USDA officials sent two key proposed rules last week to the White House Office of Management and Budget for review.

One involves the Supplemental Revenue Assistance Payment program, or SURE. Or for those of us nauseated by federal acronyms, the permanent disaster program from the 2008 farm bill. Congress created the $3.8 billion Agricultural Disaster Relief Trust Fund in the farm bill after constant battles over ad hoc disaster spending in Congress that sometimes would take more than two years after a disaster declaration before funding would be authorized and farmers paid for the losses.

SURE should be in place, but it's not quite completed yet. The program would pay up to a $100,000 crop disaster payment to eligible producers. If you remember, a couple of the caveats for SURE include required crop insurance coverage for all revenue crops on the farm. It also requires a whole-farm income loss.

According to the OMB abstract, "The new provisions are for SURE payments to eligible producers on farms in disaster counties and on farms in which weather-related losses exceeded 50 percent of the normal production for that year. SURE payments will be issued to eligible producers in an amount equal to 60 percent of the difference between the disaster assistance program guarantee and the total farm revenue for a farm. Producers are required to purchase coverage under the Noninsured Disaster Program (NAP) for their eligible crops as a prerequisite to receiving assistance under SURE. Producers meeting the definition of socially disadvantaged, limited resource, and beginning farmer or rancher will be exempted from the requirement to purchase crop insurance or NAP coverage."

A spokesman for USDA's Farm Service Agency said Monday the final rule will be out within a few weeks and payments made on disasters by end of the year.

On a different front, the Grain Inspection Packers and Stockyards Administration has sent OMB a rule on changes to the Packers and Stockyards Act regarding poultry contracts. The GIPSA rule would address cancellation of poultry contracts regarding "whether a live poultry dealer has provided reasonable notice to poultry growers of any suspension of the delivery of birds under a poultry growing arrangement; when a requirement of additional capital investments over the life of a poultry growing arrangement or swine production contract constitutes a violation of the Act; and if a live poultry dealer or swine contractor has provided a reasonable period of time for a poultry grower or a swine production contract grower to remedy a breach of contract that could lead to termination of the poultry growing arrangement or swine production contract."

I can be found on Twitter at chrisclaytonDTN.