This part changes four disaster programs for farmers. Livestock killed by predators is paid at full market value. Losses to weather or disease are paid at 75 percent. Unborn animals get a payment of their own. Fish farms hit by birds and orchards hit by storms are covered too.
The document says “shall”Who acts: Secretary of AgricultureHow: statuteSec. 10401 in the PDF
What the document says
“Indemnity payments to an eligible producer on a farm under paragraph (1)(A) shall be made at a rate of 100 percent of the market value of the affected livestock on the applicable date, as determined by the Secretary.”
The section strikes paragraph (2) of section 1501(b) of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (7 U.S.C. 9081(b)) and inserts a new one under which indemnity payments for losses due to predation are made at 100 percent of the market value of the affected livestock on the applicable date.
What the document actually says
“Indemnity payments to an eligible producer on a farm under paragraph (1)(A) shall be made at a rate of 100 percent of the market value of the affected livestock on the applicable date, as determined by the Secretary.”
That sentence, in plain words
An animal lost to a predator is paid in full. The rate is 100 percent of what it was worth. The Secretary works out that value.
What this is about
A predator is an animal that kills livestock. The value used is the one on a set date. That date is fixed by another rule in this part.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.
The document says “shall”Who acts: Secretary of AgricultureHow: statuteSec. 10401 in the PDF
What the document says
“Indemnity payments to an eligible producer on a farm under subparagraph (B) or (C) of paragraph (1) shall be made at a rate of 75 percent of the market value of the affected livestock on the applicable date, as determined by the Secretary.”
The section sets the indemnity payment for losses due to adverse weather or disease at 75 percent of the market value of the affected livestock on the applicable date, as determined by the Secretary.
What the document actually says
“Indemnity payments to an eligible producer on a farm under subparagraph (B) or (C) of paragraph (1) shall be made at a rate of 75 percent of the market value of the affected livestock on the applicable date, as determined by the Secretary.”
That sentence, in plain words
An animal lost to bad weather or illness is paid less. The rate is 75 percent of what it was worth. The Secretary works out that value.
What this is about
This rate is lower than the one for predators. The same set date is used for the value. Both rates sit in the same new rule.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.
“the term `applicable date' means, with respect to livestock, as applicable--”
The section defines the applicable date as the day before the animal died or, where the harm led to a reduced sale price rather than a death, the day before the event that caused it. It also lets the Secretary consider a producer's ability to document regional price premiums for the affected livestock above the national average market price.
What the document actually says
“the term `applicable date' means, with respect to livestock, as applicable--”
That sentence, in plain words
The law gives the term applicable date a meaning. The two choices that follow set it.
What this is about
One choice is the day before the animal died. The other is the day before the event that harmed it. The Secretary may also count higher local prices.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.
The document says “shall”Who acts: Secretary of AgricultureHow: statuteSec. 10401 in the PDF
What the document says
“In the case of unborn livestock death losses incurred on or after January 1, 2024, the Secretary shall make an additional payment to eligible producers on farms that have incurred such losses in excess of the normal mortality due to a condition specified in paragraph (1).”
The section adds a new paragraph (5) to section 1501(b) of the Agricultural Act of 2014 requiring an additional payment for unborn livestock death losses incurred on or after January 1, 2024 that run beyond normal mortality. The rate is set by the Secretary, acting through the Administrator of the Farm Service Agency, and may not exceed 85 percent of the payment rate for the lowest weight class of the livestock. The payment is that rate multiplied by 1, 2, 12, or the average number of birthed animals for one gestation cycle, depending on the class of animal. Unborn livestock death losses are defined as losses of listed livestock that was gestating on the date of death.
What the document actually says
“In the case of unborn livestock death losses incurred on or after January 1, 2024, the Secretary shall make an additional payment to eligible producers on farms that have incurred such losses in excess of the normal mortality due to a condition specified in paragraph (1).”
That sentence, in plain words
A farm that loses unborn animals gets an extra payment. The loss must be from January 1, 2024 or later. It must be more than the usual rate of loss.
What this is about
The rate is set by the Secretary. It may not top 85 percent of the rate for the smallest weight class. The payment is then multiplied by a number that depends on the animal.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.
The document says “is amended”Who acts: Secretary of AgricultureHow: statuteSec. 10401 in the PDF
What the document says
“4 consecutive weeks during the normal grazing period for the county, as determined by the Secretary, shall be eligible to receive assistance under this paragraph in an amount equal to 1 monthly payment using the monthly payment rate determined under subparagraph (B); or”
The section amends section 1501(c)(3)(D)(ii)(I) of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (7 U.S.C. 9081(c)(3)(D)(ii)(I)) by striking 1 monthly payment and inserting 2 monthly payments, and by replacing the eight consecutive week test with a two-step one: four consecutive weeks in the county's normal grazing period earns one monthly payment, and seven of the previous eight consecutive weeks is the other step.
What the document actually says
“4 consecutive weeks during the normal grazing period for the county, as determined by the Secretary, shall be eligible to receive assistance under this paragraph in an amount equal to 1 monthly payment using the monthly payment rate determined under subparagraph (B); or”
That sentence, in plain words
Four weeks in a row during the grazing season now counts. A farm that hits it gets one monthly payment. The rate comes from another rule.
What this is about
A second step sits alongside it, at seven of the last eight weeks. The section also doubles one payment, from one month to two. The older law it sits in is not indexed here.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.
The document says “shall”Who acts: Secretary of AgricultureHow: statuteSec. 10401 in the PDF
What the document says
“Eligible producers of farm-raised fish, including fish grown as food for human consumption, shall be eligible to receive payments under this subsection to aid in the reduction of losses due to piscivorous birds.”
The section adds a new paragraph (5) to section 1501(d) of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (7 U.S.C. 9081(d)) making producers of farm-raised fish eligible for payments to help cut losses to fish-eating birds. Farm-raised fish is defined as fish propagated and reared in a controlled fresh water environment.
What the document actually says
“Eligible producers of farm-raised fish, including fish grown as food for human consumption, shall be eligible to receive payments under this subsection to aid in the reduction of losses due to piscivorous birds.”
That sentence, in plain words
Fish farmers may now get payments. The payments help with losses to fish-eating birds. Fish grown for people to eat are covered.
What this is about
Farm-raised fish means fish bred and grown in fresh water that is controlled. Wild fish are not covered. Birds that eat fish are the cause the rule names.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.
The document says “shall”Who acts: Secretary of AgricultureHow: statuteSec. 10401 in the PDF
What the document says
“The payment rate for payments under subparagraph (B) shall be not less than $600 per acre of farm-raised fish.”
The section requires the Secretary to set the payment rate taking into account the costs of deterring fish-eating birds, the value of lost fish and revenue, and the costs of disease loss from bird damage, and sets a floor of $600 per acre. The payment is that rate multiplied by 85 percent of the total acres of fish farms the producer has in production for the calendar year.
What the document actually says
“The payment rate for payments under subparagraph (B) shall be not less than $600 per acre of farm-raised fish.”
That sentence, in plain words
The rate may not fall below $600 for each acre of fish. That is a floor, not a cap.
What this is about
The Secretary weighs three things in setting the rate. The payment covers 85 percent of the acres in use. Those are the acres in production that year.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.
The document says “shall”Who acts: Secretary of AgricultureHow: statuteSec. 10401 in the PDF
What the document says
“In determining honeybee colony losses eligible for assistance under section 1501(d) of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (7 U.S.C. 9081(d)), the Secretary shall utilize a normal mortality rate of 15 percent.”
The section requires the Secretary to use a normal mortality rate of 15 percent in deciding which honeybee colony losses qualify for emergency assistance under section 1501(d) of the Agricultural Act of 2014.
What the document actually says
“In determining honeybee colony losses eligible for assistance under section 1501(d) of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (7 U.S.C. 9081(d)), the Secretary shall utilize a normal mortality rate of 15 percent.”
That sentence, in plain words
The Secretary must use a set figure for normal bee losses. That figure is 15 percent.
What this is about
Losses above that line can draw help. Losses below it are treated as normal. The figure is now fixed in law.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.
The document says “is amended”Who acts: Secretary of AgricultureHow: statuteSec. 10401 in the PDF
What the document says
“in paragraph (2)(B), by striking "15 percent (adjusted for normal mortality)" and inserting "normal mortality"; and”
The section amends section 1501(e) of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (7 U.S.C. 9081(e)) by replacing the 15 percent thresholds with normal mortality in paragraph (2)(B) and paragraph (3)(A)(i), by replacing the words about 15 percent damage or mortality with normal tree damage or mortality in paragraph (3)(B), and by striking 50 and inserting 65 in that same subparagraph.
What the document actually says
“in paragraph (2)(B), by striking "15 percent (adjusted for normal mortality)" and inserting "normal mortality"; and”
That sentence, in plain words
Words setting a 15 percent test are taken out. The words normal mortality are put in.
What this is about
The same swap is made in two more spots. A number in the rule also moves from 50 to 65. What that number counts is not recorded here.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.
Each distinct thing the section does: the two livestock indemnity payment rates, the definition of the applicable date and the room to count regional price premiums, the new payment for unborn livestock, the changes to the livestock forage disaster program, the new payments for fish farms losing stock to birds, the honeybee normal mortality rate, and the new thresholds in the tree assistance program.
The multiplier table for unborn livestock, which sets a factor of 1, 2, 12 or a species average by class of animal, is carried in a summary rather than recorded as its own proposal.
The section works by amending section 1501 of the Agricultural Act of 2014, which is not indexed here, so which animals fall in each listed class, and what the older payment rules said, cannot be checked against anything on this site.
