Common Crop Insurance Regulations; Dry Pea Crop Provisions, 51573-51585 [E8-20128]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
• Federal Crop Insurance Corporation

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 172 (Thursday, September 4, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51573-51585]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-20128]



========================================================================
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. 
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each 
week.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 172 / Thursday, September 4, 2008 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 51573]]



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Federal Crop Insurance Corporation

7 CFR Part 457

RIN 0563-AC14


Common Crop Insurance Regulations; Dry Pea Crop Provisions

AGENCY: Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC) finalizes the 
Common Crop Insurance Regulations; Dry Pea Crop Insurance Provisions by 
including the insurability of additional types of dry peas, by offering 
winter coverage, by allowing replanting payments, and by making 
chickpeas insurable under the Dry Pea Crop Provisions. The changes will 
apply for the 2009 and succeeding crop years for all Dry Pea counties 
with a contract change date on or after November 30, 2008.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective October 6, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Claire White, Economist, Product 
Management, Product Administration and Standards Division, Risk 
Management Agency, United States Department of Agriculture, Beacon 
Facility, Stop 0812, Room 421, PO Box 419205, Kansas City, MO 64141-
6205, telephone (816) 926-7730.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this 
rule is non-significant for the purpose of Executive Order 12866 and, 
therefore, it has not been reviewed by OMB.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    Pursuant to the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 
(44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the collections of information in this rule 
have been approved by OMB under control number 0563-0053.

E-Government Act Compliance

    FCIC is committed to complying with the E-Government Act of 2002, 
to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies 
to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government 
information and services, and for other purposes.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) 
establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of 
their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and 
the private sector. This rule contains no Federal mandates (under the 
regulatory provisions of title II of the UMRA) for State, local, and 
tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, this rule is not 
subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of UMRA.

Executive Order 13132

    It has been determined under section 1(a) of Executive Order 13132, 
Federalism, that this rule does not have sufficient implications to 
warrant consultation with the States. The provisions contained in this 
rule will not have a substantial direct effect on States, or on the 
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    FCIC certifies that this regulation will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Program 
requirements for the Federal crop insurance program are the same for 
all producers regardless of the size of their farming operation. For 
instance, all producers are required to submit an application and 
acreage report to establish their insurance guarantees and compute 
premium amounts, and all producers are required to submit a notice of 
loss and production information to determine the amount of an indemnity 
payment in the event of an insured cause of crop loss. Whether a 
producer has 10 acres or 1000 acres, there is no difference in the kind 
of information collected. To ensure crop insurance is available to 
small entities, the Federal Crop Insurance Act authorizes FCIC to waive 
collection of administrative fees from limited resource farmers. FCIC 
believes this waiver helps to ensure that small entities are given the 
same opportunities as large entities to manage their risks through the 
use of crop insurance. A Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has not been 
prepared since this regulation does not have an impact on small 
entities, and therefore, this regulation is exempt from the provisions 
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605).

Federal Assistance Program

    This program is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic 
Assistance under No. 10.450.

Executive Order 12372

    This program is not subject to the provisions of Executive Order 
12372, which require intergovernmental consultation with State and 
local officials. See the Notice related to 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V, 
published at 48 FR 29115, June 24, 1983.

Executive Order 12988

    This rule has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 
12988 on civil justice reform. The provisions of this rule will not 
have a retroactive effect. The provisions of this rule will preempt 
State and local laws to the extent such State and local laws are 
inconsistent herewith. With respect to any direct action taken by FCIC 
or to requiring the insurance provider to take specific action under 
the terms of the crop insurance policy, the administrative appeal 
provisions published at 7 CFR part 11 must be exhausted before any 
action against FCIC for judicial review may be brought.

Environmental Evaluation

    This action is not expected to have a significant economic impact 
on the quality of the human environment, health, or safety. Therefore, 
neither an Environmental Assessment nor an Environmental Impact 
Statement is needed.

Background

    This rule finalizes changes to 7 CFR part 457.140 (Dry Pea Crop 
Insurance Provisions) that were published by FCIC

[[Page 51574]]

on January 18, 2008, as a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal 
Register at 73 FR 3411-3417. The public was afforded 60 days to submit 
comments after the regulation was published in the Federal Register.
    A total of 119 comments were received from five commenters. The 
commenters were one insurance services organization, one grower 
association, and three insurance providers.
    The public comments received regarding the proposed rule and FCIC's 
responses to the comments are listed below (under applicable subject 
headings) identifying issues and concerns, and the changes made, if 
any, to address the comments.

General

    Comment: One commenter stated contract seed peas and contract seed 
beans have their own unique method for properly calculating the actual 
production history (APH) as outlined in Exhibit 27 of the Crop 
Insurance Handbook (CIH). The commenter claims it has to track back and 
forth between dollars and pounds and receive 10 years of new Reference 
(Base) Year Adjustment Factors (RYAF) each year. All 10 numbers change 
every year. The commenter states that the intent of the procedure is 
good as it tries to provide coverage for contract seed peas that do not 
pass germination testing and, therefore, receive a reduced price. 
However, the commenter thought this could also be accomplished by using 
the same methodology as is used for green peas. This would simplify the 
administration of this program and remove the need for having Exhibit 
27 of the CIH as the APH would be based on `Dividing the dollar amount 
received by the contract price per pound for the base contract price.' 
Using the green pea methodology would allow the guarantee to be 
expressed in pounds rather than dollars and eliminate the need for 
RYAFs. The approved APH yield would no longer have to be converted from 
dollars per acre to pounds per acre for entry on the acreage report. 
The commenter states that this APH procedure has been in place only for 
contract seed pea types of dry peas and contract seed bean types of dry 
beans. The commenter recommended these procedures be reevaluated to see 
if they are still necessary and if this procedure could be revised to 
be consistent with what is being done for green peas. This would 
simplify the administration of this program.
    Response: Since the recommended change involves APH procedure and 
not the Dry Pea Crop Provisions, no change has been made in the final 
rule. FCIC will evaluate this recommendation to determine if APH 
procedures for contract seed dry peas can be made consistent with seed 
green peas.
    Comment: Two commenters applauded FCIC for including chickpeas 
(a.k.a. garbanzo beans) in the Dry Pea Crop Provisions. Chickpeas are 
produced in dry pea and lentil growing regions and producers should 
have the option to purchase coverage for these crops under one policy.
    Response: FCIC has retained the provisions in the final rule that 
allow chickpeas to be covered under the Dry Pea Crop Provisions in 
applicable States and counties as determined by FCIC.
    Comment: Two commenters stated the words ``fall planted'' and 
``spring planted'' are most often used without hyphens throughout the 
Crop Provisions, though hyphens are used in the section 13(b) example. 
It would be helpful to be consistent, and preferably use the hyphens to 
make it easier to read.
    Response: FCIC has revised the provisions as suggested.

Section 1--Definitions

    Comment: One commenter recommended the definition of ``base price'' 
be revised to include both ``seed company'' and ``processor'' contracts 
because dry pea producers often have the choice to purchase seed from 
seed companies and processors.
    Response: FCIC has revised the definition of ``base contract 
price'' to include processor contracts and now refers to ``processor/
seed company contract.'' FCIC has also removed the definitions of 
``seed company'' and ``seed company contract'' and replaced the 
definitions with ``processor/seed company'' and ``processor/seed 
company contract,'' respectively. Therefore, the phrases ``seed 
company'' and ``seed company contract'' have been replaced with the 
phrases ``processor/seed company'' and ``processor/seed company 
contract,'' respectively, throughout the policy to be consistent with 
the definition of ``base contract price.''
    Comment: Two commenters recommended replacing the word ``place'' 
with ``places'' in the definition of ``combining.''
    Response: FCIC has revised the definition as suggested.
    Comment: One commenter supported the revision to the definition of 
``dry peas'' to allow insurability of additional types of dry peas in 
accordance with the Special Provisions. Three commenters also stated 
the word ``and'' before the word ``Chickpeas'' in the definition of 
``dry peas'' should be removed and replaced with a comma. Two 
commenters suggested rewording the phrase ``and those types'' to state 
``and any other types.''
    Response: FCIC has retained the provisions in the final rule, which 
allows insurability of additional types of dry peas via the Special 
Provisions. FCIC has removed the word ``and'' and replaced it with a 
comma. FCIC has reworded the phrase ``and those types'' as ``and other 
types.''
    Comment: One commenter supported adding the sentence, ``dry peas 
that are swathed prior to combining are not considered harvested,'' in 
the definition of ``harvest.''
    Response: FCIC proposed this change in the proposed rule and will 
retain it in the final rule.
    Comment: One commenter supported revising the definition of ``local 
market price'' to specify that factors not associated with grading 
factors under the United States Standards for Whole Dry Peas, Split 
Peas and Lentils will not be considered, unless specified in the 
Special Provisions.
    Response: FCIC has retained the proposed definition in the final 
rule.
    Comment: Two commenters asked, in the definition of ``practical to 
replant,'' if the added statement that it will not be considered 
practical to replant fall-planted dry peas more than 25 days after the 
final planting date for the corresponding spring-planted type of dry 
pea conflicts with the last sentence of 8(b), which states ``We will 
not require you to replant if it is not practical to replant the type 
of dry peas originally planted.'' The commenters also asked if fall-
planted and spring-planted dry peas are different types or the same 
type planted at different times.
    Response: The commenter is correct that the statement that fall-
planted dry peas will not be considered practical to replant more than 
25 days after the final planting date for the corresponding spring-
planted type of dry pea conflicts with the last sentence of 8(b). FCIC 
has removed the referenced provisions of section 8(b). Fall-planted and 
spring-planted dry peas are different types planted at different times.
    Comment: Two commenters suggested reformatting the definition of 
``practical to replant'' so it is easier to read.
    Response: FCIC has reformatted the definition of ``practical to 
replant'' to make it easier to read.
    Comment: Three commenters suggested revising the definition of 
``price election'' to change the term ``base price'' to ``base contract 
price'' to match the revised definition of ``base contract price.''

[[Page 51575]]

    Response: FCIC has revised the definition as suggested.
    Comment: One commenter suggested adding a definition of ``sales 
closing date'' to address the additional sales closing date that will 
be established for acreage insured under the Winter Coverage Option.
    Response: A definition of ``sales closing date'' does not need to 
be added. Throughout the Dry Pea Crop Provisions, when reference is 
made to insurance attaching under the Winter Coverage Option, the Crop 
Provisions state the Winter Coverage Option must be elected by the 
sales closing date. Further, the Special Provisions will contain the 
sales closing date for counties with the Winter Coverage Option in 
effect. No change will be made.
    Comment: One commenter stated the word ``variety'' in the 
definition of ``seed company contract'' has been changed to ``type.'' 
The commenter stated the contracts they have received in years past 
make specific reference to a variety of seed and not a specific type. 
The commenter asked if it will be considered an invalid contract if the 
seed company contracts do not state the specific type or if the 
contract states the specific variety whether the insurance provider can 
determine the type.
    The commenter also asked the following questions: (1) With the 
proposed change to have the contract state a specific type, will 
separate units by each type of dry pea seed under contract be allowed; 
(2) will the Special Provisions be changed to identify each specific 
type that is insurable by type for contract seed or will the Special 
Provisions remain the same and all varieties of dry peas under contract 
for seed will be insured as the contract seed pea type.
    Response: The commenter is correct that processor contracts and 
seed company contracts make specific reference to varieties, rather 
than types. Therefore, FCIC has not retained the proposed changes. This 
means that contract seed peas may be insured as a separate optional 
unit only if contract seed peas are listed on the Special Provisions as 
an insurable type. The distinct varieties listed on the contract will 
not be eligible for separate optional units.
    Comment: Two commenters suggested revising the definition of 
``swathed'' in order to align it with the wording of ``swathed'' in 
other Crop Provisions. In the proposed context, one may conclude and 
argue that placing the crop into more than one windrow would not be 
considered swathed.
    Response: FCIC has revised the definition for clarification.

Section 2--Unit Division

    Comment: Two commenters stated this section may need to be 
clarified as they are not sure how contract seed peas fit into the unit 
structure as defined in this section of the policy. The commenters 
asked if Austrian peas grown under a seed company contract and other 
Austrian peas not grown under a seed company contract in the same 
section would qualify for separate optional units.
    Response: Section 2 has been revised to clarify that separate 
optional units can be established for contract seed peas and dry peas 
not grown under a processor/seed company contract even if each type 
shares a common variety, provided each type is grown on separate 
acreage and the production is kept separate. This means that Austrian 
peas grown under a processor/seed company contract and other Austrian 
peas not grown under a processor/seed company contract in the same 
section qualify for separate optional units, provided the Austrian peas 
grown under a processor/seed company contract meet all policy 
requirements for insurability as contract seed peas, and the producer 
has elected optional units. Austrian peas grown for harvest as mature 
dry peas would be insurable as either a: (1) Fall Austrian pea type; or 
(2) spring Austrian pea type, whichever is applicable, if provided on 
the Special Provisions, and all qualifying acreage of seed peas 
(regardless of type, e.g. fall Austrian peas, spring smooth green and 
yellow peas, etc.) would be insurable as a separate optional unit when 
insured as a contract seed pea type. If the acreage of Austrian peas 
grown under contract for seed did not meet the policy requirements to 
be insured under the contract seed pea type, then this acreage and 
acreage of Austrian peas not grown under contract would be included in 
the same unit.
    Comment: Two commenters said the proposed rule appears to delete 
section 2(b), which currently allows optional units for contract seed 
peas if the seed contract specifies the number of acres contracted. The 
commenter asked if this means contract seed peas will no longer qualify 
for separate optional units (unless there are separate contracts for 
the different dry pea types that qualify), or will contract seed peas 
be listed as a separate dry pea type on the Special Provisions. Since 
the Special Provisions are not included in the proposed rule, it is 
difficult to know what kind of change might be intended.
    Response: Section 2 has been revised to clarify that contract seed 
peas will qualify for optional units if contract seed peas are listed 
as a separate type on the Special Provisions.

Section 3--Insurance Guarantees, Coverage Levels and Prices for 
Determining Indemnities

    Comment: One commenter stated they believe the intent of this 
section is to limit the producer to the same single level of coverage 
for all types of dry peas that are planted in the county. It also does 
not change the requirement to report all acreage of dry peas planted in 
the county that are planted to insurable types as listed in the Special 
Provisions. This would make this policy consistent with the Dry Bean 
Crop Provisions in that it would require all acreage of dry peas to be 
insured and all types would be insured at the same coverage level. If 
this is not the intent, the commenters recommended that it be changed 
to match what is done for dry beans. Otherwise, if the insured is 
allowed to have separate coverage levels by type, each type should be 
treated as a different crop with a separate administrative fee, etc. 
(i.e., California grapes). If the intent is to limit producers to the 
same single level of coverage for all types, the language could be 
further clarified as follows: ``In lieu of the requirements of section 
3 of the Basic Provisions, you must select the same coverage level for 
all types listed on the Special Provisions.'' The current language 
indicates only a single level can be selected for each type but does 
not stipulate that it must be the same. The above language clarifies 
that only one level can be selected and it must be the same for all 
types.
    Response: The intent of the proposed provisions in section 3(a) and 
3(b) is to allow separate coverage levels and price election 
percentages by type listed on the Special Provisions. According to 
section 7 of the Dry Pea Crop Provisions, all dry pea types in the 
county for which there is a premium rate must be insured. Therefore, 
the requirement to report all acreage of dry peas planted to insurable 
types in the county remains the same. Offering a separate coverage 
level by type does not automatically imply each type be treated as a 
separate crop. No change has been made.
    Comment: Two commenters also stated the language in proposed 
section 3(a) allows separate coverage levels by type and proposed 
section 3(b) allows separate price percentages by type. As is currently 
proposed, this would allow different coverage levels for different 
types even within the same unit. The

[[Page 51576]]

commenter does not know of any other crop that allows different 
coverage levels within the crop and objects to allowing separate 
coverage levels by type.
    Response: The proposed provisions would allow different coverage 
levels for different types even within the same basic unit. However, 
since optional units are available by type, it is likely that most 
producers will opt for optional units for each of their insurable types 
of dry peas. Offering separate coverage levels by type provides the dry 
pea producers another method to manage their risk.
    Comment: One commenter stated there seems to be missing information 
in proposed section 3(a) that surrounds the ability for the insured to 
select different coverage levels by type. For example, two different 
types of dry peas are listed on the application as being insured at a 
70 percent and 65 percent coverage level, respectively. At acreage 
reporting time, the producer identifies a third type of dry pea planted 
that was not listed on the application. The commenter questions at what 
coverage level would the insurance provider insure that type. One 
suggestion is to allow the producer to select a coverage level for the 
crop and if the producer wants to insure a specific type of dry peas at 
a different coverage level, he must identify that separate coverage 
level on the application for that specific type. If the producer does 
not specify a separate coverage level for a specific type, the type 
will be insured under the coverage level selected at the crop level.
    Response: The commenter is correct that there is missing 
information. FCIC has revised section 3 to include provisions stating 
if a dry pea type is added after the sales closing date, the dry pea 
type will be assigned a coverage level equal to the lowest coverage 
level selected for any other dry pea types; and a price election 
percentage equal to 100 percent if additional coverage is elected and 
55 percent if catastrophic level of coverage is elected.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that the last portion of the 
lead-in paragraph in proposed section 3(b) be revised as follows: ``* * 
* in which case you may select a different price election percentage 
for each such dry pea type so designated in the Special Provisions * * 
*'' This clarifies that if a different price election is offered by 
type that a different price election percentage could be elected for 
each such type and would be consistent with the Dry Bean Crop 
Provisions.
    Response: FCIC has broken section 3(b) into separate paragraphs for 
clarity. FCIC has revised the newly designated section 3(b)(2) to 
clarify if the Special Provisions designate a separate price election 
by type, the producer may select one price election for each type 
listed in the Special Provisions. The price election the producer 
chooses for one type is not required to have the same percentage 
relationship to the maximum price offered for another type.
    Comment: Two commenters stated proposed section 3(b) says the 
producer may select only one price election for all dry peas in the 
county insured under this policy unless the Special Provisions provide 
different price elections for a particular type, in which case the 
producer may select one price election for each dry pea type so 
designated in the Special Provisions. The commenters asked whether this 
means that if the Special Provisions lists three dry pea types, with 
one type having a different price election from the other two types 
(which show the same price because of the market), those two types 
would have to have the same price percentage. In the alternative, the 
commenter asks whether it means that as long as the three types are 
listed on separate lines, each with its own price election, those are 
considered different price elections and producers can choose different 
price percentages as well as different coverage levels under proposed 
section 3(a). If it is the former, the commenter asks FCIC to consider 
revising to ``* * * unless the Special Provisions provide a different 
price election for a particular type * * *'' If the latter is correct, 
the commenter asks that FCIC consider going back to the current 
wording, ``* * * by type'' [as in (b)(1) & (3)]. Depending on the 
response to these questions, the references in (b)(1) & (3) to 
``different price elections by type'' may need to be reviewed as well.
    Response: FCIC has revised the provisions in section 3(b) to 
clarify that if there is more than one type of dry pea listed on the 
Special Provisions, then each type may have a separate price election 
percentage, regardless if the price for one type is the same as the 
price for another type. For example, type A and type B are listed on 
the Special Provisions. The price for type A is $0.12. The price for 
type B is also $0.12. The price election percentage for type A and type 
B do not have to be the same even though the price election for type A 
is the same as the price election for type B.
    Comment: Two commenters stated proposed section 3(b) states that if 
there are different price elections, then the producer ``may select one 
price election for each dry pea type,'' while proposed section 3(b)(1) 
states ``the price elections you choose for each type are not required 
to have the same percentage relationship to the maximum price offered 
by us for each type.'' The commenter suggested the last phrase of (b) 
should be deleted from (b) and combined with (b)(1), which would then 
provide the additional options when separate price elections are 
designated.
    Response: The commenter is correct that the last phrase of section 
3(b) should be deleted from (b) and added to the provisions that state 
what options the producers have when separate price elections are 
designated on the Special Provisions. As stated above, FCIC has also 
reformatted section 3(b) to make it easier to read.
    Comment: Two commenters stated proposed section 3(b)(2) should 
either be moved to the end of section 3(a) because it refers to the 
coverage level for catastrophic (CAT) level of coverage, instead of the 
percentage of price election, or it should be reworded to address the 
percentage of price election for CAT level of coverage. If it remains 
in section 3(b), the commenter suggested it should be the first or last 
of the three paragraphs under section 3(b) instead of between 
paragraphs (1) and (3).
    Response: FCIC has moved the provisions related to CAT coverage 
proposed in section 3(b)(2) to section 3(a).
    Comment: Two commenters suggested revising proposed section 3(b)(3) 
because the current wording suggests the producer has a choice of price 
elections even if price elections by type are not listed on the Special 
Provisions. The commenters suggested revising it to say ``* * * the 
same price election percentage applies for each dry pea type.''
    Response: The commenter is correct that a producer does not have a 
choice of multiple price elections when the Special Provisions do not 
designate separate price elections by type. FCIC has revised section 
3(b) to state if the Special Provisions do not designate separate price 
elections by type, the producer may select only one price election for 
all dry peas in the county.
    Comment: One commenter supported the right of a producer to select 
his/her own separate coverage level on dry peas, lentils and chickpeas.
    Response: FCIC has retained the provisions in the final rule. The 
producer is allowed to select a separate coverage level for each type 
of dry peas.

Section 7--Insured Crop

    Comment: Two commenters suggested deleting the word ``to'' before 
the phrase ``otherwise not harvest'' in proposed section 7(a)(3)(iv).

[[Page 51577]]

    Response: FCIC has revised the provisions as suggested.

Section 8--Insurable Acreage

    Comment: Three commenters stated the last sentence of proposed 
section 8(b), which states, ``We will not require you to replant if it 
is not practical to replant the type of dry peas originally planted,'' 
indicates it is not required that the producer replant if it is not 
practical to replant to the same type of dry peas originally planted. 
The commenter questioned if this conflicts with the new language in 
proposed section 9(d).
    Response: The commenters are correct that the provisions in section 
8(b) conflict with the new language in section 9(d). FCIC has removed 
the current provisions in section 8(b) and moved the provisions 
proposed in section 9(c), 9(d), and 9(e) to section 8 as some of the 
language is duplicative and is more appropriate in section 8 regarding 
insurable acreage than in section 9 regarding the insurance period.

Section 9--Insurance Period

    Comment: Two commenters suggested adding a comma after the middle 
phrase ``section 11 of the Basic Provisions'' and adding the word 
``the'' before the word ``provisions'' in the introductory text of 
section 9.
    Response: FCIC has revised the provisions as suggested.
    Comment: Three commenters stated the provision proposed in section 
9(c) states the following: ``Any acreage of the insured crop damaged 
before the final planting date, to the extent that producers in the 
surrounding area would not further care for the crop, must be replanted 
unless we agree that it is not practical to replant.'' This has the 
current language regarding replanting, but otherwise essentially 
duplicates provisions currently contained in proposed section 8(b). Two 
commenters also stated the last sentence in the provisions currently 
contained in section 8(b) states, ``* * * We will not require you to 
replant if it is not practical to replant the type of dry peas 
originally planted.'' The commenter asked if this sentence, and 
proposed section 9(d), belong in section 9 or in section 8. The 
commenters also stated similar replanting language also has been added 
in proposed section 9(d), particularly (d)(1), and in section 9(e)(3). 
The commenter asked that FCIC consider if this language must be 
repeated in four different subsections.
    Response: As stated above, the commenters are correct that section 
9(c) duplicates provisions currently contained in section 8(b). FCIC 
has removed the provisions currently contained in section 8(b) and the 
language proposed in section 9(c) has been moved to section 8(b). As 
stated above, the commenter is also correct that the entire proposed 
section 9(d) belongs in section 8 because it related to insurable 
acreage. The entire proposed section 9(e) has also been moved to 
section 8 because it is more appropriate in section 8.
    Comment: One commenter supported the proposal to offer the Winter 
Coverage Option for dry peas and using the language from the Small 
Grains Crop Provisions as a starting point for developing similar 
language for dry peas. However, the commenter believed some of the 
language in the Small Grains Crop Provisions that deals with counties 
containing both fall and spring final planting dates is not appropriate 
for dry peas and should be clarified as indicated below to be more 
applicable for dry peas. The commenter stated the second part of 
proposed section 9(d)(1) indicates that if it is not practical to 
replant to a fall-planted type of dry peas that the insured must 
replant to a spring type in order to maintain coverage based on the 
fall-planted type. The commenter is concerned with the various 
different types of dry peas that could be insured in some areas and the 
different level of yields and prices that can exist between the 
different types of dry peas (particularly fall types versus spring 
types). The commenter recommended that in this situation, coverage 
would revert to the respective spring type that is planted rather than 
remain based on the fall-planted type, which may not be reflective of 
the yield or price potential of the spring-planted type. In addition, 
the current language would allow producers the ability to adversely 
select against the insurance provider by planting a lower yielding or 
priced spring type in these types of situations. The commenter also 
stated the above comments would impact proposed section 9(e) as well. 
The commenter references Austrian winter peas as an example of a fall-
planted type and they are not aware of a spring-planted version of this 
same type of pea. The commenter stated that under this provision, if 
they received a request to insure Austrian winter peas in a county with 
only a spring final planting date, they would not be able to establish 
a yield etc., for a spring seeded type as it does not exist. The 
commenter recommended that coverage be based on the fall-planted dry 
pea type in these types of situations. In addition, if damage occurs 
after such acreage has been accepted for coverage, and must be 
replanted to a spring-planted type, the commenter recommended the 
coverage revert to the spring-planted type in these situations.
    Response: FCIC has retained the Winter Coverage Option provisions 
in the final rule. Coverage for the spring peas planted on failed fall 
acreage should not revert to the respective spring-planted type rather 
than remain based on the fall-planted type. Allowing spring-planted dry 
peas to be insured as fall-planted dry peas when it has been replanted 
on failed fall dry pea acreage is permitted because insurance has 
already attached to the fall dry pea crop and replanting to the spring 
crop is a means to mitigate the damages associated with the failed fall 
crop.
    FCIC is aware of Austrian pea varieties that are spring-planted. 
Austrian peas (a.k.a black peas; dry peas with a dark and mottled seed 
coat) are a variety of peas typically characterized as having moderate 
to good winter survivability. Their cold temperature tolerance and 
subsequent reproductive phase do not have a vernalization requirement 
similar to winter wheat. Therefore, it can successfully be produced 
when sown in the fall or spring.

Section 10--Causes of Loss

    Comment: One commenter suggested clarifying section 10(b) to state 
``Fire, due to natural causes.''
    Response: No changes to this section were proposed. Further, the 
current introductory text of section 10 states the specified causes of 
loss are in accordance with the Basic Provisions. The Basic Provisions 
contain the requirement that all causes of loss must be due to a 
naturally occurring event. There is no reason to be repetitive. In 
addition, to explicitly state that fire must be due to natural causes 
while not including this language with the other listed causes losses 
could create the mistaken impression that such other causes do not have 
to be from natural causes. No change has been made.

Section 11--Replanting Payments

    Comment: Two commenters stated the wording of the last phrase 
regarding compliance with all replanting payment requirements in the 
Basic Provisions ``* * * and in the Winter Coverage Option for which 
you are eligible and which you have elected'' sounds as though every 
dry pea producer will be eligible and will elect the Winter Coverage 
Option. While the commenters realize this language was taken from the 
current Small Grains Crop Provisions, they suggested FCIC consider 
rephrasing

[[Page 51578]]

it something like ``* * * and in the Winter Coverage Option, if 
applicable.''
    Response: FCIC has revised the provisions accordingly.
    Comment: Two commenters suggested deleting the period at the end of 
section 11(a)(3) and replacing it with a semicolon to be consistent 
with the other subsections.
    Response: FCIC has revised the provisions as suggested.
    Comment: Two commenters suggested deleting ``* * * (see section 15) 
* * *'' in proposed section 11(a)(5) since the Winter Coverage Option 
has already been referenced in (a)(2). The commenter also suggested 
placing the parenthetical reference in proposed section 11(a)(2).
    Response: FCIC has revised the provisions as suggested.
    Comment: One commenter asked if the producer does not select the 
Winter Coverage Option, but does have insured fall-planted acreage in a 
county with a fall planting date, and damage occurs prior to insurance 
attaching, are those acres still eligible for a replanting payment.
    Response: If a producer has insured fall-planted acreage in a 
county with a fall and spring final planting date, but does not elect 
the Winter Coverage Option, the producer is not eligible for a 
replanting payment. FCIC has revised the provisions in section 11 to 
clarify fall-planted acreage not covered under the Winter Coverage 
Option that is damaged after it is accepted for insurance but before 
the spring sales closing date must be replanted but no replanting 
payment will be made.
    FCIC has also added provisions to section 11(a)(5) to clarify if 
the Winter Coverage Option is in effect, damage must occur after the 
fall final planting date for the acreage to be eligible for a 
replanting payment. This revision clarifies the Winter Coverage Option 
must be in effect in order for the fall acreage to be eligible for a 
replanting payment.
    Comment: Two commenters stated proposed section 11(b) provides a 
maximum of ``* * * the lesser of 20.0 percent of the production 
guarantee or 200 pounds * * *'' The commenter asks whether the 
different dry pea types will have similar yields so that 200 pounds 
will be appropriate for all. For example, if chickpeas are shifted from 
the Dry Bean policy to the Dry Pea policy, they will have a much higher 
maximum than before.
    Response: The data shows that all dry pea types will have similar 
yields and, therefore, the 200 pounds will be appropriate for all 
types. FCIC recognizes chickpeas will have a higher maximum than they 
previously did under the Dry Bean Crop Provisions but it should not be 
excessive.
    Comment: Two commenters stated the lead-in to proposed sections 
11(d)(1) and (2) will read more smoothly with the word ``for'' added at 
the end of proposed section 11(d).
    Response: The addition of ``for'' would make the sentence 
grammatically incorrect. No change has been made.
    Comment: One commenter stated the last sentence of the lead-in 
paragraph of section 11(d) could be removed in addition to items (1) 
and (2). Damaged fall-planted acreage that is replanted to a spring-
planted type should have the coverage revert to the applicable spring 
type that is planted. The commenter does not believe that item (d)(2) 
will occur and could be removed as well.
    Response: As stated above, coverage on the acreage replanted to a 
spring type on failed fall-planted acreage should not revert to the 
spring type, instead of the fall-planted type that was originally 
planted. Allowing spring-planted dry peas to be insured as fall-planted 
dry peas when it has been replanted after a failed fall dry pea crop is 
permitted because insurance has already attached to the fall dry pea 
crop and replanting to the spring crop is a means to mitigate the 
damages associated with the failed fall crop. It is not considered a 
new crop. No change has been made in response to this comment.

Section 12--Duties in the Event of Damage or Loss

    Comment: One commenter stated since there is no change being made 
to section 14 of the Basic Provisions, there does not appear to be a 
need to retain this provision and it could be removed.
    Response: Section 14 of the Basic Provisions states representative 
samples must be left intact if the Crop Provisions require them. If the 
provisions in section 12 were removed, producers would not be required 
to maintain representative samples. Therefore, section 12 must remain 
in the Dry Pea Crop Provisions in order to require representative 
samples. FCIC is only removing provisions in section 12 of the Dry Pea 
Crop Provisions that duplicate the provisions in the Basic Provisions. 
No change has been made.
    Comment: Two commenters supported changing the language in proposed 
section 12 to delete the details and simply refer to section 14 of the 
Basic Provisions regarding representative samples.
    Response: FCIC has retained the provision in the final rule.

Section 13--Settlement of Claim

    Comment: Two commenters recommended changing the word ``variety'' 
to ``type'' in proposed section 13(b)(4) to be consistent with 
provisions throughout the policy.
    Response: The word ``variety'' should not be changed to ``type'' in 
section 13(b)(4). In the definition of ``seed company contract,'' which 
has been renamed as ``processor/seed company contract,'' the word 
``variety'' has been retained because varieties, rather than types, are 
stated in the processor/seed company contracts. No change has been 
made.
    Comment: Two commenters suggested adding the word ``contract'' 
between the words ``base'' and ``price'' in proposed section 13(b)(5) 
to be consistent with the revised definition of ``base contract 
price.''
    Response: FCIC has revised the provision as suggested.
    Comment: Two commenters suggested changing ``400,000 pounds 
guarantee'' to ``400,000-pound guarantee'' in step (1) of both examples 
in proposed section 13(b), and step (2) of the second example in 
proposed section 13(b). The commenter also suggested making a similar 
change to ``500,000-pound guarantee'' in steps (4) and (5) of the 
second example in proposed section 13(b).
    Response: FCIC has revised the provisions as suggested.
    Comment: Two commenters suggested changing the word ``variety'' to 
``type'' in subsection (c) to be consistent with provisions throughout 
the policy; changing ``base price'' to ``base contract price'' in 
proposed section 13(c)(1) to match the revised definition of ``base 
contract price;'' and changing ``seed pea processor contract'' to 
``seed company contract'' in section 13(c)(2) to match the term used in 
the revised ``base contract price'' definition.
    Response: As stated above, the word ``variety'' should not be 
changed to ``type.'' In the definition of ``seed company contract,'' 
which has been renamed as ``processor/seed company contract,'' the word 
``variety'' has been retained because varieties, rather than types, are 
stated in the processor or seed company contracts. FCIC agrees ``base 
price'' should be changed to ``base contract price'' and ``seed pea 
processor contract'' should be changed to ``seed company contract.'' 
Based on a previous comment, FCIC has also revised the phrase ``seed 
company contract'' to ``processor/seed company contract.'' This phrase 
has also been added to section 13(c)(1).
    Comment: One commenter recommended adding a reference to

[[Page 51579]]

``objective, measurable minimum quality requirements'' for mature dry 
pea production in proposed section 13(c)(2) to be consistent with the 
same language that was added in proposed section 13(c)(1).
    Response: FCIC has revised the provision as suggested. FCIC has 
also revised proposed section 13(c)(1) by adding the word ``mature'' 
between the words ``for'' and ``production'' to be consistent with the 
same language in proposed section 13(c)(2).
    Comment: Two commenters suggested the reference in proposed section 
13(d)(1)(iii) should be ``section 13(c) or (3)'' instead of ``section 
13I or (e).''
    Response: FCIC has revised the provision as suggested.
    Comment: Two commenters question if chickpeas are moved from the 
Dry Bean policy to the Dry Pea policy whether the reference to the 
United States Standards for Whole Dry Peas, Split Peas, and Lentils in 
proposed section 13(e)(1)(i) also need to refer to the United States 
Standards for Beans as in the Dry Beans policy.
    Response: FCIC does not believe the reference to the United States 
Standards for Whole Dry Peas, Split Peas, and Lentils also needs to 
refer to the United States Standards for Beans. FCIC has provided for 
additional grade standards to be specified in the Special Provisions. 
Therefore, the United States Standards for Beans can be referenced in 
the Special Provisions, if needed. The flexibility of the Special 
Provisions also allows for different grade standards if other types, 
which require a different grade standard, are added on the Special 
Provisions in the future. No change has been made.

Section 14--Prevented Planting

    Comment: One commenter recommended eliminating the option to 
increase prevented planting coverage levels (in the second sentence), 
as well as reviewing the amount that is being paid for prevented 
planting purposes.
    Response: Since no changes to this section were proposed, the 
recommended changes are substantive in nature, and the public was not 
provided an opportunity to comment on the recommended changes, the 
recommendations cannot be incorporated in the final rule. No change has 
been made.

Section 15--Winter Coverage Option

    Comment: One commenter supported the change to allow insurance on 
fall planted dry peas with a Winter Coverage Option. The commenter 
assumes the Winter Coverage Option will be available for qualified 
lentil varieties planted in the fall.
    Response: FCIC has retained the Winter Coverage Option in the final 
rule. Coverage for fall-planted lentils will be available under the 
Winter Coverage Option if they are designated as a type on the Special 
Provisions and the Winter Coverage Option is available in the county.
    Comment: One commenter stated they are supportive of the proposal 
to offer the Winter Coverage Option for dry peas and using the language 
from the Small Grains Crop Provisions Wheat or Barley Winter Coverage 
Endorsement as a starting point for developing similar language for dry 
peas. However, the commenter believes some of the language in the 
Winter Coverage Endorsement is not appropriate for dry peas and should 
be clarified.
    Response: As stated above, FCIC has retained the Winter Coverage 
Option in the final rule. Based on other comments FCIC has received 
regarding the Winter Coverage Option, FCIC has made revisions to 
section 15 to ensure the language is appropriate for dry peas.
    Comment: One commenter asked if there would be any rules regarding 
acreage that is insured under the Winter Coverage Option and is planted 
after the fall final planting date. The commenter also asked if the 
acreage is still insurable under the Winter Coverage Option or does the 
Winter Coverage Option not apply to that acreage.
    Response: Acreage planted after the fall final planting date is not 
covered under the Winter Coverage Option. However, that acreage is 
potentially insurable in the spring provided there is an adequate stand 
in the spring. The late planting provisions in the Dry Pea Crop 
Provisions are similar to the late planting provisions in the Wheat or 
Barley Winter Coverage Endorsement.
    Comment: Two commenters stated the opening statement in the Winter 
Coverage Option that reads ``(This is a continuous endorsement)'' could 
be deleted since this a section of the proposed Dry Pea Crop 
Provisions, not a separate endorsement. The commenters also stated if 
the phrase, ``(This is a continuous endorsement),'' is not removed, 
then ``endorsement'' should be changed to ``option.''
    Two commenters also stated the Winter Coverage Option is referred 
to as an ``endorsement'' in the opening phrase ``(This is a continuous 
endorsement)'' but the more appropriate reference would be an 
``option.''
    One commenter also stated, since this is a continuous option, there 
should be some reference to the possibility of canceling the Winter 
Coverage Option without also having to cancel the dry pea coverage 
altogether.
    Response: The commenters are correct that the phrase, ``(This is a 
continuous endorsement),'' is not necessary and has revised the 
provisions accordingly. Since the opening phrase has been removed, 
there is no need to change the word ``endorsement'' to ``option.''
    The commenters are also correct that there should be some reference 
to canceling the Winter Coverage Option without also having to cancel 
the dry pea coverage altogether. FCIC has added language in section 
15(e) to state the option will continue in effect until canceled or 
coverage under the Dry Pea Crop Provisions is canceled or terminated.
    Comment: Two commenters suggested removing proposed section 15(a). 
The commenters asked that since some of the subsections of section 15 
state they are ``in lieu of'' other sections of the Dry Pea Crop 
Provisions whether there are any remaining that might conflict.
    Response: Section 15(a) should not be removed to ensure that the 
terms of the Winter Coverage Option control in case FCIC has failed to 
catch any other conflicts. Under the priority in the Basic Provisions, 
since these provisions are all in the Crop Provisions, they would be 
given the same priority without the inclusion of section 15(a). 
However, language in redesignated sections 15(g) and 15(h) have been 
revised to remove the ``in lieu of'' language as it is no longer 
necessary because of the language in section 15(a). Redesignated 
sections 15(g) and 15(h) have been revised to be consistent with 
provisions in the Wheat or Barley Winter Coverage Endorsement.
    Comment: Two commenters asked if it was necessary to state in 
proposed section 15(b) CAT level of coverage is not available under 
this option when the CAT Endorsement already states no options or 
endorsements can apply at the CAT level of coverage.
    One commenter stated proposed section 15(b) should be reworded to 
state ``This option is not available under Catastrophic Risk Protection 
(CAT).''
    Response: Section 15(b) is necessary to make it clear because this 
is an endorsement offered under the Crop Provisions, not a stand alone 
endorsement. However, FCIC has reworded it to specify the insured must 
have purchased additional coverage under the Dry Pea Crop Provisions.
    Comment: Two commenters stated the statement in proposed section 
15(d) that ``You must have a Dry Pea Crop Insurance Policy in effect 
and elect to insure the dry pea type under such policy'' is unnecessary 
since the

[[Page 51580]]

proposed Winter Coverage Option will be part of the Dry Pea Crop 
Provisions, not a separate endorsement like the one for Wheat and 
Barley. Also, the reference to insuring ``the dry pea type'' is 
confusing, suggesting that producers would be able to insure one type 
but not have to insure all dry peas in the county.
    One commenter suggested proposed sections 15(d) and (j) seem to be 
somewhat repetitive and could either be removed or combined into a 
single provision. Since this option is built into the Dry Pea Crop 
Provisions, it is obvious that the policy would have to be in effect 
and it appears that the intent of earlier sections is that, once the 
crop is insured, all insurable acreage of the various dry pea types 
planted in the county must be insured.
    Response: Proposed section 15(d) is not necessary so FCIC has not 
retained that provision in the final rule.
    Comment: Two commenters stated it is unclear if the different 
references in proposed sections 15(d), (e), (h), (j), (l) and 
(l)(3)(iii) to ``dry pea type'' and ``dry pea crop'' are intended or 
not. The commenters asked if some or all of these references could be 
revised to ``dry peas'' instead.
    Response: FCIC has revised the phrases ``dry pea type'' and ``dry 
pea crop'' as ``dry peas'' in all cases in section 15, except for 
redesignated section 15(k)(3)(iii). ``Dry pea type'' in redesignated 
section 15(k)(3)(iii) has been retained because the provisions in that 
section pertain to individual dry pea types, rather than all dry peas.
    Comment: Two commenters suggested changing the word ``coverage'' to 
``option'' in proposed section 15(e).
    Response: FCIC has revised the provision as suggested.
    Comment: Two commenters stated proposed section 15(e) states ``You 
must select this coverage on your application for insurance on or 
before the sales closing date * * *'' While 15(h) would change the 
contract change date to June 30, the cancellation date to September 30, 
and the termination date to November 30, there is no change of the 
sales closing date indicated for when the Winter Coverage Option is 
elected. The commenters asked if it is intended that Winter Coverage on 
dry peas can be applied for on March 15. The commenters stated 
according to proposed section 15(f), ``Coverage * * * begins on the 
later of the date we accept your application for coverage or on the 
fall final planting date * * *'' so an application signed on the March 
15 sales closing date would not actually provide winter coverage that 
first year.
    Response: The producer will be required to elect the Winter 
Coverage Option by the fall sales closing date, which will be listed on 
the Special Provisions. Coverage under the Winter Coverage Option will 
attach on the later of the date the application is accepted or on the 
fall final planting date. Section 15 has also been revised by adding a 
new paragraph (d) to clarify the Winter Coverage Option is only 
available in counties for which the Special Provisions designate both a 
fall final planting date and a spring final planting date.
    Comment: One commenter expressed a concern about allowing the 
producer the ability to change the coverage level or price election 
percentage once this option is in effect, since it is a continuous 
option. For example, assume a producer elects this option and plants 
and insures fall-planted dry peas. The next year the same producer 
decides not to plant fall-planted dry peas but the option remains in 
effect since it is continuous (assume the producer does not remove it 
from the policy). The commenter asked if a producer in this situation 
could change the coverage level or percentage of price election up to 
the spring sales closing date since no acreage was planted in the fall. 
The commenter recommended that producers in this situation be allowed 
to make such changes up to the spring sales closing date (especially 
since there is a much larger amount of acreage that is planted to 
spring types as compared to fall types). The commenter stated this is 
allowed in the Small Grains Crop Provisions via the definition of 
`Sales Closing Date'. The commenter recommended this be done by either 
adding a definition for `Sales Closing Date' or by adding some language 
to this effect directly to section 15 to allow these types of changes 
to be made in the event that no fall-planted acreage is planted while 
this option is still in effect.
    Response: The producer should be allowed to make policy changes 
until the spring sales closing date if the producer does not have any 
insured fall-planted dry pea acreage. Provisions have been added to 
section 15(e) to state producers may change their coverage level or 
percentage of price election for dry pea types until the spring sales 
closing date if the Winter Coverage Option is selected, but they do not 
have any insured fall-planted acreage or the fall-planted acreage is 
not eligible for this option. Provisions have also been added to 
section 15(e) to allow the producer to cancel coverage for any 
succeeding crop year by giving written notice on or before the 
cancellation date preceding the crop year for which the cancellation of 
the option is to be effective. Without this additional language, the 
Winter Coverage Option would continue in effect as long as the Dry Pea 
Crop Provisions are in effect since the Winter Coverage Option is a 
continuous option. This language allows the producer to cancel the 
Winter Coverage Option if he desires.
    Comment: One commenter stated proposed section 15(g) is 
establishing separate optional units for dry peas initially planted in 
the fall versus dry peas initially planted in the spring. The commenter 
stated they are not aware of any dual types of dry peas and question 
whether this provision is even necessary when separate units by type 
are currently allowed.
    Response: As stated above, there are dual types of dry peas. An 
example is Austrian peas (a.k.a. black peas; dry peas with a dark and 
mottled seed coat), which are a variety of peas typically characterized 
as having moderate to good winter survivability. Their cold temperature 
tolerance and subsequent reproductive phase do not have a vernalization 
requirement similar to winter wheat. Therefore, they can successfully 
be produced when sown in the fall or spring.
    Section 15(g) is not needed as the provisions in section 2 already 
allow separate units by type and it has been removed. Proposed sections 
15(h) through 15(l) have been redesignated as 15(g) through 15(k), 
respectively.
    Comment: One commenter stated proposed section 15(g) states ``In 
addition to the provisions of section 34(b) of the Basic Provisions and 
section 2 of the Dry Pea Crop Provisions, optional units may be 
established for dry peas if each optional unit contains only dry peas 
initially planted in the fall or only dry peas initially planted in the 
spring.'' The commenter asked if the fall-planted acreage in a unit is 
Austrian Winter peas, and within that same unit, Lentils are planted in 
the spring, would these two separate types not be allowed to have 
separate optional units since one is fall-planted and one is spring-
planted.
    Response: As stated above, FCIC has removed the provisions in 
proposed section 15(g). If Austrian peas are planted in the fall and 
Lentils are planted in the same unit in the spring, then the Austrian 
peas and the Lentils could be separate optional units, provided the 
producer elected optional units, since the Austrian peas and the 
Lentils are different types.
    Comment: One commenter stated since the Winter Coverage Option is 
not a separate option to the Dry Pea Crop

[[Page 51581]]

Provisions, the phrase ``section 2 of the Dry Pea Crop Provisions'' in 
section 15(g) should be changed to ``section 2 of these Crop 
Provisions.''
    Response: As stated above, the provisions in section 15(g) have 
been removed from the Winter Coverage Option.
    Comment: One commenter stated proposed section 15(h) establishes a 
separate contract change date, cancellation date, and termination date 
for coverage under this option. The commenter assumed the Special 
Provisions will also establish a separate sales closing date and 
acreage reporting date as well.
    Response: Proposed section 15(h) is now section 15(g). The Special 
Provisions will provide a separate sales closing date and acreage 
reporting date for dry peas covered under the Winter Coverage Option. 
Additionally, provisions have been added to section 15(g) to handle 
situations that arise when a policy has amounts due and the sales 
closing date for the next crop year occurs before the termination date 
for the previous crop year. For example, dry peas insured under the 
Winter Coverage Option have a fall sales closing date of September 30, 
2009 for the 2010 crop year and a termination date of November 30 for 
the 2009 crop year. If the insured purchases insurance for dry peas by 
September 30, 2009 for the 2010 crop year, and does not pay the premium 
by the termination date of November 30, 2009, the dry pea coverage 
would be terminated and no coverage would be effective for the 2010 
crop year.
    Comment: Two commenters stated according to proposed section 15(h), 
whenever a producer requests the Winter Coverage Option, the contract 
change date is changed to June 30, the cancellation date to September 
30, and the termination date to November 30 for ``* * * all your fall 
planted and spring planted dry pea crop in the county.'' The commenter 
asks whether this means that all future policy changes to the Dry Pea 
Crop Provisions will have to be published by the June 30 contract 
change date or whether different versions could be in effect for 
producers with and without the Winter Coverage Option. The commenter 
also asks whether there will be a different sales closing date.
    Response: Proposed section 15(h) is now section 15(g). Since the 
earliest contract change date is now June 30 for dry peas, all future 
policy changes to the Dry Pea Crop Provisions will have to be published 
by the June 30 contract change date. There will also be a separate 
sales closing date listed on the Special Provisions for fall-planted 
acreage under the Winter Coverage Option.
    Comment: Two commenters stated the reference to ``Dry Pea Crop 
Insurance Provisions'' in proposed section 15(l) should be changed to 
``these Crop Provisions'' or ``Dry Pea Crop Provisions'' to be 
consistent with the other references in the policy.
    Response: FCIC has revised the provision in redesignated section 
15(k) to read ``these Crop Provisions.''
    Comment: One commenter stated proposed section 15(l)(2) indicates 
that if it is not practical to replant to a fall-planted type of dry 
peas that the insured must replant to a spring type in order to 
maintain coverage based on the fall-planted type. The commenter is 
concerned with the various different types of dry peas that could be 
insured in some areas and the different level of yields and prices that 
can exist between the different types of dry peas (particularly fall 
types versus spring types). The commenter recommended that in this 
situation the coverage would revert to the respective spring type that 
is planted rather than remain based on the fall-planted type, which may 
not be reflective of the yield or price potential of the spring-planted 
type. In addition, the current language would allow producers the 
ability to adversely select against the insurance provider by planting 
a lower yielding or priced spring type in these types of situations.
    Response: Proposed section 15(l)(2) is now section 15(k)(2). As 
stated above, coverage should not revert to the respective spring-
planted type rather than remain based on the fall-planted type. 
Allowing spring-planted dry peas to be insured as fall-planted dry peas 
when they have been replanted after a failed fall dry pea crop is 
permitted because insurance has already attached to the fall dry pea 
crop and replanting to the spring crop is a means to mitigate the 
damages associated with the failed fall crop. No change has been made.
    In addition to the changes described above, FCIC has made the 
following changes:
    1. Revised the definition of ``contract seed peas'' in section 1 to 
remove the phrase ``Dry Peas'' and replace it with the phrase ``Peas 
(Pisum sativum L.).'' This revision clarifies contract seed peas are 
only insurable if they are of the genera Pisum sativum. The current 
phrase ``Dry Peas'' in the definition implies contract seed peas can be 
categorized as any dry peas type specified in the definition of ``dry 
peas.''
    2. Amended proposed section 3 by revising paragraph (a). The 
proposed provision states ``In lieu of the requirements of section 3 of 
the Basic Provisions'' but should state ``In addition to the 
requirements of section 3 of the Basic Provisions.'' The phrase ``In 
addition to'' implies section 3 of the Dry Pea Crop Provisions 
supplements section 3 of the Basic Provisions; the phrase ``In lieu 
of'' implies section 3 of the Dry Pea Crop Provisions replaces section 
3 of the Basic Provisions. The intent of the provision is to be a 
supplement to the Basic Provisions.
    3. Revise