Source: https://www.global-regulation.com/law/united-states/30529/common-crop-insurance-regulations%253b-macadamia-tree-crop-insurance-provisions-and-macadamia-nut-crop-insurance-provisions.html
Timestamp: 2018-02-22 20:42:55
Document Index: 174284491

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 11', 'art 457', '§ 457', '§ 457', '§ 457', '§ 457', '§ 457', '§ 457']

Common Crop Insurance Regulations; Macadamia Tree Crop Insurance Provisions and Macadamia Nut Crop Insurance Provisions (United States)
Link to law: https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/text/raw_text/201/508/690.txt
This final rule has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12988 on civil justice reform. The provisions of this rule will not have a retroactive effect. The provisions of this rule will preempt State and local laws to the extent such State and local laws are inconsistent herewith. With respect to any direct action taken by FCIC or action by FCIC to require the insurance provider to take specific action under the terms of the crop insurance policy, the administrative appeal provisions published at 7 CFR part 11 must be exhausted before any action against FCIC for judicial review may be brought.
This rule finalizes changes to the Common Crop Insurance Regulations (7 CFR part 457), Macadamia Tree Crop Insurance Provisions and Macadamia Nut Crop Insurance Provisions that were published by FCIC on August 1, 2014, as a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register at 79 FR 44719-44722. The public was afforded 60 days to submit comments after the regulation was published in the Federal Register .
Response: FCIC agrees with the commenter that the proposed change to remove paragraph (a) requires optional units to have a clear and discernible break. Paragraph (a) states sections 34(b)(1), (3) and (4) of the Basic Provisions are not applicable. These sections of the Basic Provisions state, among other things, that the crop must be planted in a manner such that there is a clear and discernible break between optional units. By removing paragraph (a), sections 34(b)(1), (3) and (4) of the Basic Provisions now become applicable. Under the current policy, insureds who utilize optional units can manipulate their unit boundaries to maximize indemnities because there is no current requirement for discernible breaks between units. FCIC believes this requirement will minimize program abuse as it relates to unit division. Based on a previous comment, FCIC has revised Section 2 to clarify that optional units are allowed by non-contiguous land or by organic and conventional acreage, thereby giving producers multiple options to insure their acreage under optional units. FCIC does not define “clear and discernible break” in its policy; however, in general, when a term is not specifically defined in the policy, its common or ordinary meaning may be applicable as found in a standard dictionary. Examples of a clear and discernible break are highways, railroads and rivers. No change has been made.
• “. . . before pruning or removing any damaged trees, or removing any destroyed trees.” This keeps the current wording about the two possible actions for damaged trees, and adds the new phrase about removing destroyed trees.
• “. . . before pruning any damaged trees, or removing any damaged or destroyed trees.” This would put “pruning” in one phrase (applying only to damaged trees) and “removing” in another (whether the trees are damaged or destroyed).
• In paragraph (b)(4) at step (3)(ii), if the calculation of the “actual percent of loss” should be identified as such, or included in the introductory paragraph instead; and/or
• In paragraph (b)(4) at step (3)(iii), if the calculation of the dollar amount of loss [“. . . and $58,500 total amount of insurance × 6.0 percent loss = $3,510 loss”] should be better identified [since step (3) says only to divide the previous result by the coverage level] or perhaps moved to be part of the final step (4).
Response: FCIC agrees with the commenter and has revised the provisions in redesignated paragraph (b)(5) accordingly.
The proposed rule comment period is an opportunity for the public to provide input on changes FCIC proposes to make to the Crop Provisions. Interested parties are permitted to provide comments during that time. If the commenter had specific suggestions for recommended changes to this portion of the Macadamia Nut Crop Provisions, the commenter had an opportunity to provide specific proposed changes on this issue during the proposed rule comment period. However, FCIC has made an addition to the definition that will address the commenter's industry concern.
Response: FCIC agrees with the commenter that the added phrase provides flexibility to make the program work better. This flexibility eliminates the administrative burden of revising the regulation if FCIC determines the calendar date for the end of insurance period should be different than what is stated in the Crop Provisions. In addition, the change does not add the complexity issue raised by the commenter because a policyholder must always read the Special Provisions to ensure it is aware of any changes to any issue covered by the Special Provisions, which may extend beyond changes to the end of the insurance period. No change has been made.
Crop insurance, Macadamia tree and macadamia nut, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
7 U.S.C. 1506(1) and 1506(o).
2. Amend § 457.130 as follows:
h. In section 7 by removing the phrase “(Insurable Acreage) of the Basic Provisions (§ 457.8), that prohibit” and adding in its place the phrase “of the Basic Provisions (§ 457.8) that prohibit”;
3. Amend § 457.131 as follows:
i. In the introductory text and paragraph (b) introductory text by removing the phrase “(Insurance Guarantees, Coverage Levels, and Prices for Determining Indemnities)”;
ii. By removing the comma after the phrase “Basic Provisions (§ 457.8)”;
§ 457.131