to: 

(i) 100 percent of the price election if 

you elected additional coverage; and 

(ii) 55 percent of the price election if 

you elected catastrophic level of 

coverage. 

* * * * * 

7. Insured Crop. 

(a) In accordance with section 8 of the 

Basic Provisions, the crop insured will 

be all the dry pea types in the county 

for which a premium rate is provided by 

the actuarial documents: 

(1) In which you have a share; 

(2) That are planted for harvesting 

once maturity is reached as: 

(i) Dry peas; or 

(ii) Contract seed peas, if the 

processor/seed company contract is 

executed on or before the acreage 

reporting; and 

(3) That are not (unless allowed by the 

Special Provisions or by written 

agreement): 

(i) Interplanted with another crop; 

(ii) Planted into an established grass 

or legume; 

(iii) Planted as a nurse crop; or 

(iv) Planted to plow down, graze, 

harvest as hay, or otherwise not harvest 

as a mature dry pea crop. 

(b) You will be considered to have a 

share in the insured crop if, under the 

processor/seed company contract, you 

retain control of the acreage on which 

the dry peas are grown, you are at risk 

of loss (i.e., if there is a reduction in 

quantity or quality of your dry pea 

production, you will receive less 

income under the contract), and the 

processor/seed company contract is in 

effect for the entire insurance period. 

(c) In counties for which the actuarial 

documents provide premium rates for 

the Winter Coverage Option (see section 

15), coverage is available for dry peas 

between the time coverage begins and 

the spring final planting date. Coverage 

under the option is effective only if you 

qualify under the terms of the option 

and you elect the option by the sales 

closing date. 

8. Insurable Acreage. 

* * * * * 

(b) Any acreage of the insured crop 

damaged before the final planting date, 

to the extent that producers in the 

surrounding area would normally not 

further care for the crop, must be 

replanted unless we agree that it is not 

practical to replant. 

(c) Whenever the Special Provisions 

designate both fall and spring final 

planting dates: 

(1) Any fall-planted dry peas that is 

damaged before the spring final planting 

date, to the extent that growers in the 

area would normally not further care for 

the crop, must be replanted to a fallplanted type of dry peas to maintain 

insurance based on the fall-planted type 

unless we agree that replanting is not 

practical. If it is not practical to replant 

to a fall-planted type of dry peas but it 

is practical to replant to a springplanted type, you must replant to a 

spring-planted type to keep your 

insurance coverage based on the fallplanted type in force. 

(2) Any fall-planted dry pea acreage 

that is replanted to a spring-planted 

type when it was practical to replant the 

fall-planted type will be insured as the 

spring-planted type and the production 

guarantee, premium and price election 

applicable to the spring-planted type 

will be used. In this case, the acreage 

will be considered to be initially 

planted to the spring-planted type. 

(3) Notwithstanding section 8(d)(1) 

and (2), if you have elected coverage 

under the Winter Coverage Option (if 

available in the county), insurance will 

be in accordance with the option. 

(d) Whenever the Special Provisions 

designate only a spring final planting 

date, any acreage of a fall-planted dry 

pea crop is not insured unless you 

request such coverage on or before the 

spring sales closing date, and we agree 

in writing that the acreage has an 

adequate stand in the spring to produce 

the yield used to determine your 

production guarantee. 

(1) The fall-planted dry pea crop will 

be insured as a spring-planted type for 

the purpose of the production 

guarantee, premium and price election. 

(2) Insurance will attach to such 

acreage on the date we determine an 

adequate stand exists or on the spring 

final planting date if we do not 

determine adequacy of the stand prior to 

the spring final planting date. 

(3) Any acreage of such fall-planted 

dry peas that is damaged after it is 

accepted for insurance but before the 

spring final planting date, to the extent 

that growers in the area would normally 

not further care for the crop, must be 

replanted to a spring-planted type of dry 

pea unless we agree it is not practical to 

replant. No replanting payment will be 

made. 

(4) If fall-planted acreage is not to be 

insured it must be recorded on the 

acreage report as uninsured fall-planted 

acreage. 

9. Insurance Period. 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES
51584 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 172 / Thursday, September 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

In accordance with the provisions of 

section 11 of the Basic Provisions, and 

subject to the provisions provided by 

the Winter Coverage Option (see section 

15) if you elect such option, the 

insurance period is as follows: 

(a) Coverage for fall-planted dry peas 

not covered by the Winter Coverage 

Option will begin on the earlier of April 

15 or the date we agree to accept the 

acreage for insurance, but not before 

March 1, unless otherwise specified on 

the Special Provisions. 

* * * * * 

11. Replanting Payments. 

(a) A replanting payment is allowed 

as follows: 

(1) In lieu of provisions in section 13 

of the Basic Provisions that limit the 

amount of a replant payment to the 

actual cost of replanting, the amount of 

any replanting payment will be 

determined in accordance with these 

Crop Provisions; 

(2) You must comply with all 

requirements regarding replanting 

payments contained in section 13 of the 

Basic Provisions (except as allowed in 

section 11(a)(1)) and in the Winter 

Coverage Option (see section 15), if 

applicable; 

(3) The insured crop must be damaged 

by an insurable cause of loss to the 

extent that the remaining stand will not 

produce at least 90 percent of the 

production guarantee for the acreage; 

(4) The acreage must have been 

initially planted to a spring type of the 

insured crop in those counties with only 

a spring final planting date; 

(5) When the Winter Coverage Option 

is in effect for the acreage, damage must 

occur after the fall final planting date in 

those counties where both a fall and 

spring final planting date are 

designated; 

(6) Replanting payments are not 

available for damaged fall planted dry 

pea acreage if you have not elected to 

cover such acreage under the Winter 

Coverage Option; and 

(7) The replanted crop must be seeded 

at a rate sufficient to achieve a total 

(undamaged and new seeding) plant 

population that will produce at least the 

yield used to determine your production 

guarantee. 

(b) The maximum amount of the 

replanting payment per acre will be the 

lesser of 20.0 percent of the production 

guarantee or 200 pounds, multiplied by 

your price election, multiplied by your 

share, unless otherwise stated in the 

Special Provisions. 

(c) When the crop is replanted using 

a practice that is uninsurable for an 

original planting, the liability on the 

unit will be reduced by the amount of 

the replanting payment. The premium 

amount will not be reduced. 

(d) Replanting payments will be 

calculated using the price election and 

production guarantee for the dry pea 

type that is replanted and insured. For 

example, if damaged smooth green and 

yellow pea acreage is replanted to 

lentils, the price election and 

production guarantee applicable to 

lentils will be used to calculate any 

replanting payment that may be due. A 

revised acreage report will be required 

to reflect the replanted type. 

Notwithstanding the previous two 

sentences, the following will have a 

replanting payment based on the 

guarantee and price election for the crop 

type initially planted: 

(1) Any damaged fall-planted type of 

dry peas replanted to a spring-planted 

type that retains insurance based on the 

production guarantee and price election 

for the fall-planted type; and 

(2) Any acreage replanted at a reduced 

seeding rate into a partially damaged 

stand of the insured crop. 

12. Duties in the Event of Damage or 

Loss. 

Representative samples are required 

in accordance with section 14 of the 

Basic Provisions. 

13. Settlement of Claim. 

(a) We will determine your loss on a 

unit basis. In the event you are unable 

to provide records of production that are 

acceptable to us for any: 

(1) Optional units, we will combine 

all optional units for which acceptable 

records of production were not 

provided; or 

(2) Basic units, we will allocate any 

commingled production to such units in 

proportion to our liability on the 

harvested acreage for the units. 

(b) * * * 

* * * * * 

For example: 

In this example, you have not elected 

optional units by type. You have a 100 

percent share in 100 acres of springplanted smooth green dry edible peas in 

the unit, with a 70 percent guarantee of 

4,000 pounds per acre and a price 

election of $0.09 per pound. Your 

selected price election percentage is 100 

percent. You are only able to harvest 

200,000 pounds. Your indemnity would 

be calculated as follows: 

(1) 100 acres × 4,000 pounds = 

400,000-pound guarantee; 

(2) 400,000-pound guarantee × $0.09 

price election = $36,000.00 value of 

guarantee; 

(9) 200,000-pound production to 

count × $0.09 price election = 

$18,000.00 value of production to count; 

(12) $36,000.00 value of guarantee ¥ 

$18,000.00 value of production to count 

= $18,000.00 loss; and 

(13) $18,000.00 × 100 percent share = 

$18,000.00 indemnity payment. 

You also have a 100 percent share in 

100 acres of contract seed peas in the 

same unit, with a 65 percent guarantee 

of 5,000 pounds per acre and a base 

contract price of $0.40 per pound. Your 

selected price election percentage is 75 

percent. You are only able to harvest 

450,000 pounds. Your total indemnity 

for both spring-planted smooth green 

dry edible peas and contract seed peas 

would be calculated as follows: 

(1) 100 acres × 4,000 pounds = 

400,000-pound guarantee for the springplanted smooth green dry edible pea 

type; 

(2) 400,000-pound guarantee × $0.09 

price election = $36,000.00 value of 

guarantee for the spring-planted smooth 

green dry edible pea type; 

(4) 100 acres × 5,000 pounds = 

500,000-pound production to count for 

the contract seed pea type; 

(5) 500,000-pound guarantee × $0.40 

base contract price = $200,000.00 gross 

value of guarantee for the contract seed 

pea type; 

(6) $200,000 × .75 price election 

percentage = $150,000 net value of 

guarantee for the contract seed pea type; 

(8) $36,000.00 + $150,000.00 = 

$186,000.00 total value of guarantee; 

(9) 200,000-pound production to 

count × $0.09 price election = 

$18,000.00 value of production to count 

for the spring-planted smooth green dry 

edible pea type; 

(10) 450,000-pound production to 

count × $0.30 = $135,000.00 value of 

production to count for the contract 

seed pea type; 

(11) $18,000.00 + $135,000.00 = 

$153,000.00 total value of production to 

count; 

(12) $186,000.00 ¥ $153,000.00 = 

$33,000.00 loss; and 

(13) $33,000.00 loss × 100 percent 

share = $33,000.00 indemnity payment. 

(c) * * * 

(1) For mature production meeting the 

objective, measurable minimum quality 

requirements (e.g., size, germination 

percentage) contained in the processor/ 

seed company contract, and for mature 

production that does not meet such 

requirements due to uninsured causes: 

* * * * * 

(2) For mature production not meeting 

the objective, measurable minimum 

quality requirements (e.g., size, 

germination percentage) contained in 

the processor/seed company contract, 

due to insurable causes, and immature 

production that is appraised: 

* * * * * 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 172 / Thursday, September 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 51585 

(e) Mature dry pea production that 

does not qualify as contract seed peas 

under the policy terms or does not meet 

the objective, measurable minimum 

quality requirements (e.g., size, 

germination percentage) contained in 

the processor/seed company contract, 

may be adjusted for quality deficiencies. 

(1) Production will be eligible for 

quality adjustment in accordance with 

the following, unless otherwise 

specified in the Special Provisions: 

* * * * * 

15. Winter Coverage Option. 

(a) In the event of a conflict between 

this section and sections 1 through 14 

of these Crop Provisions, this section 

will control. 

(b) You must have purchased 

additional coverage under the Dry Pea 

Crop Provisions in order to select this 

option. 

(c) In return for payment of the 

additional premium designated in the 

actuarial documents, this option is 

available in counties for which the 

actuarial documents provide premium 

rates for the Winter Coverage Option. 

(d) This option is available only in 

counties for which the Special 

Provisions designate both a fall final 

planting date and a spring final planting 

date. 

(e) You must select this option on 

your application for insurance, or on a 

form approved by us, on or before the 

sales closing date for the initial year in 

which you wish to insure dry peas 

under this option. 

(1) Failure to do so means you have 

rejected this coverage for the dry pea 

crop planted in the fall and this option 

is void. 

(2) This option will continue in effect 

until canceled or coverage under the 

Dry Pea Crop Provisions is canceled or 

terminated. 

(3) This option may be canceled by 

you or us for any succeeding crop year 

by giving written notice to the other 

party on or before the cancellation date 

contained in section 15(g) preceding the 

crop year for which the cancellation of 

this option is to be effective. 

(4) You may change your coverage 

level or percentage of price election for 

dry pea types until the spring sales 

closing date if you have selected this 

option, but do not have any insured fall 

planted acreage or your fall planted 

acreage is not eligible for this option. 

(f) Coverage under this option begins 

on the later of the date we accept your 

application for coverage or on the fall 

final planting date designated in the 

Special Provisions. Coverage ends on 

the spring final planting date designated 

in the Special Provisions. 

(g) If you elect this option for dry peas 

initially planted in the fall, the 

following dates will be applicable to all 

your fall-planted and spring-planted dry 

peas in the county: 

(1) Contract change date is June 30 

preceding the cancellation date; 

(2) Cancellation date is September 30; 

and 

(3) Termination date is November 30. 

For a policy with amounts due, when 

the sales closing date is prior to the 

previous crop year termination date, 

such policies will terminate for the 

current crop year even if insurance 

attached prior to the termination date. 

Such termination will be considered 

effective as of the sales closing date and 

no insurance will be considered to have 

attached for the crop year and no 

indemnity, prevented planting or 

replant payment will be owed. 

(h) All notices of damage must be 

provided to us not later than 15 days 

after the spring final planting date 

designated in the Special Provisions. 

(i) All insurable acreage of each fall 

planted dry pea type covered under this 

option must be insured. 

(j) The amount of any indemnity paid 

under the terms of this option will be 

subject to any reduction specified in the 

Basic Provisions for multiple crop 

benefits in the same crop year. 

(k) Whenever any acreage of dry peas 

planted in the fall is damaged during 

the insurance period and at least 20 

acres or 20 percent of the insured 

planted acreage in the unit, whichever 

is less, does not have an adequate stand 

to produce at least 90 percent of the 

production guarantee for the acreage, 

you may, at your option, take one of the 

following actions: 

(1) Continue to care for the damaged 

dry peas. By doing so, coverage will 

continue under the terms of the Basic 

Provisions, these Crop Provisions and 

this option; 

(2) Replant the acreage to an 

appropriate type of insured dry peas, if 

it is practical, and receive a replanting 

payment in accordance with the terms 

of section 11. By doing so, coverage will 

continue under the terms of the Basic 

Provisions, these Crop Provisions and 

this option, and the production 

guarantee for the dry pea type planted 

in the fall will remain in effect; or 

(3) Destroy the remaining crop on 

such acreage: 

(i) By destroying the remaining crop, 

you agree to accept an appraised 

amount of production determined in 

accordance with section 13(d)(1) of 

these Crop Provisions to count against 

the unit production guarantee. This 

amount will be considered production 

to count in determining any final 

indemnity on the unit and will be used 

to settle your claim as described in 

section 13. 

(ii) You may use such acreage for any 

purpose, including planting and 

separately insuring any other crop if 

such insurance is available. 

(iii) If you elect to plant and elect to 

insure spring-planted dry pea acreage of 

the same dry pea type (you must elect 

whether or not you want insurance on 

the spring-planted acreage of the same 

dry pea type at the time we release the 

fall-planted acreage), you must pay 

additional premium for insurance. Such 

acreage will be insured in accordance 

with the policy provisions that are 

applicable to acreage that is initially 

planted in the spring to the same dry 

pea type, and you must: 

(A) Plant the spring-planted acreage 

in a manner which results in a clear and 

discernable break in the planting pattern 

at the boundary between it and any 

remaining acreage of the fall-planted dry 

pea acreage; and 

(B) Store or market the production in 

a manner which permits us to verify the 

amount of spring-planted production 

separately from any fall-planted 

production. In the event you are unable 

to provide records of production that are 

acceptable to us, the spring-planted 

acreage will be considered to be a part 

of the original fall-planted unit. 

Signed in Washington, DC, on August 26, 

2008. 

Eldon Gould, 

Manager, Federal Crop Insurance 

Corporation. 

[FR Doc. E8–20128 Filed 9–3–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–08–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

7 CFR Part 1291 

[Docket No. AMS–FV–08–0057; FV–08–379 

IFR] 

RIN 0581–AC88 

Specialty Crop Block Grant Program—

Farm Bill; Notice of Request for 

Approval of a New Information 

Collection 

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, 

USDA. 

ACTION: Interim final rule with request 

for comments. 

SUMMARY: This rule provides regulations 

to administer the Specialty Crop Block 

Grant Program—Farm Bill (SCBGP–FB) 

to enhance the competitiveness of 

specialty crops. This rule is intended to 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES