Programs Submission Response: NAP Notice of Loss

The NAP Notice of Loss should provide a total of the “Disaster Affected Planted Acres”. 

At payment time, the notice of loss is matched to the producer print to verify acreage. Employee must manually total the notice of loss to accomplish this task.

The form does a great job of providing the FSN, unit number and acreage. In order for it to be easily matched to the producer print, add a line for TOTAL of DISASTER AFFECTED PLANTED ACRES.

We have discussed this issue at the national level. We contend that Item 8D could potentially have the same acreage affected numerous times for difference disaster events. We realize that this item is not currently being totaled since that could result in the disaster affected acres exceeding the reported acres. Form CCC-576 is a multiple program form and is not necessarily being used strictly for NAP. As a division and team, we will propose to review this form under the next Farm Bill or if budget would allow for modifications during this current Farm Bill. If the form is revised it would have to meet the criteria of all other programs currently utilizing the information contained on the form as well as comply with the Information Collection Package as authorized by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act.


Programs Submission Response: NAP Correspondence

NAP correspondence is sent through automated email systems directly to producers. The following is an example:

“Thank you for signing up for 2016 NAP Coverage with the USDA Farm Service Agency. Attached is your 2016 Summary of Coverage, including applicable service fees, estimated premiums, and estimated remaining balances due. For more information about your NAP coverage, please contact your administrative county office.”

Many producers are highly receptive to this prompt, effective means of communication; however they may read the message and call the COF, and we aren’t up-to-speed on exactly what message they are reading that they say we have just sent to their email account.

COF employees currently don’t have the text of the email message or the same Summary of Coverage report that the producer is seeing in the email readily available through the NAP Application Software.

It would be helpful and beneficial to program NAP correspondence so that a copy is sent to the respective County Office (at least the CED), so that the County Office is aware of the exact communication at the same time the producer receives it.

We have worked hard to become more transparent in our mailings and e-mail to producers participating in our NAP program. Since our national mailings come from a centralized location in Kansas City, it has been difficult for offices to identify what letters have been sent to producers. Luckily we now have a way to track the letters and e-mails that are sent to individuals that participate in the NAP program. National training was delivered to State Offices in June about the availability of these enhancements. The National Office will work to provide these options in the 3-NAP handbook in a future amendment. As they are available now, I will walk you through the availability for each enhanced option. Should you have any questions about the delivery of these enhancements, please feel free to contact me.

When you access the main NAP menu an option appears for the Notification Center, as listed below:


By Selecting on this Notification Center “Reports” tab, county offices can now access what e-mails and physical letters are sent to the producers in each county. An example:

County offices have the option to run a report that will provide all letters sent by physical mail or by e-mail for each producer in their county. They have the options to see the dates that each of these pieces of information have been sent to producers. For example:


The great thing about this report is it gives the exact dates that each letter was either physically mailed to the producer or e-mailed, if the producer chooses to receive e-mail. Producers receive both a physical copy and an e-mailed copy if they select to receive e-mail.

Another example but with the same idea is the Continuous Coverage Mailing Report. This report identifies each year, based on the year selected, which producers received a Continuous Coverage mailing and the date that those letters were sent to the producer. For Example:


Once County Offices identify which producers received each of these letters, they can identify which letters were sent to the producer and select that producer to see the individual information that was sent out of the producer. That selection is made by doing a “Search by Producer” as listed below: 


After that selection of the producer is made in the SCIMS Search, the following options are available for each individual producer. For Example: 


By viewing the listed information, County Offices can access exactly what the producer received, in both the e-mail or the physically mailed document.

I hope this helps in your delivery back to the county offices. We will continue to work to provide the offices with all the information that is sent to producers concerning the NAP program.


Programs Submission Response: NAP

In XX State there were 2015 NAP policies sold with the Direct Marketing Price option.  The office is being told that 2015 producers are not subject to direct market prices because their premiums were based on average market prices, even though they chose the direct market option.  How can we offer the direct market pricing (and organic pricing), if it’s not available?  Now we have 2016 contracts, again with the option of direct market pricing.  I really don’t know what to tell my producers.  Telling them it’s been in WDC since January and they are working on it just doesn’t seem to work anymore.

The office received this response from their STO:  “Please know our recommendation was made in January and was for those crops that had application closing dates that had not yet passed (our recommendation had to be made not later than 60 days before the application closing date for the crop.  So, please understand that the January 2015 recommendation was not for all NAP crops.  But it is my hope that we get an answer soon and that the answer gives us further guidance on how best to proceed for 2016.”

The CO believes that based on the training, the memo we received on September 18th and the handbook that:

  1. Producers should be entitled to 2015 direct market pricing as they had the option at enrollment, regardless of what the premium calculated out to.  If the premium calculated at average market price, it’s not under the producers control.
  2. The 2015 information was submitted to WDC well after the deadline outlined in 1-NAP, para. 207B.  Again, out of the producer’s control.
  3. And the memo on issuing manual payments clearly states that another payment will be issued to those producers who chose direct market pricing.

The following is the latest on the recommendations of organic and direct market pricing from the XX State FSA Committee.

The State committee did send a timely recommendation of direct and organic prices for some crops.  Upon receipt, a representative of the National office visited with the State office in XX briefly to discuss the data sent with the recommendation.  The National office then performed extensive research and analysis of the crops and recommendations in order to arrive at an informed decision. 

On November 20, 2015, DAFP advised the XX State FSA Office of its decision on the 2015 recommended crops.  The crops were approved.  Prices were established.  A notice is forthcoming from the State office to XX county FSA offices advising them to apply the price to 2015 applications for coverage.

While we regret the length of time it took to analyze the recommendation, we believe the policy instituted by DAFP regarding establishment of direct and organic pricing (soon to be issued) will speed NCT crop approval of prices.

Thank you for your concerns.  However, XX counties should soon be receiving notice of 2015 direct and organic price approvals soon.