Subject: Request dated August 14, 2009, requesting a Final Agency Determination for the 2009
and succeeding crop years regarding the interpretation of section 15(h)(4) of the Common Crop Insurance Policy Basic
Provisions (Basic Provisions), published at 7 C.F.R. § 457.8. This request is pursuant to 7 C.F.R. part 400, subpart
The submitter requests that the Risk Management Agency (RMA) provide an interpretation that clarifies whether
the producer is required to maintain separate records for acres that were or were not double cropped according to
section 15(h)(4) of the Basic Provisions.
Section 15 of the Basic Provisions states, as here pertinent:
(h) You may receive a full indemnity, or a full prevented planting payment for a first insured crop when a second crop is planted on the same acreage in the same crop year, regardless of whether or not the second crop is insured or
sustains an insurable loss, if each of the following conditions are met:
(4) You provide records acceptable to us of acreage and production that show you have double cropped acreage
in at least two of the last four crop years in which the first insured crop was planted, or that show the applicable
acreage was double cropped in at least two of the last four crop years in which the first insured crop was grown on
In regards to section 15(h)(4) above stating “records acceptable to us of acreage and production” the requestor
interprets the section as requiring the approved insurance provider (AIP) to obtain acreage and production records
to verify double cropping history. The Basic Provisions are silent as to whether double crop records must be
separately maintained for each crop. The requestor interprets the policy to mean the acreage and production records
are not required to be crop specific, and that records from the acreage that was double cropped can be combined with
records from acreage that was not double cropped. The requestor stated they have received previous documents and
perceived agreement from RMA regarding the documentation requirements, and therefore, the requestor is seeking a
Final Agency Determination.
The requestor provided an example where the producer provides records from the previous two years of onion crops.
Each year, onions were planted on a 40-acre field; however end rows (turn rows) and every 20th row (to allow for
farming equipment to be transported through the field) were skipped. As a result, only 32 actual acres of onions
were planted. The producer then plants the entire field (40 acres) with soybeans. The producer provides a satisfactory
record of acres and production from the 32 acres of onions, but is unable to provide separate soybean production records
for the 32 acres planted to onions and the remaining eight acres that were not double cropped. In this scenario, the
requestor interprets the producer to be eligible for 32 acres of double crop insurance coverage.
A second example was provided by the requestor where the producer planted and harvested 40 acres of wheat and
intended to plant the full 40 acres with soybeans; however, due to weather conditions was only able to plant 32 acres
of soybeans. Due to the original intent of planting the full 40 acres with soybeans, the producer did not maintain
and is unable to provide wheat production records for the 32 acres planted with soybeans and the remaining eight acres
where soybeans were not planted. However, based on the review of acreage and production records the requestor is able
to verify that 32 acres were successfully double cropped. Therefore, the requestor interprets the producer to be
eligible for 32 acres of double crop insurance coverage.
A third example was provided by the requestor in which a producer has a wheat policy with an enterprise unit
consisting of two farms located several miles apart from each other. The producer’s intent was to plant all wheat
acres to soybeans, and therefore the producer does not maintain separate wheat production records for the two farm
locations. However, due to a weather event the producer was prevented from planting the second soybean crop on one
of the farming locations and cannot provide separate wheat production from the crop acreage that was not double
cropped. The requestor interprets that due to the producer’s intent to plant all wheat acres to soybeans, the
provided for both crops will be acceptable records for double crop history.
Final Agency Determination
The Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC) agrees in part with the requestor’s interpretation. Normally separate production records for first crop and second crop acreage must be provided to prove double cropping history for the acreage on which double cropping practice is claimed. However, there are exceptions. FCIC has previously provided an informal interpretation stating that the first example was an exception.
In the first example provided by the requestor, the producer provides satisfactory records of acreage and
production from the 32 acres of onions. However, the producer is unable to provide separate soybean production
records broken down by the 32 acres previously planted to onions and the remaining eight acres that were not
originally planted to onions. Consistent with onion planting practices, leaving a reasonable amount of acreage
in end rows is a recognized cultural or management practice. In this case, FCIC agrees that it is impractical
and unreasonable to expect the producer to keep soybean production on the double cropped acreage separate from
production associated with the end rows and equipment lanes where no onions were previously planted. Therefore,
past records showing onion production on 32 acres and soybean production from 40 acres will qualify as acceptable
double cropping records in this specific example. FCIC agrees acceptable records were provided for 32 double
cropped acres in the first example.
With regard to the second example provided by the submitter, FCIC agrees it may provide another exception to the rule that separate records must be provided for first crop
and second crop acreage. However, the records for 32 acres where both a first crop and a second crop were planted and
harvested are acceptable only if the AIP determines there are acceptable records showing the entire 40 acres were double
cropped in one
of the past four crop years. Such documentation is necessary to determine the producer usually has a history of planting
the entire 40 acres to both wheat and soybeans, but due to weather conditions was unable to do so for the year in
question. In this case, the producer planted and harvested 40 acres of wheat and began to plant 40 acres of soybeans
following the wheat, but was only able to plant 32 acres of soybeans. The producer is unable to provide separate wheat
production records for the 32 acres planted to soybeans and the remaining eight acres where it was not possible to
plant soybeans due to weather. If the producer can provide records for one of the past four years showing that all
40 acres were double cropped, FCIC agrees that it is again impractical and unreasonable to require the producer to
maintain separate records for the 32 wheat acres considered double cropped from the 8 wheat acres where no second
crop was planted so the production records for the 32 acres are considered acceptable.
With respect to the third example, it presents a similar scenario to the second example. Separate production records
are normally required for acreage that is double cropped. However, similar to the second example, due to weather
conditions the producer was unable to plant soybeans on all acreage previously planted to wheat in the third situation
provided by the requestor. Therefore, if the AIP can determine there are acceptable records which show all acreage
in both fields were double cropped in one of the past four crop years, the AIP may determine the records for the year
in question satisfy the records requirement for proving double cropping history as stated in the Basic Provisions. If
both fields were not double cropped in one of the past four crop years, the records provided in example three cannot
be used to prove double cropping history.
In accordance with 7 C.F.R. 400.765(c), this Final Agency Determination is binding on all participants in the Federal
crop insurance program for the 2009 and succeeding crop years. Any appeal of this decision must be in accordance with 7
Date of Issue: Oct 2, 2009