Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

67834

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 30, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1

Section 1, Definitions, of the Coarse Grains Crop Provisions, revise the definition of harvest to include earlage and snaplage as a harvested crop. FCIC received questions in the past to identify earlage and snaplage in the policy. Questions were raised in response to the 2020 Derecho on whether FCIC considers earlage as harvested. FCIC will revise the definition of harvest to include earlage and snaplage to treat earlage and snaplage consistent with grain, hay, or fodder. This change is in response to a comment made to the June 29, 2020, final rule.
Section 11, Duties in the Event of Damage or Loss, of the Coarse Grains Crop Provisions, revise section 11c to include hay or fodder to be consistent with the definition of harvest. FCIC is clarifying that notice is required before harvest begins if a producer decides to harvest in a manner other than reported on the producers acreage report such as harvesting grain for silage or vice versa so the adjuster can appraise the acreage to determine production to count that is used for claim purposes.
This change is in response to a comment made to the June 29, 2020, final rule.
Section 12e2, Settlement of Claim, remove the word may and replace with will. Prior to this rule, the policy stated for silage appraisals made after the normal harvest period, the insurance companies may increase production to count to a 65 percent moisture equivalent. The word may is misleading because procedure requires this adjustment; there is no other option for increasing production to count in these situations. Changing the language to state, will is more transparent and consistent with existing FCIC issued procedures.
FCIC is also making non-substantive changes to the regulation. Examples include making stylistic changes, making grammatical corrections, updating prices, and clarifying word changes. These revisions are editorial in nature and are intended to provide clarity to the regulation.
Dry Bean Crop Provisions The Dry Bean Crop Provisions were revised June 24, 2021, with a final rule with request for comment. FCIC is making the following clarifications in response to questions received after the close of the comment period about how to implement the new provisions.
Section 2, Unit Division, of the Dry Bean Crop Provisions, clarifies that a separate enterprise or optional unit for contract seed beans is allowed where contract seed beans are listed as an insurable type in the county actuarial
VerDate Sep<11>2014

15:56 Nov 29, 2021

Jkt 256001

documents. This clarifies a change issued as a Final Rule in June 2021, allowing separate enterprise units by type. Some dry bean varieties e.g., Pinto, Navy are listed as insurable types but could also be produced under a contract as seed. This has caused confusion because Contract Seed Beans are also an insurable type in some counties. Insurance providers have questioned how to interpret the June Final Rule allowing separate enterprise units by type for these varieties.
FCIC will also be removing language in section 2 that restricts seed bean contracts based on both acreage and production from being eligible for a separate enterprise or optional unit.
Many seed bean contracts include an estimated or typical yield that is in addition to actual production. These yields have often been included in seed bean contracts so the seed company can track production inventory estimates and help the grower with expected crop value when lending institutions are involved. The withdrawal of these combination style contracts from this section will avoid making them ineligible for optional or enterprise units and move the focus on whether the seed bean contracts meet the requirements stated in the Special Provisions.
FCIC is also making a grammatical change to the introductory text for subject-verb agreement.
Effective Date, Notice and Comment, and Exemptions The Administrative Procedure Act APA, 5 U.S.C. 553 provides that the notice and comment and 30-day delay in the effective date provisions do not apply when the rule involves specified actions, including matters relating to contracts. This rule governs contracts for crop insurance policies and therefore falls within that exemption.
This rule is exempt from the regulatory analysis requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act 5 U.S.C.
601612, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.
For major rules, the Congressional Review Act requires a delay the effective date of 60 days after publication to allow for Congressional review. This rule is not a major rule under the Congressional Review Act, as defined by 5 U.S.C. 8042. Therefore, this final rule is effective on the date of publication in the Federal Register.
Although not required by APA or any other law, FCIC has chosen to request comments on this rule.

PO 00000

Frm 00004

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
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. The requirements in Executive Orders 12866
and 13563 for the analysis of costs and benefits apply to rules that are determined to be significant.
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 and analysis of the costs and benefits is not required under either Executive Order 12866 or 13563.
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. 43214347 and the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality 40 CFR parts 15001508. FCIC conducts programs and activities that have been determined to have no individual or cumulative effect on the human environment. As
E:FRFM30NOR1.SGM

30NOR1