Common Crop Insurance Regulations; Sugar Beet Crop Insurance Provisions

Citation84 FR 65627
Record Number2019-25844
Published date29 November 2019
SectionRules and Regulations
CourtFederal Crop Insurance Corporation
Federal Register, Volume 84 Issue 230 (Friday, November 29, 2019)
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 230 (Friday, November 29, 2019)]
                [Rules and Regulations]
                [Pages 65627-65639]
                From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
                [FR Doc No: 2019-25844]
                ========================================================================
                Rules and Regulations
                 Federal Register
                ________________________________________________________________________
                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.
                ========================================================================
                Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2019 /
                Rules and Regulations
                [[Page 65627]]
                DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
                Federal Crop Insurance Corporation
                7 CFR Part 457
                [Docket ID FCIC-19-0005]
                RIN 0563-AC63
                Common Crop Insurance Regulations; Sugar Beet Crop Insurance
                Provisions
                AGENCY: Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, USDA.
                ACTION: Final rule with request for comments.
                -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                SUMMARY: The Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC) finalizes the
                Common Crop Insurance Regulations, Sugar Beet Crop Insurance Provisions
                (Crop Provisions) and makes amendments to the final rule, with request
                for comment, published in the Federal Register on September 10, 2018,
                that updated existing policy provisions and definitions to better
                reflect current agricultural practices. This final rule is amended
                based on comments received and other issues identified since
                implementation of the previous final rule. The changes will be
                effective for the 2020 and succeeding crop years in states with a
                November 30 contract change date and for the 2021 and succeeding crop
                years in all other states.
                DATES: This final rule is effective November 30, 2019. However, FCIC
                will accept written comments on this final rule until close of business
                January 28, 2020. FCIC will consider these comments and make changes to
                the rule if warranted.
                ADDRESSES: We invite you to submit comments on this rule. In your
                comments, include the date, volume, and page number of this issue of
                the Federal Register, and the title of rule. You may submit comments by
                any of the following methods, although FCIC prefers that you submit
                comments electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
                 Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID FCIC-19-0005. Follow the
                online instructions for submitting comments.
                 Mail: Director, Product Administration and Standards
                Division, Risk Management Agency, United States Department of
                Agriculture, P.O. Box 419205, Kansas City, MO 64133-6205.
                 All comments received, including those received by mail, will be
                posted without change and publicly available on http://www.regulations.gov.
                 Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
                comments received for any dockets by the name of the person submitting
                the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an
                association, business, labor union, etc.). Interested persons may
                review the complete User Notice and Privacy Notice for Regulations.gov
                at http://www.regulations.gov/#!privacyNotice.
                FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Francie Tolle; Product Administration
                and Standards Division, Risk Management Agency, United States
                Department of Agriculture, Beacon Facility, Stop 0812, Room 7829, P.O.
                Box 419205, Kansas City, MO 64141-6205, telephone (816) 926-7730; email
                [email protected].
                SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
                Background
                 This rule amends changes to the Common Crop Insurance Regulations,
                Sugar Beet Crop Insurance Provisions that were published by FCIC on
                September 10, 2018, as a notice of final rule with request for comment
                rulemaking in the Federal Register at 83 FR 45535-45539. The public was
                afforded 30 days to submit written comments and opinions.
                 Comments were received from 15 commenters. The commenters included
                persons or entities from the following categories: Insurance company,
                insurance agent, farmer, financial, producer group, academic, trade
                association, and other. The public comments received regarding the
                final rule with request for comment and FCIC's responses to the
                comments are as follows:
                 Comment: Commenter suggested revising the definition of ``Raw
                sugar'' to ``Percentage of raw sugar'' since that term is frequently
                used.
                 ``Percentage of raw sugar--Quantity of sugar that has not been
                extracted from the sugar beet crop and is determined from analytical
                tests of samples performed by the processor or other accredited
                laboratories.''
                 This revised definition clarifies how the percentage is determined
                and by whom, and includes the ability for alternative testing of
                samples by qualified facilities, which might be necessary in cases of
                unharvested appraisals where sampling and testing might not be readily
                performed by the processor.
                 Response: FCIC is adding the following definition for percentage of
                raw sugar, ``quantity of sugar determined from analytical tests of
                samples performed by the processor or other laboratories approved by
                us.''
                 Comment: A commenter stated that Section 1 is revising the
                definition of Practical to Replant and seems to strengthen the idea of
                only replanting when practical to replant and will be good for the
                growers.
                 Another commenter stated that revising the definition of practical
                to replant to align with the practicality to replant and should be an
                improvement.
                 Response: FCIC thanks the commenter and appreciates their input.
                 Comment: Commenter stated that the definition of ``Initially
                planted'' can be deleted since the term is no longer used in the Sugar
                Beet CP (part of the ``Insurance Period'' details that have been
                removed in section 9).
                 Response: FCIC is deleting the definition of initially planted.
                 Comment: Commenter stated that definitions for ``Pound'' and
                ``Ton'' should be added to align with other crop provisions that use
                pounds as the unit of measure, and tons. This also will function in
                conjunction with the proposed definition of ``Percentage of raw sugar''
                (see under ``raw sugar'' below) and the production's unit of measure,
                as indicated in other suggestions/recommendations provided in this
                document.
                 ``Pound--Sixteen ounces avoirdupois.''
                 ``Ton--2,000 pounds.''
                 Response: FCIC is adding the definition of pound and ton.
                 Comment: Commenter stated the definition of ``Processor contract''
                replacing the definition of ``sugar beet processor contract'' in the
                current Sugar
                [[Page 65628]]
                Beet CP, now begins: ``A written agreement between you and the
                processor, executed on or before the acreage reporting date, which is
                in effect for the crop year, containing at a minimum: . . .''
                [highlighting indicates the changes from the ``sugar beet processor
                contract'' definition].
                 As written, this could be misunderstood as having the
                phrase ``. . . which is in effect for the crop year . . .'' apply to
                the acreage reporting date rather than to the ``written agreement''
                (processor contract). One way to make this clearer would be something
                like: ``. . . executed on or before the acreage reporting date and in
                effect for the crop year . . .''
                 Also consider if this should use a term other than
                ``written agreement'', which generally has a different meaning for crop
                insurance purposes, as in section 7(a)(4) and elsewhere. [One
                possibility: ``An agreement, in writing, between . . .'']
                 Response: FCIC is replacing the definition and references to the
                term ``processor contract'' with the definition/term ``production
                agreement'' which removes the requirement for the contract to include a
                price or formula for a price based on third party data. This better
                reflects sugar beet contracts because there is no third party data
                source for prices and not all production agreements include a price.
                 Comment: Commenter suggested revising the definition of ``Raw
                sugar'' to ``Percentage of raw sugar'' since that term is frequently
                used.
                 ``Percentage of raw sugar--Quantity of sugar that has not
                been extracted from the sugar beet crop and is determined from
                analytical tests of samples performed by the processor or other
                accredited laboratories.''
                 This revised definition clarifies how the percentage is
                determined and by whom, and includes the ability for alternative
                testing of samples by qualified facilities, which might be necessary in
                cases of unharvested appraisals where sampling and testing might not be
                readily performed by the processor.
                 Response: FCIC is adding the definition for average percentage of
                raw sugar based on this comment to be the quantity of sugar determined
                from analytical tests of samples performed by the processor or other
                laboratories approved by the Approved Insurance Provider (AIP). FCIC is
                also revising section 13(d), to allow the average percentage of raw
                sugar to be determined by laboratories approved by the AIP, in addition
                to tests performed by the processor. Sections 13(d)(1) and 13(e)(1)
                will also clarify that raw sugar content tests may be based on the
                insured's previous tests performed by the processor or other
                laboratories approved by the AIP.
                 Comment: A commenter stated that a change that is not in here, but
                should be, is an optional unit provision based on each individual
                processor contract per field. With each field being separately
                contracted, this is an easy change to make. Units based on section
                lines may make sense for dryland bulk commodity crops with a low per
                acre value but are not appropriate for a specialty crop like sugar
                beets which often have many smaller fields in the same section with
                each exposed to different risks due to their location in that unit.
                 Another commenter stated that one change that the commenter has
                repeatedly requested but is not in here is an optional unit provision
                based on each individual processor contract per field. With each field
                being individually identified by its own contract number this should be
                easily implemented and should increase participation.
                 Response: This issue has been reviewed extensively by FCIC. In the
                situation the commenter outlined, their processor contracts are by
                field, and they want insurance by field. This would allow a producer to
                separate their Actual Production History (APH) by field instead of
                having an average production for the unit. This could add complexity to
                the program and significantly increase the frequency of losses, which
                could require significant premium rate increases to maintain actuarial
                soundness. Further, processors, contractors, and grower groups have
                been asked to supply the data to show revenue increases and benefits to
                the program supporting this proposed unit structure. To date, nothing
                has been provided.
                 Comment: Commenter stated that Insurance Providers have some
                concerns on how this change from ``standardized tons'' to ``pounds of
                raw sugar'' will affect the insureds' APH. The conversion from
                standardized tons to pounds of raw sugar is not clear at this time.
                Insureds will need to recertify their production history to align with
                the conversion from standardized tons to pounds of raw sugar.
                 The commenter assumes calculations are as follows:
                 Current procedure:
                 Assume that 150 tons of beets harvested on 20 acres with a 14.5%
                sugar content.
                 Sugar percentage is 17.2% in the special provisions.
                 14.5% / 17.2% = .843 factor.
                 150 tons * .843 factor = 126.4 tons.
                 126.4 tons / 20 acres = 6.3 standardized tons/acre that gets
                reported for APH.
                 Actual sugar content of beets would be:
                 150 tons * 2,000 lbs. = 300,000 lbs. of beets.
                 300,000 lbs. * 14.5% sugar = 43,500 lbs. of actual raw sugar in the
                beets.
                 43,500 lbs./20 acres = 2,175 lbs./acre actual raw sugar per acre.
                 Please clarify which of the following methods will be utilized for
                converting existing APH databases to pounds of raw sugar and note the
                difference in the APH conversion and the actual sugar content
                calculations in this example.
                 1. (6.3 tons / acre APH * 2,000 lbs.) * 17.2% = 2,167.2 lbs. raw
                sugar/acre APH.
                 Or convert total production for the 20 acres:
                 2. 126.4 standardized tons * 2,000 lbs. = 252,800 lbs. of beets.
                 252,800 lbs. * 17.2% sugar from the SP = 43,481.6 lbs. of raw
                sugar.
                 43,481.6 lbs. of raw sugar / 20 acres = 2,174 lbs. APH.
                 The example above is based on information included in the
                Evaluations and Recommended Improvements for the Sugar Beets Crop
                Insurance Program which was submitted by Watts and Associates, Inc.
                 Plant Count Method Appraisals (Weight Method not applicable until
                the factory accepts sugar beets) completed prior to the processor
                accepting beets at the factory are not based on the percent of raw
                sugar present in the sugar beets at the time of the appraisal. Guidance
                is needed in the policy to convert appraised production based on the
                plant count method to ``pounds of raw sugar.''
                 Response: The conversion is based on total production, thus example
                number 2 is the correct calculation. Additionally, FCIC has developed
                and released procedures and training materials for insurance companies
                detailing how to apply this conversion for insured producers including
                the Frequently Asked Questions at https://www.rma.usda.gov/News-Room/Frequently-Asked-Questions/Sugar-Beet.
                 Comment: A commenter stated that section 3 is changing standardized
                tons to pounds of raw sugar. It is unclear to the commenter how this
                calculation of pounds of raw sugar is made or how well it correlates to
                standardized tons.
                 Another commenter stated the commenter broadly supports FCIC's
                proposal to change the basis of insurance from ``standardized tons'' to
                pounds of raw sugar, simplifying the program and better aligning it
                with commercial practice. The commenter
                [[Page 65629]]
                did raise a concern, however, regarding the implementation of this
                important change. The shift from standardized tons to pounds of raw
                sugar will be very visible to farmer-producers and could cause
                considerable confusion, particularly in its first year. Insurance
                coverage will look different. The mathematical relationship between a
                producer's ``old'' coverage and ``new'' coverage may be far from
                obvious at first. Even traditional price elections may be confusing
                when now stated in the terms of pounds versus tons, as growers, agents,
                and other stakeholders try to make comparisons with prior-year levels.
                 To avoid this problem, the commenter believes a well-planned, well-
                coordinated public outreach and education process will be essential,
                including outreach to farmers so they will understand the new system,
                training for agents so they can effectively explain it, training for
                AIP loss adjustors and underwriters to minimize mistakes, and the
                development of simple-to-use tools or applications allowing producers
                quickly and easily to compare prior coverage in ``standardized tons''
                to their new coverage in raw sugar pounds.
                 The commenter would be pleased to assist RMA in this process, be it
                in arranging outreach to the commenter's farmer members, getting
                producer feedback on training materials, developing Question-and-Answer
                sheets, providing farmer-level input for web-based applications, or in
                any other manner that might be helpful to the agency and the
                commenter's members.
                 Response: FCIC has developed and released procedures and training
                materials for insurance companies detailing how to apply this
                conversion for insured producers including the Frequently Asked
                Questions at https://www.rma.usda.gov/News-Room/Frequently-Asked-Questions/Sugar-Beet and the Sugar Beet Loss Adjustment Standards
                Handbook at https://www.rma.usda.gov/-/media/RMAweb/Handbooks/Loss-
                Adjustment-Standards_-25000/Sugar-Beet/2019-25450-1H-Sugar-Beet-Loss-
                Adjustment-Standards.ashx. The change in unit of measure from
                standardized tons to pounds of raw sugar was made to better align with
                the sugar industry in how producers are paid and for program
                consistency with sugarcane. Below is a comparison example of the new
                unit of measure (pounds of raw sugar), followed by previous unit of
                measure (standardized tons), and final example is converting
                standardized tons to pounds of raw sugar. The examples show the
                conversions and how the end guarantee should be the same or within a
                few pounds of their previous APH guarantee. The new APH calculation of
                taking net tons to pounds of raw sugar: (20 net paid tons * 2,000 lbs.)
                * 0.180 insured's average percent of raw sugar) = 7,200 pounds of raw
                sugar. The previous APH calculation of taking net tons to standardized
                tons: [20 net tons * (0.180 / 0.170)] = 21.2 standardized tons. The
                conversions from standardized tons to pounds of raw sugar is
                calculated: (21.2 standardized tons * 2,000 pounds) * 0.170 = 7,208
                pounds of raw sugar.
                 Comment: Commenter stated in regard to Section 3; changing
                standardized tons to pounds of raw sugar. Commenter would like
                clarification of how this calculation will be made, and how well it
                will correlate to standardized tons. Also concerned as to how an
                unharvested portion of a field would be appraised for APH on a raw
                sugar basis.
                 Another commenter is concerned as to how an unharvested portion of
                a field would be appraised for APH purposes on a raw sugar basis.
                 Response: FCIC has developed and released procedures and training
                materials for insurance companies detailing how to apply this
                conversion for insured producers as well as how to appraise unharvested
                acreage.
                 The change in unit of measure from standardized tons to pounds of
                raw sugar was made to better align with the sugar industry in how
                producers are paid and for program consistency with sugarcane. Below is
                a comparison example of the new unit of measure (pounds of raw sugar),
                followed by previous unit of measure (standardized tons), and final
                example is converting standardized tons to pounds of raw sugar. The
                examples show the conversions and how the end guarantee should be the
                same or within a few pounds of their previous APH guarantee. The new
                APH calculation of taking net tons to pounds of raw sugar: (20 net paid
                tons * 2,000 lbs.) * 0.180 insured's average percent of raw sugar) =
                7,200 pounds of raw sugar. The previous APH calculation of taking net
                tons to standardized tons: [20 net tons * (0.180 / 0.170)] = 21.2
                standardized tons. The conversions from standardized tons to pounds of
                raw sugar is calculated: (21.2 standardized tons * 2,000 pounds) *
                0.170 = 7,208 pounds of raw sugar. Additional examples of the
                conversion can be found in the Frequently Asked Questions at https://www.rma.usda.gov/News-Room/Frequently-Asked-Questions/Sugar-Beet.
                 Appraising unharvested production is located in the Sugar Beet Loss
                Adjustment Standards Handbook in PART 4 Appraisals. The appraisal
                worksheet instructions are located in Exhibit 3. This information can
                be found at https://www.rma.usda.gov/-/media/RMAweb/Handbooks/Loss-
                Adjustment-Standards_-25000/Sugar-Beet/2019-25450-1H-Sugar-Beet-Loss-
                Adjustment-Standards.ashx.
                 Comment: A commenter requested to recognize that the loads from
                each day of early harvest must be calculated separately.
                 As of now, RMA says it is going to convert databases using the
                sugar factor from the 2018 Special Provisions. This may be to the
                producer's benefit. The agent should have already adjusted the tons for
                percent sugar when they completed the production report. When you run
                the numbers, we have identified cases where the pounds of sugar
                production will be spot-on and other times when the pounds of sugar
                will increase for the producer from what would be if you multiplied
                tons by actual sugar.
                 RMA has indicated that they will distribute a draft of the Special
                Provisions for 2019 for industry review.
                 Response: FCIC is aware that each day of early harvest will have to
                be calculated separately. Whenever the conversion is done there are
                some instances where the production goes up slightly, some that stay
                the same, and some that go down slightly. The difference occurs because
                of rounding. The insured has the option to do the conversion of
                standardized tons to pounds of raw sugar, or they can recertify their
                previous years' production in pounds of raw sugar.
                 Comment: The commenter stated that section 3 is also removing the
                stage guarantees. The commenter thinks this is a good thing for their
                growers.
                 Another commenter is pleased to see the removal of stage guarantees
                in the new Sugar Beet Crop Insurance Provisions. Having played a lead
                role in urging RMA originally to institute a Sugar Beet Stage Guarantee
                Removal Pilot Program over a decade ago, the commenter believes the
                consistent high levels of participation in the program underscore the
                general acceptance of the concept by sugar beet producers. Sugar beets
                are one of the last major crops to see stage guarantees eliminated from
                their coverage, reflecting an updated underwriting approach, and the
                commenter views this as an important step forward for the program.
                 Response: FCIC thanks the commenters and appreciates their input.
                [[Page 65630]]
                 Comment: Commenters stated in regard to 3(a): Consider deleting
                this subsection, which appears to be unnecessary.
                 CCIP Basic Provisions section 3(b)(1)(iii) already states
                that the insured must select the same ``Percentage of the available
                price election . . .'' and ``. . . If different prices are provided by
                type or variety, . . . the same price percentage will apply to all
                types and varieties.''
                 Also, should a separate and unique price election be
                offered for the certified organic practice, then defaulting to the
                Basic Provisions will ensure that there is no conflict with the crop
                provisions whereby more than one price election may be applicable,
                albeit each at the same percentage to the maximum price offered.
                 Response: FCIC thanks the commenter and is deleting section 3(a).
                 Comment: Commenter stated in regard to 3(b) [which would be re-
                designated as section 3 if 3(a) is deleted]: Consider revising this to:
                ``The unit of measure for production is pounds of raw sugar, determined
                by multiplying the quantity of sugar beets by the percentage of raw
                sugar.'' This clarifies the determination of ``pounds of raw sugar,''
                regardless of whether the production amount pertains to the guarantee
                or appraisal/indemnity calculations.
                 Response: FCIC is re-designating section 3(a) as section 3.
                Percentage of raw sugar is already defined and there is procedure in
                place referring to the calculations.
                 Comment: Instead of ``reserving'' this section, commenter suggests
                using it to add the following language that is similar to other crop
                policies that require the insured crop to be grown under a processor
                contract, and will facilitate the insurance provider's timely
                determination of proper acreage and liability/coverage:
                 ``Report of Acreage. In addition to the requirements of section 6
                of the Basic Provisions, you must provide a copy of all sugar beet
                processor contracts to us on or before the acreage reporting date.''
                 For example: If a sugar beet contract pertains to 40 acres of sugar
                beets and the acreage report shows 41.2 acres planted, then the
                insurance provider has the proactive opportunity to verify with the
                sugar beet processor whether or not all production from the 41.2 acres
                of planted sugar beets will be accepted by the processor and if an
                amended contract is needed.
                 Another commenter stated that the deleted phrase that is being
                moved to the ``processor contract'' definition states that the
                processor contract must be executed on or before the acreage reporting
                date. Please consider adding language requiring that the insured ``. .
                . must provide a copy of all processor contracts to us [the AIP] on or
                before the acreage reporting date . . .'' as in section 6 [Report of
                Acreage] in the Processing Tomato Crop Provisions [the rest of that
                reads: ``. . . in all counties, unless otherwise specified in the
                Special Provisions.''].
                 Section 12(b) of the Sugar Beet CP requires the insured to ``. . .
                provide a copy of your processor contract, or corporate resolution if
                you are the processor'' as part of the insured's ``Duties In The Event
                of Damage or Loss'', but the Sugar Beet policy does not have such a
                requirement when there is not a claim.
                 The requirement to provide a copy of the processor contract(s)
                whether or not there is a claim could be set up as in the Processing
                Tomato CP (and others), with the addition of section 6, Report of
                Acreage, since the current Sugar Beet section 6 is being removed.
                 Response: FCIC has replaced the reserved section 6 with report of
                acreage detailing the requirement that the insured provide a copy of
                all production agreements.
                 Comment: Commenter stated in regard to 7(a)(3): [Revised to replace
                ``. . . a sugar beet processor contract executed before the acreage
                reporting date . . .'' with ``. . . a contract . . .'', with the
                deadline now included in the new definition of ``processor contract''.]
                Commenter Suggests ``. . . a processor contract . . .'' to match the
                definition and avoid any confusion with a crop insurance ``contract''
                as defined in the Basic Provisions.
                 Response: FCIC agrees and has replaced contract with production
                agreement in section 7(a)(3).
                 Comment: Commenter stated in reference to 7(b)(4): [Ed.] Consider
                adding quotation marks around the word ``processor'', as done in
                7(b)(1).
                 Response: FCIC revised by adding quotation marks around the word
                processor.
                 Comment: A commenter requested that sugar beets that are planted in
                back to back years be insurable. The commenter stated that this would
                be most helpful for the commenter's farm in Imperial Valley, CA where
                the commenter's alternate crops to plant are limited.
                 Another commenter is requesting sugar beets to be insurable back to
                back.
                 Another commenter stated that they are writing to request the FCIC/
                RMA consider allowing Sugar Beet fields to be insurable if grown on
                acreage that was planted in the most recent previous crop year.
                Currently in Imperial County, CA it is a common practice to grow Sugar
                Beets on the same field twice in consecutive years.
                 The commenter stated that this is an industry standard, and the
                Sugar Processor allows this, and considers this a standard farming
                practice. All acreage farmed on a field in the first year, and on the
                following crop year are of the same quality and tonnage. Therefore, any
                acreage farmed on back to back fields should not be excluded from the
                Insurance policy.
                 Another commenter stated to please allow for Sugar Beets to be
                insurable back to back years. The beet companies allow us to grow back
                to back because it is within proper plant health standards, and
                therefore we'd like to be able to be insured for each and every crop
                that is within reasonable health standards. If the beet company itself
                beliefs it's healthy and safe to grow back to back, the commenter is
                not sure why the insurance standards would be different.
                 Another commenter stated that the commenter has been growing sugar
                beets in California for the last 40 years. In all of those years, it
                has been an accepted cultural practice to grow them in back to back
                years. The sugar companies that the commenter contracts with do not
                prohibit the commenter from that practice. The commenter sees no reason
                why the FCIC should deny the commenter's ability to obtain crop
                insurance on those fields that are planted back to back.
                 Another commenter stated that they are requesting Sugar Beets to be
                insurable in back to back years. This is very important to the
                commenter's farming operations and planning. The commenter believes the
                request speaks for itself on why it is so important.
                 Two commenters stated that they would like to see the option for
                Sugar Beets to be insurable for back to back years.
                 Response: The Crop Provisions as written in sections 8(a)(1) and
                8(a)(3) do allow for back to back planting if it is specified in the
                Special Provisions for the county and if it is an allowable rotation
                outlined in the Special Provisions. These requests have been forwarded
                to the regional offices for review and further consideration. Other
                local or county-based concerns can be addressed to the RMA regional
                office. Any interested person may find contact information for the
                applicable regional office on RMA's website at https://www.rma.usda.gov/RMALocal/Field-Offices/Regional-Offices.
                 Comment: The commenter stated that in regard to section 9(b) that
                they
                [[Page 65631]]
                approve of the deletion of this language in 9(b) that dealt with the
                end of insurance period for all units being when production delivered
                equals the amount of production stated in the contract. This language
                was unclear, difficult to administer and the commenter was unsure what
                exactly it accomplished.
                 Another commenter stated that the commenter agrees with deleting
                the language currently in 9(b) stating that ``. . . the insurance
                period ends for all units when the production delivered to the
                processor equals the amount of production stated in the sugar beet
                processor contract.'' This language was difficult to administer and
                unclear as to what exactly it accomplished.
                 Response: FCIC thanks the commenter and appreciates their input.
                 Comment: The commenter is pleased to see the inclusion of
                provisions providing RMA with greater flexibility to update insurance
                dates and other factors. In particular, the commenter appreciates RMA's
                responsiveness in recent years to shifting the basis for calculating
                replant payments from a formula tied to annual price elections to a
                dollar amount based on actual costs--a process now formalized in the
                new policy. Such steps toward greater flexibility and responsiveness
                are always important and appreciated.
                 Response: FCIC thanks the commenter and appreciates their input.
                 Comment: The term ``final stage'' remains in the language. It
                should be removed. It should state ``at least 90 percent (90%) of the
                production guarantee . . .''
                 Response: FCIC has removed the language ``final stage''.
                 Comment: Commenter stated clarification is needed on how the
                appraisal would be calculated when being completed for a replant
                determination to know if the appraised production would exceed 90% of
                the insured's guarantee. Currently the calculation is based on tons
                with no conversion for pounds of raw sugar.
                 Response: FCIC has updated the plant count appraisal method in the
                procedures to be calculated in pounds of raw sugar per acre.
                 Comment: Commenter recommends the following edits be made to 13(d),
                to clarify and reference defined terms.
                 ``Harvested production or unharvested production that is appraised
                after the earliest delivery date that the processor accepts harvested
                production and that meets the minimum acceptable standards contained in
                the processor contract or corporate resolution will be converted to
                pounds of raw sugar by multiplying the tons of such production by 2,000
                and by the average percentage of raw sugar to determine the production
                to count. The average percentage of raw sugar will be determined from
                tests performed at the time of crop delivery or sample acquisition
                (appraisal).
                 (1) If individual tests of raw sugar content are not made at the
                time of delivery, the average percentage of raw sugar may be based on
                the results of previous tests performed by the processor during the
                crop year if it is determined that such results are representative of
                the total production.
                 (2) If not representative, the average percentage of raw sugar will
                equal the raw sugar content percent shown in the actuarial documents.''
                 Following the recommendation to recognize other institutions that
                may determine the `percentage of raw sugar', stating who performs the
                analytic tests is not necessary within this section since they are
                identified within the revised/recommended definition. `Unharvested'
                production as determined by an appraisal would not constitute crop
                delivery; thus clarification is added to specify the time frame
                associated with percentage of raw sugar determinations for samples
                obtained from field appraisals. This also keeps consistent usage of the
                term `percentage of raw sugar'. Recommend referring to the `actuarial
                documents' rather than the `Special Provisions' for where the county
                average percentage of raw sugar can be found.
                 Response: FCIC revised to further clarify that the average
                percentage of raw sugar will be determined from tests performed by the
                processor or other laboratories approved by us (the AIP) at the time of
                crop delivery or sample acquisition (appraisal).
                 FCIC further clarified that if individual tests of raw sugar
                content are not made at the time of delivery, the average percent of
                raw sugar may be based on the results of your (the insured's) previous
                tests.
                 Comment: The provision notes that the raw sugar percentage will be
                included to the extent that a raw sugar test may not be performed or
                deemed unacceptable. Commenter would like to have the latter scenario
                more clearly clarified under the rules as well. It's not readily
                apparent to the commenter under what circumstances it would be ``deemed
                unacceptable'' nor is it clear the extent to which such a distinction
                could harm the commenter's production calculations in a given year.
                Please clarify what you mean.
                 Response: FCIC thanks the commenter and appreciates their input.
                FCIC will not further define ``deemed unacceptable'' as this is not
                currently in the crop provisions.
                 Comment: Commenter stated regarding section 13(d)(2), and in
                particular the phrase ``. . . the raw sugar content percent shown in
                the Special Provisions'', it will be imperative for RMA to review and
                update this parameter (as currently contained within the actuarial
                documents) for each and all sugar beet county programs. For some
                states, e.g., Idaho, Oregon, Washington (Pacific Northwest), Montana,
                North Dakota and Wyoming, their 2018 percent sugar values are
                established on a regional basis. A region-wide percent sugar better
                aligns each policyholder's determined standard tons with a single
                nation-wide price election. In contrast, other states, e.g., Minnesota,
                have variable county percent sugar values, which appear out of sync
                with their recent base period average. As the primary function of the
                `county average percent sugar' has changed from being a key component
                in adjusting to standard tons, to instead as a default value of `last
                resort', it is important for each county's percentage of raw sugar
                value to be current and reflective of the actual county instead of the
                region or district.
                 Response: FCIC reviews the county average percentage sugar at
                regional level with data based on RMA history, sugar percentage data
                from the sugar beet processor, and NASS data. Regional Offices also
                consider APH and loss implications in order to ensure this percentage
                is actuarially sound. Additionally, FCIC only will use this percentage
                in total loss determinations.
                 Comment: A commenter stated that in regard to section 13(d)(1) and
                13(e)(1): Both state based on previous tests performed by the processor
                during the crop year. The commenter questions if that is based on all
                beets delivered to processor from all producers (in the county or
                otherwise) or just from the producer in question. Although this
                language was in the previous provisions it still seems unclear what
                basis is to be used to ascertain the percent of raw sugar that should
                be used in these situations.
                 Another commenter stated in regard to 13(d)(1) & (e)(1): These both
                include the statement ``. . . based on the results of previous tests
                performed by the processor during the crop year . . .'' It is unclear
                if that is based on all beets delivered to processor from all producers
                (in the county or otherwise) or just from the producer in question.
                Although this language was in the previous crop provisions, it still
                seems unclear what basis is to be used to
                [[Page 65632]]
                ascertain the percent of raw sugar that should be used in these
                situations.
                 Response: FCIC is revising the Crop Provisions to specify that the
                previous tests are based on the previous tests from the insured
                producer.
                 Comment: Commenter stated in regard to section 13, adding an early
                harvest adjustment, it appears to apply a penalty to the farmer when
                they are required by the processor to harvest a portion of a crop
                early, especially when damage has occurred from an insurable event.
                There is not clear enough guidance to insurance providers to have even
                application of these provisions, too much left to the discretion of the
                insurers could weaken coverage and participation.
                 Another commenter stated that section 13 is adding an early harvest
                adjustment. This change seems to apply a penalty to the commenters'
                growers when the growers are required by the processor to harvest some
                beets early, especially when there is damage from an insurable loss. An
                argument can easily be made that this provision will provide less clear
                guidance to insurance providers rather than clearer guidance resulting
                in uneven application of the provisions. It seems this is a blatant
                attempt to limit the loss payments to growers.
                 Another commenter stated in reference to 13(f)(3): It is unclear if
                the early harvest adjusted production should be limited to APH. If the
                producer is having a good year, he/she will not be happy with that. If
                part of the unit is early harvested, the early harvested acres could be
                capped at the APH of the remaining harvested acres. If all of the unit
                is early harvested, the sugar content from previous tests performed by
                the processor could be used. This may not include lost tonnage,
                however. Maybe capping at APH is ok.
                 Another commenter stated that while ``early harvest factor'' allows
                producers to add a one-percent-per-day adjustment to their ``production
                to count'' for crops harvested prior to ``full maturity,'' it cannot
                result in an annual ``production to count'' in excess of the insured
                crop's current APH. The commenter suggests that this APH cap be removed
                or adjusted.
                 The commenter's principal concern is that an APH cap fails to
                account for the fact that sugar beet yields, measured both in tonnage
                and sugar content, have been rising sharply in recent years due to
                adoption of new technologies, principally new bioengineered seeds and
                seed treatments. As a result, sugar beet APHs, which generally reflect
                a ten-year average of yields, often lag well behind current crop
                potentials. For instance, according to USDA's National Agricultural
                Statistical Service (NASS), over the past dozen years, sugar beet
                yields have grown (a) from a national average 25.5 to 32.8 tons per
                acre of beets and (b) from 3.79 to 4.87 tons per acre of actual sugar,
                increases of over 28 percent overall and of over 2.3 percent per year.
                In some regions, the growth has been even sharper.
                 National Growth in Sugar Beet Yields
                ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Yield per harvested Sugar per harvested
                 Crop year acre/tons acre/tons
                ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 2007/2008 25.5 3.79
                 2008/2009 26.8 4.15
                 2009/2010 25.9 3.98
                 2010/2011 27.7 4.03
                 2011/2012 23.8 4.04
                 2012/2013 29.3 4.22
                 2013/2014 28.4 4.15
                 2014/2015 27.3 4.27
                 2015/2016 30.9 4.47
                 2016/2017 32.8 4.53
                 2017/2018 31.7 4.71
                 2018/2019 32.8 4.87
                ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Source: NASS, data as of 9/17/2018.
                 This lag in APHs behind production trends has been recognized by
                FCIC though its approval of the privately-developed Trend-Adjusted APH
                Yield program for a number of crops.
                 Capping the impact of an early harvest adjustment at a farmer's
                current APH thus creates an unintended penalty. It creates a ceiling
                below a crop's actual potential, and it hinders the ability of a
                farmers yield history to catch up with rising yield trendlines. In
                regions where early-harvest has occurred over the years without the
                benefit of an early-harvest factor, this lag of APHs behind current
                trendlines is especially pronounced. Given that the one-percent-per-day
                formula itself is based on sound underwriting data reflecting real-
                world experience, the commenter suggests either eliminating the APH cap
                entirely as unneeded or adjusting it to a more reasonable level of 125
                percent of APH.
                 Another commenter stated that Insurance Providers have concerns
                about capping the production after the early harvest adjustment is
                applied to the APH. Capping the production would not allow the insured
                to capture the true production potential of the crop given the new seed
                technology that has become available. Some APH databases still have
                conventional seed use included when now Roundup Ready seed is the
                primary use.
                 Response: The rule added an early harvest adjustment in response to
                sugar beet processors requesting a portion of contracted acres be
                harvested early. Early harvested beets are often lower in weight and
                sugar content, resulting in what could appear to be a production loss
                that would lower the producer's future Actual Production History (APH).
                A solution was requested to prevent an early harvest from reducing a
                producer's future guarantee. The rule added an early harvest
                adjustment, which increases the producer's yield(s) on their early
                harvested acreage for that year's harvest, preventing a decline in the
                producer's future insurable yield due to early harvest. However, the
                early harvest adjustment was limited to not exceed the unit's approved
                APH. Additionally, FCIC had developed and released procedures detailing
                guidance for applying the early harvest adjustment including the
                Frequently Asked Questions at https://www.rma.usda.gov/News-Room/Frequently-Asked-Questions/Sugar-Beet and the Sugar Beet Loss
                Adjustment Handbook at https://www.rma.usda.gov/-/media/RMAweb/Handbooks/Loss-Adjustment-Standards-25000/Sugar-Beet/2019-25450-1H-Sugar-Beet-Loss-Adjustment-Standards.ashx.
                 After further analysis, FCIC determined that due to upward trending
                yields, the maximum adjustment could be overly punitive. Therefore,
                FCIC is revising the limit for the early harvest adjustment to not
                result in a yield greater than the higher of the producer's approved
                APH yield or the actual yield of the sugar beets harvested after full
                maturity from the unit. This change will better reflect the unit's
                production capabilities, especially in instances of a bumper crop
                because it uses the actual yield from the unit if that yield is higher
                than the approved APH yield.
                 Comment: A commenter stated that in reference to 13(f)(3): This
                provision indicates that the early dig adjustment cannot result in
                production to count in excess of the insured's actual production
                history. Should ``actual production history'' be replaced by ``approved
                yield'' as this is the defined term found in the CCIP Basic Provisions
                as well as the basis for establishing coverage under this policy? Also,
                what happens if you have a scenario where this occurs? Do you not use
                the early dig adjustment at all or do you limit the production to count
                to the approved yield? The commenter would recommend that this
                provision be further clarified so that there is no misunderstanding for
                how this should be handled when this situation occurs.
                 Response: FCIC is revising the limit for the early harvest
                adjustment to not result in a yield greater than the higher of the
                producer's approved APH yield or
                [[Page 65633]]
                the actual yield of the sugar beets harvested after full maturity from
                the unit. This change will better reflect the unit's production
                capabilities, especially in instances of a bumper crop because it uses
                the actual yield from the unit if that yield is higher than the
                approved APH yield. Regarding the scenario the commenter outlined, the
                adjustment will still be made, but it will be limited to the higher of
                the approved actual production history yield or the actual yield of the
                sugar beets harvest after full maturity from the unit.
                 Comment: Is this `capping' clause referring to the insured's actual
                yield of ``full maturity'' beets for the current crop year or the
                highest value within the insured's APH database history?
                 Response: The ``capping clause'' refers to the insured's approved
                actual production history yield, but after further analysis, FCIC
                determined that due to upward trending yields, the maximum adjustment
                could be overly punitive. Therefore, FCIC is revising the limit for the
                early harvest adjustment to not result in a yield greater than the
                higher of the producer's approved APH yield or the actual yield of the
                sugar beets harvested after full maturity from the unit. This change
                will better reflect the unit's production capabilities, especially in
                instances of a bumper crop because it uses the actual yield from the
                unit if that yield is higher than the approved APH yield.
                 Comment: The commenter stated on 13(f) that the Risk Management
                Agency (RMA) has proposed adding an early dig factor to increase the
                production to count for both claims and APH purposes once a certain
                threshold has been reached as indicated in the actuarial documents. The
                commenter does agree that this type of production adjustment is needed
                for sugar beets when the crop is harvested early. It would be
                beneficial for everyone reviewing these provisions to know what these
                thresholds are as a part of this published rule so that the commenter
                would be able to review and comment on the proposed threshold as a part
                of these comments.
                 Another commenter stated in regard to 13(f), RMA has proposed
                adding an early dig factor to increase the production to count for both
                claims and APH purposes once a certain threshold has been reached as
                indicated in the actuarial documents. Commenter agrees that this type
                of production adjustment is needed for sugar beets when the crop is
                harvested early. It would be beneficial for everyone reviewing these
                provisions to know what these thresholds are as a part of this
                published rule so that we would be able to review and comment on the
                proposed threshold as a part of these comments. It would also be
                helpful to know what the proposed calendar dates for the end of the
                insurance period for the different states are in order to be able to
                adequately comment on the full maturity date derived using the 45-day
                period used for the early dig factor.
                 Response: FCIC thanks the commenter and appreciates their input.
                The threshold and calendar dates for the end of insurance period have
                been made publicly available in the actuarial documents. FCIC does not
                produce actuarial documents as part of the rule making process and
                therefore did not provide the threshold or calendar dates for the end
                of insurance period in the rule. These requests have been forwarded to
                the regional offices for review and further consideration. Other local
                or county-based concerns can be addressed to the RMA regional office.
                Any interested person may find contact information for the applicable
                regional office on RMA's website at https://www.rma.usda.gov/RMALocal/Field-Offices/Regional-Offices.
                 Comment: The commenter stated as framed in the new Crop Insurance
                Provisions, the ``early harvest factor'' adjustment will apply only if
                the percentage of insured acreage harvested before full maturity
                exceeds a threshold level specified in the FCICs annual actuarial
                documents. The concern behind this provision, as the commenter
                understands it, is that applying the factor to very small fractions of
                a field could complicate its implementation, raising costs. The
                commenter appreciates RMA's decision to place the actual threshold
                level in its actuarial documents--rather than freezing it in policy
                terms--since this will make it easier to adjust in the future as
                experience is gained over time.
                 If a threshold is to be imposed, however, the commenter believes it
                must be set initially at a level that reflects farm-level realities.
                The commenter discussed this issue with members from various regions of
                the country and found that early harvest practices vary widely. For
                instance, some processors that require early harvest deliveries will
                spread the burden among large numbers of members to minimize the impact
                on each one. This could result in early harvests quotas of, say, 10
                percent or so on each farm. In other situations, growers will be
                encouraged to harvest ``openings'' or small portions of fields during
                the early harvest. In other cases, early harvest can include entire
                fields or larger portions. In addition, the commenter understands that
                much of this data burden for implementing the new process will rest on
                sugar beet processing companies who record deliveries on a regular
                basis, and that crop insurance industry professionals, including agents
                and AIP staff, generally have access to automated systems to facilitate
                reporting.
                 Given these factors, particularly the wide range of farming
                practices, the commenter urges RMA initially to set the threshold at a
                relatively low level, 5 percent. This would allow RMA, AIPs,
                processors, and producers to gain experience on how the early harvest
                adjustment operates in a wide range of conditions. The commenter also
                urges RMA to review its experience after the first two years to see if
                any adjustment in the threshold is justified.
                 Another commenter stated in regard to 13(f), commenter agrees with
                the changes allowed when harvesting prior to full maturity. However,
                due to the workload involved when a small acreage is involved or a
                small fraction of a unit, consider establishing the percentage of the
                unit entered in the Special Provisions to be more than 25% and maybe up
                to 50% of unit acreage before this increase factor would be allowed.
                 Since most of the time the early harvested acreage is minimal with
                only end rows or point rows harvested early, the overall impact to the
                production to count is minimal in relation to the whole unit (and to
                the extra work involved to adjust each load by each date). However,
                when the acreage exceeds 25% of the unit it starts to become relevant,
                and as the acreage approaches 50% it can become very significant.
                Perhaps 33% of a unit's acreage would be a good place to begin
                increasing production. If so, suggest that if more than one-third of
                the unit's acreage is harvested prior to full maturity, then the
                production from those acres could be increased; if less than one-third
                was harvested early, no adjustment would be allowed.
                 Another commenter stated in regard to 13(f), going with a
                percentage of acreage before applying an early harvest adjustment might
                be a good idea in theory, but when a notice of claim is submitted in
                the middle or after harvest, there really is no way to determine the
                acres harvested early, other than taking the farmer's word for it.
                Early harvest tickets will reflect the tons per truckload and the date,
                but there is no way to ascertain early harvested acreage.
                 Another commenter stated that clarification is needed on how to
                track the early harvested acres. The current settlement and summary
                sheets available do not show the individual loads with the delivery
                dates. The actual
                [[Page 65634]]
                weight tickets would have to be requested. These receipts are prone to
                fading, are misplaced during harvest, and can be difficult to read.
                Additional time may be needed by the processors to allow them to
                include the additional information needed to the settlement and summary
                sheets.
                 Another commenter stated regarding the reference in (f) to ``. . .
                exceeds the threshold specified in the actuarial documents . . .'' and
                the language in (f)(1) & (3): What is the tentative/proposed threshold
                amount which is to be specified in the actuarial documents? Is it to be
                a percentage of the unit's total planted acreage, or a percentage of
                the unit's total insured acreage, i.e., planted and prevented planted?
                And what will the percentage be: 5%, 10%, or something else?
                 Another commenter stated that in reference to section 13(f) that
                the commenter agrees with the changes allowed when harvesting prior to
                full maturity. However due to the workload involved (agents, insured's,
                AIP's) when dealing with small acreages or small fractions of a unit,
                the commenter would like to see the percentage of the unit entered in
                the Special Provisions to be more than 25% and maybe up to 50% of unit
                acreage before this increase factor would be implemented. Since most of
                the time the early harvested acreage is minimal with only end rows or
                point rows harvested early, the overall impact to the production to
                count is minimal in relation to the whole unit (and to the extra work
                involved to adjust each load by each date). However, when the acreage
                exceeds 25% of the unit, it starts to become relevant. As the acreage
                approaches 50% it can become very significant. Perhaps 33% (one third)
                of a unit's acreage would be a good place to begin increasing
                production. So, a suggestion the commenter has is, if more than one
                third of the unit acreage is harvested prior to full maturity, then
                production from those acres could be increased using the factor
                provided. If less than \1/3\ of a unit's acreage was harvested early,
                no adjustment would be allowed.
                 Response: FCIC thanks the commenters and appreciates their input.
                The threshold was initially set low (at 10 percent), as suggested by
                one of the commenters. FCIC will continually monitor this threshold and
                update as needed. Additionally, the amount of production harvested
                early will be determined from processor production records obtained by
                the insured. It is the insureds' responsibility to provide acceptable
                production records to the AIP.
                 Comment: The commenter stated in 13(f)(1): That the commenter
                predicated on what the commenter believes the calendar date for the end
                of insurance period will be based on prior years. The commenter does
                not believe that 45 days prior to the end of the insurance period for
                the date of full maturity is accurate for all areas where sugar beets
                are grown. The commenter suggests that 30 days prior to the end of the
                insurance period would be more appropriate in Colorado, Nebraska and
                Wyoming. Using 45 days in these states would result in a September 16
                full maturity date. The beets will continue to mature past this date
                and sugar content increases dramatically after a hard freeze. The
                average frost date for western Nebraska is September 20 and probably a
                few days later in Colorado. Using 30 days prior to the end of the
                insurance period date would be October 1. Early harvest started on
                September 5 this year. An 11% production adjustment (1% per day from
                harvest beginning to September 16) would not make this production whole
                by the full maturity date. This could also be an issue for Idaho as the
                local sugar beet company in this region requires some growers to start
                digging early to help get the factories up and running, which usually
                begins after September 1. Most growers finish harvest by October 31st
                and there is a penalty by the local sugar beet company if they harvest
                beets after November 5th. The commenter would recommend that RMA
                further review the full maturity dates for each state and consider
                increasing the production by 2% per day (rather than 1% per day) if the
                producer digs early, which would be similar to the factor used in the
                potato policy.
                 Another commenter stated that regarding the interaction between
                section 9 calendar date of the end of insurance (EOI) and the early
                harvest dates derived according to 13(f)(1), please refer to the
                attached Excel file for detailed information. The `NASS harvest dates'
                tab tallies the beginning, most active, and ending harvest dates for
                each state, and are representative of the 2009-time period. The `4
                state progress' tab tallies the NASS weekly harvest progress reports
                from the four major sugar beet states, representing each state's
                average percent harvested during crop years 2012 through 2016; these
                dates and percentages corroborate the harvest dates for the 2009-time
                period remain applicable to current years' activities.
                 If the November 15 calendar EOI date is to remain unchanged (for
                2019) then the 45-day default works quite well in capturing the `early
                harvest' phase for the states of Minnesota and North Dakota. However,
                for the other states (not withstanding California) the 45-day default
                significantly misses `early harvest' activities in states like Idaho
                and Michigan. 
                 If the calendar EOI dates are re-established for 2019, and if
                October 31 is used for Minnesota and North Dakota, then a 35-day time
                window may be more appropriate for these two states. If a November 10
                EOI were established for Idaho, Michigan and Colorado, then a 35-day
                window would seem to function reasonably as well.
                 Additional challenges are foreseen for the states of Oregon,
                Montana, Nebraska, and Wyoming. Their `Beginning to Active Beginning'
                harvest phases are relatively short in duration and could represent
                minimal if any harvest before full maturity based on the county's
                location or district differences (e.g., Wyoming's Big Horn Basin versus
                its Southeast region).
                 Without knowing what EOI dates are changing for 2019, and which
                counties will have variance to the 45-day default, it is essentially
                impossible to properly evaluate these interacting policy components.
                 Another commenter stated there also are concerns about how to
                determine the early dig factor. The policy changes do not address the
                definition or date for early harvest. The definition and date could be
                different based on location. This may have to be addressed in the
                county special provisions. Early harvest is mandatory per the processor
                contract and not voluntary. The insured can choose which acres to
                harvest during early dig.
                 Another commenter stated that depending on what the calendar date
                for the end of insurance period will be, commenter questions if 45 days
                prior to the end of the insurance period for the date of full maturity
                is accurate for all areas where sugar beets are grown. Commenter would
                recommend that RMA further review the full maturity dates for each
                state and consider increasing the production by 2% per day (rather than
                1% per day) if the producer digs early, which would be similar to the
                factor used in the potato policy.
                 As an example, in Colorado, Nebraska, and Wyoming, with an EOI of
                11/15, the language in section 13(f) might be ok. That is 1% per day
                starting with 10/1. That means a producer would get 25% for beets
                harvested on September 5, the beginning of early harvest. Also,
                subsection 13(f)(1) allows for a number of days prior to EOI other
                [[Page 65635]]
                than 45. It states ``unless otherwise specified in the SP.''
                 Another commenter stated, as this whole subsection is new procedure
                for the crop, what are the proposed variances that will be noted in the
                Special Provisions? Which states and counties? Can the number of days
                be less than or greater than the default of 45 days?
                 Another commenter stated regarding the slated change to remove the
                calendar date for the EOI period from section 9 and display that
                information solely within the actuarial documents (AIB Date Table),
                this has significant impacts particularly with respect to the new
                element within section 13(f), i.e., early harvest production
                adjustments. Are there to be revisions to the EOI date for select
                regions? Notwithstanding California's Imperial County, essentially all
                remaining states or regions with active sugar beet processing
                facilities have a November 15th date as their EOI date. Comparing this
                November 15 date with the most current NASS `Usual Planting and
                Harvesting dates' for sugar beets [October 2010] suggests significant
                adjustments are warranted for the calendar EOI dates. Example:
                Minnesota and North Dakota typically conclude harvest during the last
                week of October; this constitutes approximately three weeks of extended
                coverage after harvest is routinely complete.
                 The final rule notes the administrative advantages to establishing
                and displaying the calendar EOI date within the actuarial documents,
                but without being informed of what date changes are to be made for 2019
                it is impossible for policyholders and insurance providers to evaluate
                the impact on potential early harvest adjustments.
                 Response: The Crop Provisions as written in section 13(f)(1) states
                that the Special Provisions can specify exceptions for the 45 days
                prior to the calendar date for the end of insurance provision. These
                requests have been forwarded to the regional offices for review and
                further consideration. Other local or county-based concerns can be
                addressed to the RMA regional office. Any interested person may find
                contact information for the applicable regional office on RMA's website
                at https://www.rma.usda.gov/RMALocal/Field-Offices/Regional-Offices.
                 Additionally, FCIC set the increasing production rate to 1% per day
                by gathering data from multiples stakeholders and continues to collect
                more data from implementation of the Crop Provisions.
                 Comment: The commenter appreciates RMA's intent that the early
                harvest adjustment not apply where a grower experiences actual damage
                resulting in a claim from rain, flood, drought, freeze, or some other
                covered hazard. Hence, the provision specifies that ``an adjustment
                will not be made if the sugar beets are damaged by an insurance cause
                of loss and leaving the crop in the field would reduce production.''
                The inclusion of that final clause--``leaving the crop in the field
                would reduce production''--raises a question, however, whether the
                factor might inadvertently limit or annul a producer's legitimate
                insurance claim in some cases.
                 For instance, one serious problem faced by sugar beet producers is
                root rot, a condition caused by excess moisture. Root rot not only
                damages beets in the field, but also continues to damage surrounding
                beets after they are delivered to a processor. As a result, these beets
                cannot be effectively stored for extended periods, and processors often
                ask that they be delivered early to avoid later problems. Nevertheless,
                if left in the field, beets affected by root rot do not necessarily
                continue to deteriorate and may bounce back to some extent.
                 If a field is affected by root rot early in the growing season,
                reducing yields below the crop's insurance guarantee, and the crop is
                subsequently delivered early because of a requirement of the processor,
                it appears the early harvest adjustment could reduce the size of a
                farmers claim, or potentially raise ``production to count'' above the
                deductible. Similarly, the existence of the factor could act as a
                disincentive for growers to deliver the affected beets early, creating
                damage during storage. Clarification of the provision is needed to
                avoid such unintended results.
                 Response: FCIC will not further specify the causes of loss in the
                crop provisions as specifying the causes of loss could have unintended
                consequences since impacts could differ by region and event. Loss
                adjusters will determine, on a case-by-case basis, the insurable cause
                of loss and if the early harvest adjustment is to be applied. FCIC is
                aware that there may be some disagreements between AIPs and the insured
                or inconsistencies between AIPs. Controversial claims procedure is
                already in place if an insured does not agree with the AIP's final loss
                adjustment determination. This procedure allows the claim to be
                referred from the loss adjuster to the AIP in order to resolve the
                claim, when the insured disagrees with the loss adjuster. Additionally,
                the Common Crop Insurance Policy, Basic Provisions provides a process
                for insureds and AIPs to settle disputes, including disputes with loss
                adjustment determinations, such as mediation and arbitration.
                 Additionally, depending on situations that develop around harvest
                time, bulletins may be issued to address specific situations that
                arise. FCIC will continue to monitor the performance of this provision
                and can address additional program changes that may be needed in future
                crop provision and procedural revisions.
                 Comment: Commenter stated in reference to 13(f)(3): Change the
                semicolon at the end to a period.
                 Response: FCIC changed the semicolon at the end of the section to a
                period.
                 Comment: Commenter stated about 13(e): Much more has changed in
                this section than just the correction to show raw sugar instead of
                standardized tons.
                 This paragraph is for production that did not meet the
                specifications in the contract and was damaged by an insured cause of
                loss. The production will be based on the tons delivered times the
                average sugar. Any damage should result in lower tons and/or sugar.
                Since the production did not meet the terms of the contract, presumably
                the processor will not accept it. Therefore, there should be a way to
                put a salvage value on it. (The LMP definition has been removed.)
                 If the production is damaged by an uninsured cause of loss, then it
                is presumed that an appraisal for uninsured causes would be done for
                unharvested production and a determination would be made for harvested
                production. See section 13(c)(1)(ii).
                 The instructions for appraising sugar beets for replant
                qualifications (Exhibit 7 in the LASH) appear to be adequate. Nothing
                should change here except APH will now be expressed in pounds of raw
                sugar instead of tons. The calculation was APH/Plant population (for 1/
                100 of an acre). The appraisal then multiplied this by the remaining
                population and compared it to 90% of the APH x coverage level. (One
                could actually take APH out of this equation and it would still be
                valid.)
                 Another commenter stated in regards to 13(e)(1): The way this
                currently reads, if due to an insurable cause of loss the beets will
                not meet the minimum acceptable standards in the processor contract,
                then the AIP would count ALL of the production (``by multiplying the
                tons of such damaged beets by 2000 and by the average percent of raw
                sugar . . .''). That does not seem to be fair to an insured. If the
                beets are damaged to the point that the processor will not accept them
                and the beets are destroyed,
                [[Page 65636]]
                then there should be no production to count. Additionally, the wording
                in the previous sugar beet policy contained what might be called a
                ``salvage value'' in that, if such damaged beets could not meet the
                terms of the processor contract, but did have some value, then that
                value should be used by converting it back to production to count.
                 Recommend retaining this ``salvage value'' language, although
                reworded slightly to accommodate the change from standardized tons to
                pounds of raw sugar. Also revise the language to reflect zero
                production to count in situations where it does not meet the standards
                and is destroyed.
                 Additionally, the 2018 Sugar Beet Loss Adjustment Standards
                Handbook has several examples of these types of situations and those
                examples should also be retained (with changes to pounds of raw sugar).
                 Another commenter believes the language needs to be adjusted to
                reflect zero production to count in situations where it does not meet
                the standards and is destroyed. Additionally, the 2018 Sugar Beet Loss
                Adjustment Standards Handbook has several examples of these types of
                situations and those examples should also be retained (with changes to
                pounds of raw sugar).
                 Another commenter stated that in regard to section 13(e): Much more
                has changed in this section than just the correction to show raw sugar
                instead of standardized tons, as summarized in the regulations. The way
                this currently reads, if due to an insurable cause of loss the beets
                will not meet the minimum acceptable standards in the processor
                contract then the insurance provider would still count ALL of them (by
                multiplying the tons of such damaged beets by 2000 and by the average
                percent of raw sugar). That does not seem to be fair to an insured. If
                the beets are damaged so that the processor will not accept and the
                beets are destroyed, then there should be no production to count.
                 Another commenter stated that the wording in the previous sugar
                beet policy contained what the commenter might call a salvage value in
                that, if such damaged beets could not meet the terms of the processor
                contract but did have some value--then that value should be used by
                converting it back to production to count. The commenter believes this
                salvage value language should remain although reworded slightly to
                accommodate the change from standardized tons to pounds of raw sugar.
                 Response: Section 13(e) is to address sugar beets that are damaged
                but are still accepted by the processor. FCIC agrees that the salvage
                value language should be maintained in the crop provisions and is
                adding language back into the provisions as outlined in 13(g) to
                provide that if harvested production is damaged due to an insurable
                cause of loss and is rejected by the processor, but is sold to a
                salvage buyer at a reduced price: Compute the pounds of raw sugar of
                the sold production by dividing the gross dollar amount paid by the
                salvage buyer by the established price.
                 FCIC is also adding the following language in section 13(h) to
                address the zero production to count scenarios, providing that if
                production is damaged due to an insurable cause of loss to the extent
                that the processor will not accept the production, such as the
                production did not meet the standards contained in the production
                agreement; and there are no salvage markets for the production, then
                there would be no value for production and there would be no production
                to count provided the production is destroyed in a manner acceptable to
                us.
                 Additionally, salvage value and zero production to count language
                has been maintained in the Sugar Beet Loss Adjustment Standards
                Handbook to address both situations at https://www.rma.usda.gov/-/
                media/RMAweb/Handbooks/Loss-Adjustment-Standards_-25000/Sugar-Beet/
                2019-25450-1H-Sugar-Beet-Loss-Adjustment-Standards.ashx.
                 Comment: The commenter supports the addition of a new ``early
                harvest factor'' adjustment to the Sugar Beet Crop Insurance
                Provisions. Sugar beets differ from other major crops in that they are
                grown almost exclusively under contract to regionally-based grower-
                owned processing companies. Producers deliver their harvested beets to
                the processor, which then refines them into pure sugar. The timing of
                each farmer's delivery of their raw beets to the processing factory is
                critical to its efficient operation. As a result, producers are often
                required to harvest and deliver portions of a crop prior to its full
                maturity, before the crop's tonnage and sugar content have reached
                normal peak levels. The result can be an unintended penalty, through no
                fault of the individual farmer, against the annual yield (called
                ``production to count'') that the farmer can count toward his or her
                historical APH, the basis for determining future coverage.
                 The ``early harvest factor'' adjustment addresses this problem by
                allowing a producer, if required to harvest early, to adjust the
                ``production to count'' for that portion of the crop for purposes of
                calculating their future APH. The adjustment is equal to 1 percent per
                day for each day prior to full maturity, and ``full maturity'' is
                defined as 45 days before the end of the insurance period. The size of
                the adjustment is based on an extensive set of data assembled by
                outside counsel for ASGA from each of the grower owned processing
                companies, showing the precise amount by which tonnage and sugar
                content vary during the early-harvest period.
                 The commenter believes this new process will benefit many sugar
                beet producers while protecting the underwriting soundness of the FCIC
                program. That said, the commenter wishes to comment on three
                operational points that could have a significant effect on its
                performance.
                 Response: FCIC thanks the commenter and appreciates their input.
                 Comment: The changes being implemented by the 2019 Sugar Beet Crop
                Provisions rewrite have several significant elements that are not fully
                disclosed in the final rule as many are now to be solely contained in
                the actuarial documents (of which no drafts are provided), e.g.,
                calendar date for EOI, variances to the Early Harvest default date,
                updated percentages of raw sugar, etc. Without knowing what changes
                will be made it is impossible to adequately review and comment. For the
                reasons outlined above, it is recommended that this CFR rule change be
                delayed until the 2020 crop year and tentative actuarial document
                references are available for review.
                 Postponing the proposed changes until the 2020 crop year would
                allow time for:
                 The Special Provisions, CIH, and LASH to be updated;
                 The AIPs to receive the clarification needed to convert
                the APH from standardized tons to pounds of raw sugar; and
                 The sugar beet processors to update the software to
                capture any additional information that may be needed for claims to be
                processed when the early dig factor needs to be applied.
                 Response: FCIC thanks the commenter and appreciates their input.
                 Comment: Commenter is frustrated that the commenter is unable to
                see any comments on this at all. If insurance regulators or sugar beet
                farmers are supposed to take an active role in the rule-making process,
                comments should be made public. This may be one of many rules being
                promulgated, but there is no reason to treat this any differently than
                another rule. You should re-open the notice and comment section again
                and allow comments to be made public.
                 Response: FCIC is summarizing public comments received and
                addressing those comments in this final
                [[Page 65637]]
                rule and is opening the rule for further public comment.
                Effective Date and Notice and Comment
                 In general, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA, 5 U.S.C. 553)
                requires that a notice of proposed rulemaking be published in the
                Federal Register for interested persons to be given an opportunity to
                participate in the rulemaking through submission of written data,
                views, or arguments with or without opportunity for oral presentation
                and requires a 30-day delay in the effective date of rules, except when
                the rule involves a matter relating to public property, loans, grants,
                benefits, or contracts. This rule involves matters relating to
                contracts and therefore the requirements in section 553 do not apply.
                Although not required by APA, FCIC has chosen to request comments on
                this rule.
                 The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) designated this rule as
                not major under the Congressional Review Act, as defined by 5 U.S.C.
                804(2). Therefore, FCIC is not required to delay the effective date for
                60 days from the date of publication to allow for Congressional review.
                Accordingly, this rule is effective November 30, 2019.
                Executive Orders 12866, 13563, 13771 and 13777
                 Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review,'' and
                Executive Order 13563, ``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,''
                direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available
                regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select
                regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential
                economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive
                impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasized the importance
                of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of
                harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. Executive Order 13777,
                ``Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,'' established a federal
                policy to alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens on the American
                people.
                 The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) designated this rule as
                not significant under Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and
                Review,'' and therefore, OMB has not reviewed this rule.
                 Executive Order 13771, ``Reducing Regulation and Controlling
                Regulatory Costs,'' requires that in order to manage the private costs
                required to comply with Federal regulations that for every new
                significant or economically significant regulation issued, the new
                costs must be offset by the elimination of at least two prior
                regulations. As this rule is designated as not significant, it is not
                subject to Executive Order 13771.
                Regulatory Flexibility Act
                 The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), as amended by
                SBREFA, generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory analysis
                of any rule whenever an agency is required by APA or any other law to
                publish a proposed rule, unless the agency certifies that the rule will
                not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
                entities. This rule is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act
                because as noted above, this rule is exempt from APA and no other law
                requires that a proposed rule be published for this rulemaking
                initiative.
                Clarity of the Regulation
                 Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563,
                requires each agency to write all rules in plain language. In addition
                to your substantive comments on this rule, we invite your comments on
                how to make the rule easier to understand. For example:
                 Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated? Are the
                scope and intent of the rule clear?
                 Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that is
                not clear?
                 Is the material logically organized?
                 Would changing the grouping or order of sections or adding
                headings make the rule easier to understand?
                 Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or
                diagrams?
                 Would more, but shorter, sections be better? Are there
                specific sections that are too long or confusing?
                 What else could we do to make the rule easier to
                understand?
                Environmental Review
                 In general, the environmental impacts of rules are to be considered
                in a manner consistent with the provisions of the National
                Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347) and the
                regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR parts 1500-
                1508). FCIC conducts programs and activities that have been determined
                to have no individual or cumulative effect on the human environment. As
                specified in 7 CFR 1b.4, FCIC is categorically excluded from the
                preparation of an Environmental Analysis or Environmental Impact
                Statement unless the FCIC Manager (agency head) determines that an
                action may have a significant environmental effect. The FCIC Manager
                has determined this rule will not have a significant environmental
                effect. Therefore, FCIC will not prepare an environmental assessment or
                environmental impact statement for this action and this rule serves as
                documentation of the programmatic environmental compliance decision.
                Executive Order 12372
                 Executive Order 12372, ``Intergovernmental Review of Federal
                Programs,'' requires consultation with State and local officials that
                would be directly affected by proposed Federal financial assistance.
                The objectives of the Executive Order are to foster an
                intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened Federalism, by relying
                on State and local processes for State and local government
                coordination and review of proposed Federal financial assistance and
                direct Federal development. For reasons specified in the final rule
                related notice regarding 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V (48 FR 29115, June
                24, 1983), the programs and activities in this rule are excluded from
                the scope of Executive Order 12372.
                Executive Order 12988
                 This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, ``Civil
                Justice Reform.'' This rule will not preempt State or local laws,
                regulations, or policies unless they represent an irreconcilable
                conflict with this rule. Before any judicial actions may be brought
                regarding the provisions of this rule, the administrative appeal
                provisions of 7 CFR part 11 are to be exhausted.
                Executive Order 13132
                 This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 13132,
                ``Federalism.'' The policies contained in this rule do not have any
                substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the
                Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
                responsibilities among the various levels of government, except as
                required by law. Nor does this rule impose substantial direct
                compliance costs on State and local governments. Therefore,
                consultation with the States is not required.
                Executive Order 13175
                 This rule has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of
                Executive Order 13175, ``Consultation and Coordination with Indian
                Tribal Governments.'' Executive Order 13175 requires Federal agencies
                to consult and coordinate with Tribes on a government-to-government
                basis on policies that have Tribal implications,
                [[Page 65638]]
                including regulations, legislative comments or proposed legislation,
                and other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct
                effects on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the
                Federal Government and Indian Tribes or on the distribution of power
                and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.
                 FCIC has assessed the impact of this rule on Indian Tribes and
                determined that this rule does not, to our knowledge, have Tribal
                implications that require Tribal consultation under E.O. 13175. The
                regulation changes do not have Tribal implications that preempt Tribal
                law and are not expected have a substantial direct effect on one or
                more Indian Tribes. If a Tribe requests consultation, FCIC will work
                with the USDA Office of Tribal Relations to ensure meaningful
                consultation is provided where changes, additions and modifications
                identified in this rule are not expressly mandated by Congress.
                Unfunded Mandates
                 Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA, Pub. L.
                104-4) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their
                regulatory actions of State, local, and Tribal governments or the
                private sector. Agencies generally must prepare a written statement,
                including cost benefits analysis, for proposed and final rules with
                Federal mandates that may result in expenditures of $100 million or
                more in any 1 year for State, local or Tribal governments, in the
                aggregate, or to the private sector. UMRA generally requires agencies
                to consider alternatives and adopt the more cost effective or least
                burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. This
                rule contains no Federal mandates, as defined in Title II of UMRA, for
                State, local, and Tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore,
                this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of
                UMRA.
                Federal Assistance Program
                 The title and number of the Federal Domestic Assistance Program
                listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance to which this rule
                applies is No. 10.450--Crop Insurance.
                Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
                 In accordance with the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of
                1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35, subchapter I), the rule does not change the
                information collection approved by OMB under control numbers 0563-0053.
                E-Government Act Compliance
                 FCIC is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, 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.
                List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 457
                 Acreage allotments, Crop insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping
                requirements.
                Final Rule
                 For the reasons discussed above, FCIC amends 7 CFR part 457,
                effective for the 2020 and succeeding crop years in states with a
                November 30 contract change date and for the 2021 and succeeding crop
                years in all other states, as follows:
                PART 457--COMMON CROP INSURANCE REGULATIONS
                0
                1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 457 continues to read as
                follows:
                 Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1506(l) and 1506(o).
                0
                2. Amend Sec. 457.109 as follows:
                0
                a. In section 1:
                0
                 i. Remove the definition of ``Initially planted'';
                0
                 ii. Add definitions for ``Percentage of raw sugar'' and ``Pound'' in
                alphabetical order;
                0
                 iii. Revise definition of ``Practical to replant'';
                0
                 iv. Remove the definition of ``Processor contract''; and
                0
                v. Add definitions for ``Production agreement'' and ``Ton'' in
                alphabetical order;
                0
                b. Revise sections 2 and 3;
                0
                c. Add section 6;
                0
                d. In section 7:
                0
                 i. Revise paragraphs (a)(3) and (b)(2); and
                0
                 ii. In paragraph (b)(4), add quotation marks around the term
                ``processor'';
                0
                e. Revise section 12; and
                0
                f. In section 13:
                0
                i. Revise paragraphs (d) introductory text, (d)(1), (e) introductory
                text, and (e)(1);
                0
                 ii. Revise paragraphs (f)(2) and (3); and
                0
                 iii. Add paragraphs (f)(4) and (5), (g), and (h).
                 The revisions and additions read as follows:
                Sec. 457.109 Sugar Beet Crop Insurance Provisions.
                * * * * *
                1. Definitions
                * * * * *
                 Percentage of raw sugar. Quantity of sugar determined from
                analytical tests of samples performed by the processor or other
                laboratories approved by us.
                * * * * *
                 Pound. Sixteen (16) ounces avoirdupois.
                 Practical to replant. In addition to the definition in section 1 of
                the Basic Provisions, it will not be considered practical to replant if
                production from the replanted acreage cannot be delivered under the
                terms of the production agreement, or 30 days after the initial
                planting date for all counties where a late planting period is not
                applicable, unless replanting is generally occurring in the area.
                * * * * *
                 Production agreement. A written contract between you and the
                processor, executed on or before the acreage reporting date, which is
                in effect for the crop year, containing at a minimum:
                 (1) Your commitment to plant, grow, and deliver the sugar beet
                production to the processor; and
                 (2) The processor's commitment to purchase the production stated in
                the contract.
                * * * * *
                 Ton. Two thousand (2,000) pounds avoirdupois.
                2. Unit Division
                 In addition to the requirements of section 34 of the Basic
                Provisions, basic units may be divided into optional units only if you
                have a production agreement that requires the processor to accept all
                production from a number of acres specified in the production
                agreement. Acreage insured to fulfill a production agreement which
                provides that the processor will accept a designated amount of
                production or a combination of acreage and production will not be
                eligible for optional units.
                3. Insurance Guarantees, Coverage Levels, and Prices for Determining
                Indemnities.
                 The production guarantee will be expressed in pounds of raw sugar.
                * * * * *
                6. Report of Acreage
                 In addition to the requirements of section 6 of the Basic
                Provisions, you must provide a copy of all production agreements to us
                on or before the acreage reporting date. Insured Crop
                 (a) * * *
                 (3) That are grown under a production agreement and are not
                excluded from the production agreement at any time during the crop
                year; and
                * * * * *
                 (b) * * *
                 (2) The Board of Directors or officers of the processor must have
                adopted and
                [[Page 65639]]
                executed a corporate resolution that contains essentially the same
                terms as a production agreement. Such corporate resolution will be
                considered a production agreement under the terms of the sugar beet
                crop insurance policy;
                * * * * *
                12. Duties in the Event of Damage or Loss
                 In accordance with the requirements of section 14 of the Basic
                Provisions, representative samples of the unharvested crop must be at
                least 10 feet wide and extend the entire length of each field in the
                unit. The samples must not be harvested or destroyed until the earlier
                of our inspection or 15 days after harvest of the balance of the unit
                is completed.
                13. Settlement of Claim
                * * * * *
                 (d) Harvested production or unharvested production that is
                appraised after the earliest delivery date that the processor accepts
                harvested production and that meets the minimum acceptable standards
                contained in the production agreement or corporate resolution will be
                converted to pounds of raw sugar by multiplying the tons of such
                production by 2,000 and by the average percentage of raw sugar to
                determine the production to count. The average percentage of raw sugar
                will be determined from tests performed by the processor or other
                laboratories approved by us at the time of delivery or sample
                acquisition (appraisal).
                 (1) If individual tests of raw sugar content are not made at the
                time of delivery, the average percent of raw sugar may be based on the
                results of your previous tests performed by the processor or other
                laboratories approved by us during the crop year if it is determined
                that such results are representative of the total production.
                * * * * *
                 (e) Harvested production or unharvested production that is
                appraised after the earliest delivery date that the processor accepts
                harvested production and that does not meet the minimum acceptable
                standards contained in the production agreement or corporate resolution
                due to an insured peril will be converted to pounds of raw sugar by
                multiplying the tons of such damaged production by 2,000 and by the
                average percent of raw sugar contained in such production. The average
                percentage of raw sugar will be determined from tests performed by the
                processor or other laboratories approved by us at the time of crop
                delivery or sample acquisition (appraisal).
                 (1) If individual tests of raw sugar content are not made at the
                time of delivery, the average percent of raw sugar may be based on the
                results of your previous tests performed by the processor or other
                laboratories approved by us during the crop year if it is determined
                that such results are representative of the total production.
                * * * * *
                 (f) * * *
                 (2) The adjustment will not be made if the sugar beets are damaged
                by an insurable cause of loss and leaving the crop in the field would
                reduce production.
                 (3) The adjustment cannot result in a yield greater than the higher
                of your approved actual production history yield or the actual yield of
                the production harvested after full maturity from the unit.
                 (4) The adjustment will only be made if early harvest is required
                in the production agreement, or the processor requests early harvest
                prior to full maturity.
                 (5) If the production agreement does not require early harvest and
                the processor has not requested early harvest, and the processor:
                 (i) Accepts the early harvested production, the early harvested
                production will be counted but no early harvest adjustment will apply.
                 (ii) Does not accept the early harvested production, the production
                to count will be the production guarantee for the acreage harvested
                early.
                 (g) If harvested production is damaged due to an insurable cause of
                loss and is rejected by the processor but is sold to a salvage buyer at
                a reduced price: Compute the pounds of raw sugar of the sold production
                by dividing the gross dollar amount paid by the salvage buyer by the
                established price.
                 (h) If production is damaged due to an insurable cause of loss to
                the extent that the processor will not accept the production, such as
                the production did not meet the standards contained in the production
                agreement; and there are no salvage markets for the production, then
                there would be no value for production and there would be no production
                to count provided the production is destroyed in a manner acceptable to
                us.
                * * * * *
                Martin R. Barbre,
                Manager, Federal Crop Insurance Corporation.
                [FR Doc. 2019-25844 Filed 11-27-19; 8:45 am]
                BILLING CODE 3410-08-P
                

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT