federal register - U.S. Government Printing Office

6104 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28 / Tuesday, February 11, 1997 / Rules and Regulationsquestioned whether the current year’smaximum price election for the typeshould be used when a processorrefuses to quote a No. 2 price.Response: The price should bedetermined based on the quality andquantity of the production as it wasoriginally delivered and the provisionsclearly indicate that the value of thedamaged production is used in thiscalculation. Therefore, therecommended change has not beenmade. Further, the current year’smaximum price election is used onlywhen a local market price is notavailable. A local market price may beestablished using price quotes fromusual marketing outlets in the area.Refusal of one processor to quote a pricedoes not automatically mean a localmarket price is not available.Comment: One comment receivedfrom the crop insurance industryrecommended adding ‘‘(to includetrading tare for grade to obtain a highergrade and price),’’ after the word‘‘processing’’ in section13(e)(4)(ii)(A)(3).Response: FCIC agrees with thecomment and has amended theprovisions accordingly.Comment: The crop insuranceindustry recommended that late andprevented planting coverage should notbe provided on crops grown undercontract with a processor. The processordetermines what the producer does ifthe insured crop is not planted duringthe normal planting period.Response: The inclusion of late andprevented planting is appropriate forcontract seed beans. As the commentindicates, the processor may or may notallow planting within the late plantingperiod. Congress has determined thatmarketing windows should be a factorin determining whether a crop has beenprevented from planting. The contractedplanting period, and intended harvestperiod, is considered as a marketingwindow. However, if planting isallowed under the contract, and thecrop can reach maturity, coverageshould be provided. Therefore, nochange has been made.Comment: The crop insuranceindustry recommended adding thephrase ‘‘to a type for which you havehistory’’ after the word ‘‘planted’’ insection 14(c)(1).Response: Changing the provision torequire past history of the bean typewould prevent a new producer fromobtaining late planting coverage ordiversifying their production. To protectthe integrity of the program, theinsurance provider should require theproducer to prove that the producer hadthe inputs available to plant the newbean type. Therefore, no change hasbeen made.Comment: The crop insuranceindustry recommended adding thephrase ‘‘type for which you havehistory’’ after the words ‘‘insured crop’’in the second and last sentences ofsection 14(d)(1)(ii) and at the end of thefirst sentence of section 14(d)(1)(iii)(B).Response: Changing the provision assuggested would prevent a newproducer from having late or preventedplanting coverage or diversifying theirproduction. Therefore, no changes hasbeen made.Comment: The crop insuranceindustry and a representative of FCICrecommended eliminating late andprevented planting provisions thatreference participating in a USDAprogram that limits acreage planted,compliance with conservation plans,and base acreage. These do not apply.Response: FCIC agrees that acreagelimiting programs and base acreage donot apply to dry beans and has amendedthe appropriate provisions. However,conservation plans may allow theinsurance provider to verify an intent toproduce or not produce the crop.Therefore, provisions regarding the useof conservation plans have not beenchanged.Comment: The crop insuranceindustry and a representative of FCICasked whether the prevented plantingcoverage available when a substitutecrop is planted will be dropped, or atleast revised, for all affected crops forthe 1997 crop year, and whether it ispossible to remove (or revise)redesignated sections 14(d)(1)(iii)(B)and 14(d)(2)(iii)(B).Response: The provisions that allow aprevented planting guarantee when asubstitute crop is planted are underreview for all affected crops for the 1998crop year. Any changes will be made ina separate rule for all affected cropprovisions. No change will be made inthese provisions to maintainconsistency with prevented plantingprovisions for other crops.Comment: The crop insuranceindustry questioned if the provisions insection 14(d)(4)(ii) apply to dry beansonly since ‘‘dry beans’’ are referenced,or if this carryover prevented plantingcoverage would be different for contractseed beans due to the requirement thatthey are to be grown under a contractwith a processor.Response: The Federal Crop InsuranceAct requires the insurance period forprevented planting to begin on the salesclosing date for the previous crop yearif coverage has been continuous.Therefore, this ‘‘tail coverage’’ wouldapply if any beans, including contractseed beans, were insured previously.This provision has been clarified byreplacing the term ‘‘dry beans’’ with theterm ‘‘beans.’’Comment: The crop insuranceindustry recommended limiting thenumber of contract seed bean acreseligible for prevented planting to thenumber of acres that are under theprocessor contract for the crop year.Response: FCIC agrees with thecomment and has amended theprovisions in section 14(d)(5)(iv)(A) tolimit the number of acres eligible forprevented planting to those specified inthe seed bean processor contract or thenumber needed to produce thecontracted production based on theAPH yield for the acreage.Comment: The crop insuranceindustry asked whether the languagecontained in section 14(d)(5)(iv)(E)regarding double-cropping would beliberalized or if proof that the acreagehas a history of double-cropping in eachof the last four years would still berequired. The comment recommendedchanging the words ‘‘* * * the acreagehas a history * * *’’ to ‘‘* * * the farmhas a history * * *’’Response: The recommended changewould allow double benefits on anentire farm even though a very smallnumber of acres may have been doublecroppedin the past. Therefore, nochange has been made.Comment: The crop insuranceindustry recommended revising section14(d)(5)(v) if the current languageallows use of total acreage from both dryedible beans and contract seed beans fordetermining eligible prevented plantingacreage. The proposed provision couldresult in a prevented planting paymentfor more than the acreage under contractfor contract seed beans.Response: FCIC has revised section14(d)(5)(iv)(A) to limit the number acresof contract seed beans that are eligiblefor prevented planting to the number ofacres under contract in the current year.Comment: The crop insuranceindustry suggested combining theprovisions contained in section 15(e)with the provisions in section 15(a).Response: Approval of writtenagreements requested after the salesclosing date is the exception, not therule. Therefore, these provisions shouldbe kept separate.Comment: The crop insuranceindustry recommended that therequirement for a written agreement tobe renewed each year be removed.Terms of the agreement should be statedin the agreement to fit the particularsituation for the policy, or if nosubstantive changes occur from one year