This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

23772 

Vol. 72, No. 83 

Tuesday, May 1, 2007 

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL 

MANAGEMENT 

5 CFR Parts 315 and 752 

RIN 3206–AL30 

Career and Career-Conditional 

Employment and Adverse Actions 

AGENCY: Office of Personnel 

Management. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Office of Personnel 

Management (OPM) proposes to amend 

its regulations governing Federal 

adverse actions. The proposed 

regulations would conform the adverse 

action rules regarding employee 

coverage to binding judicial decisions 

interpreting the underlying statute. 

DATES: Submit comments on or before 

July 2, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Send or deliver written 

comments to Ana A. Mazzi, Deputy 

Associate Director for Workforce 

Relations and Accountability Policy, 

Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E 

Street, NW., Room 7H28, Washington, 

DC 20415; by FAX to 202–606–2613; or 

by e-mail to CWRAP@opm.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sharon L. Mayhew by telephone at (202) 

606–2930; by FAX at (202) 606–2613; or 

by e-mail at CWRAP@opm.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 

7514 of title 5, United States Code 

(U.S.C.), provides the statutory authority 

for OPM to prescribe regulations 

pertaining to adverse actions in the 

competitive or excepted service. In 

addition, these regulations are found at 

title 5, Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFR), part 752, subpart D, and are the 

subject of this interim final rule. 

Corresponding and related regulations 

pertaining to probationary periods are 

found at 5 CFR part 315, subpart H, and 

also are the subject of this proposed 

rule. 

Amendments To Clarify Adverse Action 

Rules Regarding Employee Coverage 

Background—New Interpretation of the 

Statute—Van Wersch and McCormick 

Two decisions of the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal 

Circuit or Court), Van Wersch v. 

Department of Health and Human 

Services, 197 F.3d 1144 (Fed. Cir. 1999) 

and McCormick v. Department of the 

Air Force, 307 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 

2002), pet. for reh’g in banc denied, 329 

F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2003) caused us to 

revise the pre-existing interpretation of 

5 U.S.C. 7511(a)(1), and invalidated 

portions of the adverse actions 

regulations at 5 CFR part 752. The effect 

of these Federal Circuit opinions is to 

provide additional procedural and 

appeal rights to individuals who are 

working in a probationary period in the 

competitive service and in a trial period 

in the excepted service. OPM is 

proposing to change its regulations to 

conform to the Court’s interpretation of 

the statute. 

The pertinent statutory text appears 

below: 

5 U.S.C. Sec. 7511. Definitions; application 

(a) For the purpose of this subchapter— 

(1) ‘‘Employee’’ means— 

(A) An individual in the competitive 

service— 

(i) Who is not serving a probationary or 

trial period under an initial appointment; or 

(ii) Who has completed 1 year of current 

continuous service under other than a 

temporary appointment limited to 1 year or 

less; 

(B) A preference eligible in the excepted 

service who has completed 1 year of current 

continuous service in the same or similar 

positions— 

(i) In an Executive agency; or 

(ii) In the United States Postal Service or 

Postal Rate Commission; and 

(C) An individual in the excepted service 

(other than a preference eligible)— 

(i) Who is not serving a probationary or 

trial period under an initial appointment 

pending conversion to the competitive 

service; or 

(ii) Who has completed 2 years of current 

continuous service in the same or similar 

positions in an Executive agency under other 

than a temporary appointment limited to 2 

years or less; 

An individual who meets this 

definition of ‘‘employee’’ is entitled to 

certain procedural and appeal rights 

when he or she is the subject of an 

adverse action (e.g., removal, certain 

types of suspension, reduction in grade, 

reduction in pay, and furlough of 30 

days or less). These rights include: (1) 

At least 30 days’ advance written notice 

of the reason for a proposed adverse 

action; (2) a reasonable time, but not 

less than 7 days, to answer orally and 

in writing; (3) the right to be represented 

by an attorney or other representative; 

(4) a written decision and the specific 

reasons for the decision at the earliest 

practicable date; and (5) a right to 

appeal to the Merit Systems Protection 

Board (MSPB or the Board). Individuals 

who do not meet this definition are not 

afforded all of these rights. 

Before the Court issued Van Wersch 

and McCormick, OPM and the MSPB 

interpreted the statute to exclude 

probationary or trial period employees 

from receiving the same rights as 

employees who have completed their 

probationary or trial period. 

Probationary and trial periods are 

essential for management to assess an 

individual’s performance prior to 

granting full employment rights. 

Specifically, OPM regulations did not 

afford full employment rights to an 

individual in the competitive service 

who failed to meet one of the conditions 

of 5 U.S.C. 7511(a)(1)(A), or an 

individual in the excepted service who 

failed to meet one of the conditions of 

5 U.S.C. 7511(a)(1)(C). Thus, for 

example, an individual in the 

competitive service serving in a 

probationary period was not an 

‘‘employee’’ for purposes of 5 CFR part 

752, nor was an individual who did not 

complete one year of current, 

continuous service under other than a 

temporary appointment limited to one 

year or less. Likewise, an individual in 

the excepted service serving a 

probationary or trial period was not an 

‘‘employee’’ for purposes of 5 CFR part 

752, nor was a nonpreference eligible 

who did not complete two years of 

current, continuous service under other 

than a temporary appointment limited 

to two years or less. 

Contrary to this interpretation, the 

Federal Circuit in Van Wersch held that 

an individual in the excepted service 

could meet the definition of ‘‘employee’’ 

if he or she met either of the two 

conditions listed at 5 U.S.C. 

7511(a)(1)(C). Ms. Van Wersch was 

removed from Federal employment for 

alleged unacceptable conduct. At the 

time of her removal, she was serving a 

probationary or trial period under an 

initial excepted service appointment 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 83 / Tuesday, May 1, 2007 / Proposed Rules 23773 

pending conversion to the competitive 

service and therefore was excluded from 

coverage under 5 U.S.C. 7511(a)(1)(C)(i). 

Ms. Van Wersch had been hired as a 

Clerk-Typist pursuant to 5 CFR 

213.3102(u), which allowed agencies to 

appoint severely handicapped persons 

to excepted service positions. 

Employees hired under this authority 

may qualify for conversion to 

competitive status after they have 

completed two years of satisfactory 

service. Ms. Van Wersch served over 

two years in this position but was not 

converted to competitive status. 

The Federal Circuit addressed the 

question of whether an individual, like 

Ms. Van Wersch, serving in a 

probationary or trial period and 

therefore excluded from the definition 

of ‘‘employee’’ under 5 U.S.C. 

7511(a)(1)(C)(i), could still be 

considered an employee, with full 

adverse action rights, if she met only the 

criteria of 5 U.S.C. 7511(a)(1)(C)(ii). The 

Government argued that Congress had 

not intended to extend employee appeal 

rights to excepted service personnel, 

such as Ms. Van Wersch, who were 

serving in probationary or trial positions 

pending conversion to the competitive 

service. While recognizing that the 

Government made a compelling case for 

its reading of the statute based on the 

legislative history, the Court rejected the 

Government’s argument, holding that 

Congress had not used language that 

effectuated the putative legislative 

intent and that courts are not authorized 

to look at Congressional intent when the 

language of the statute was clear and 

unambiguous. Van Wersch v. 

Department of Health and Human 

Services, 197 F.3d 1144, 1152 (Fed.Cir. 

1999). Because Ms. Van Wersch literally 

met what the Court determined was an 

alternative definition of ‘‘employee’’ in 

5 U.S.C. 7511(a)(1)(C)(ii), the Court 

concluded that she was an employee 

under the statute and therefore had the 

right to appeal her termination to the 

MSPB. Id. at 1151. The Federal Circuit 

also noted that ‘‘if Congress determines 

that individuals in Ms. Van Wersch’s 

position should not have the right to 

appeal adverse actions to the Board, it 

can amend § 7511(a)(1)(C) so as to 

compel a result different from the one 

we reach today.’’ Id. at 1152. 

The Federal Circuit applied the Van 

Wersch analysis to the competitive 

service in McCormick v. Department of 

the Air Force, 307 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 

2002), pet. for reh’g denied, 329 F. 3d 

1354 (Fed. Cir. 2003) and found the 

appellant qualified as an employee 

under 5 U.S.C. 7511(a)(1)(A)(ii) even 

though she failed to qualify under (i). 

Ms. McCormick previously was a 

competitive service employee at the 

Department of Health and Human 

Services (DHHS) before voluntarily 

moving to a new position at the 

Department of the Air Force. Her new 

competitive service appointment was 

subject to a one-year probationary 

period. Ms. McCormick was terminated 

during this probationary period. On 

appeal, Ms. McCormick argued that, 

while she did not meet the definition of 

an employee under 5 U.S.C. 

7511(a)(1)(A)(i), she did meet the 

definition of 5 U.S.C. 7511(a)(1)(A)(ii), 

based on her DHHS employment. 

The Court held that ‘‘[t]he panel is 

bound by the court’s earlier decision in 

Van Wersch.’’ Id. at 1342. Thus, the 

Federal Circuit concluded that Ms. 

McCormick met the definition of 

‘‘employee’’ under 5 U.S.C. 

7511(a)(1)(A)(ii), having completed 

more than 1 year of current or 

continuous service under other than a 

temporary appointment limited to 1 

year or less, and therefore was to be 

afforded all the rights of an employee. 

Id. at 1343. 

Conforming the Adverse Action 

Regulations to the New Statutory 

Interpretation 

As yet, Congress has not accepted the 

Court’s invitation to amend these 

provisions. Therefore, to eliminate 

potential confusion, OPM proposes to 

amend the regulations at 5 CFR part 752 

to conform to the existing Federal 

Circuit case law described above. 

[0]We therefore propose to make four 

amendments to the text of paragraphs 

(c) and (d) of 5 CFR 752.401, to clarify 

the definition of ‘‘employee’’ for 

purposes of the adverse action rules. 

Three amendments are required to 

conform to the holding in McCormick, 

and one amendment is necessary to 

conform to Van Wersch 

First, to conform with McCormick’s 

holding that an individual serving in the 

competitive service on a probationary 

period may meet the definition of an 

‘‘employee,’’ we propose to amend 

paragraph (c)(1) at § 752.401, to state 

that a career or career conditional 

employee in the competitive service 

who is not serving a probationary or 

trial period is a covered employee. We 

propose adding the phrase, ‘‘career or 

career conditional’’ here to address 

recent cases in which individuals 

serving in positions not subject to a 

probationary or trial period have 

attempted to establish that they are 

‘‘employees’’ within the meaning of the 

statute because they are not serving a 

probationary or trial period under an 

initial appointment. See e.g., Johnson v. 

Department of Veterans Affairs, 99 

MSPR 362 (2005). Such a conclusion 

would produce an unreasonable result 

in that every temporary appointee 

would have a right to advance notice, an 

opportunity to respond, and the right of 

appeal, on his or her first day of work. 

This is contrary to OPM’s interpretation 

of the phrase, ‘‘who is not serving a 

probationary or trial period under an 

initial appointment,’’ as applying only 

to individuals serving in positions that 

are subject to a probationary or trial 

period. The legislative history supports 

this interpretation and, accordingly, 

OPM explicitly continues its existing 

interpretation of the statute in this 

respect. We note that the MSPB adopted 

this interpretation in Johnson. 

Second, we propose to add a new §

752.401(d)(13) to clarify that a 

competitive service employee who is 

serving a probationary or trial period 

does not meet the definition of 

‘‘employee’’ unless he or she has 

completed one year of current 

continuous service under other than a 

temporary appointment limited to one 

year or less. 

The McCormick decision also requires 

an amendment to paragraph (c)(2) of 5 

CFR 752.401, which currently identifies 

as a covered employee, an individual 

‘‘in the competitive service serving in an 

appointment that requires no 

probationary or trial period, and who 

has completed one year of current 

continuous service in the same or 

similar positions under other than a 

temporary appointment limited to 1 

year or less.’’ We propose to remove the 

phrase, ‘‘serving in an appointment that 

requires no probationary or trial period, 

and’’ to comport with the Court’s ruling 

in McCormick. 

To comply with Van Wersch, the final 

amendment would add modifying 

language to paragraph (d)(11) to make it 

clear that a nonpreference eligible 

excepted service employee, who is 

serving a probationary or trial period 

pending conversion to the competitive 

service, does not meet the definition of 

‘‘employee’’ unless he or she has 

completed two years of current 

continuous service under other than a 

temporary appointment limited to two 

years or less. 

Conforming Part 315 to the New 

Statutory Interpretation 

We are also proposing to change part 

315, Career and Career Conditional 

Employment, to make the regulations 

governing probationary periods 

consistent with the change in the 

definition of ‘‘covered employee.’’ 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
23774 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 83 / Tuesday, May 1, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

Additional Regulatory Clarification 

Required by Payano 

OPM is proposing to remove the 

phrase ‘‘in the same or similar 

positions’’ from the regulation at the 

amended paragraph 5 CFR 

752.401(c)(2), and also from the 

definition of ‘‘current continuous 

employment’’ at 5 CFR 752.402. This 

change addresses language in the 

current regulations concerning 

individuals in the competitive service 

that requires that ‘‘continuous service’’ 

be in ‘‘the same or similar positions.’’ 

That language is not found in the 

statute. This issue arose in 

administrative litigation before the 

MSPB. See Payano v. Department of 

Justice, 100 MSPR 74 (2005). The issue 

in that case was whether an employee 

could ‘‘tack on’’ the time served in 

another competitive service position 

that was not the same as or similar to 

the position from which he was 

removed, for the purpose of determining 

whether or not he was an employee. The 

MSPB held that an agency was required 

to take this time into account in 

determining whether a person in the 

competitive service was an ‘‘employee.’’ 

OPM has determined that this 

interpretation of the statute is the best 

one and is proposing to change the 

regulations to reflect that view. 

Public Participation 

OPM invites interested persons to 

participate in this proposed rulemaking 

by submitting written comments, data, 

or views. 

Before finalizing these proposed 

amendments, we will consider all 

comments received on or before the 

closing date for comments. We will 

consider comments filed late if it is 

possible to do so without incurring 

expense or delay. We may change these 

proposed amendments in light of the 

comments we receive. 

E.O. 12866, Regulatory Review 

The Office of Management and Budget 

has reviewed this rule in accordance 

with E.O. 12866. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

OPM has determined these 

amendments will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities because they 

will apply only to Federal agencies and 

employees. 

List of Subjects 

5 CFR Part 315 

Government employees. 

5 CFR Part 752 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Government employees. 

Office of Personnel Management. 

Linda M. Springer, 

Director. 

Accordingly, OPM proposes to amend 

parts 315 and 752 of title 5, Code of 

Federal Regulations, as follows: 

PART 315—CAREER AND CAREER 

CONDITIONAL EMPLOYMENT 

1. The authority for part 315 

continues to read: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 1302, 3301, and 3302; 

E.O. 10577, 3 CFR, 1954–1958 Comp., p. 218, 

unless otherwise noted; and E.O. 13162; secs, 

315.601 and 315.609 also issued under 22 

U.S.C. 3651 and 3652. Secs. 315.602 and 

315.604 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 1104. Sec 

315.603 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 8151. Sec 

315.605 also issued under E.O. 12034, 3 CFR, 

1978 Comp., p. 111. Sec 315.606 also issued 

under E.O. 11219, 3 CFR, 1964–1965 Comp., 

p. 303. Sec 315.607 also issued under 22 

U.S.C. 2506. Sec 315.608 also issued under 

E.O. 12721, 3 CFR, 1990 Comp., p. 293. Sec. 

315.610 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 3304(d). 

Sec 315.611 also issued under Section 511, 

Pub. L. 106–117, 113 Stat. 1575–76. Sec 

315.708 also issued under E.O. 13318. Sec. 

315.710 also issued under E.O. 12596, 3 CFR, 

1987 Comp., p. 229. Subpart I also issued 

under 5 U.S.C. 3321, E.O. 12107, 3 CFR, 1978 

Comp., p. 264. 

2. Revise § 315.803 to read as follows: 

§ 315.803 Agency action during 

probationary period (general). 

(a) The agency shall utilize the 

probationary period as fully as possible 

to determine the fitness of the employee 

and shall terminate his services during 

this period if he fails to demonstrate 

fully his qualifications for continued 

employment. 

(b) Termination of an individual 

serving a probationary period must be 

taken in accordance with subpart D of 

part 752 of this chapter if the individual 

has completed one year of current 

continuous service under other than a 

temporary appointment limited to 1 

year or less and is not otherwise 

excluded by the provisions of that 

subpart. 

3. Revise § 315.804 (a) to read as 

follows: 

§ 315.804 Termination of probationers for 

unsatisfactory performance or conduct. 

(a) Subject to § 315.803(b), when an 

agency decides to terminate an 

employee serving a probationary or trial 

period because his work performance or 

conduct during this period fails to 

demonstrate his fitness or his 

qualifications for continued 

employment, it shall terminate his 

services by notifying him in writing as 

to why he is being separated and the 

effective date of the action. The 

information in the notice as to why the 

employee is being terminated shall, as a 

minimum, consist of the agency’s 

conclusions as to the inadequacies of 

his performance or conduct. 

* * * * * 

4. Revise § 315.805 introductory text 

to read as follows: 

§ 315.805 Termination of probationers for 

conditions arising before appointment. 

Subject to § 315.803(b), when an 

agency proposes to terminate an 

employee serving a probationary or trial 

period for reasons based in whole or in 

part on conditions arising before his 

appointment, the employee is entitled to 

the following: 

* * * * * 

PART 752—ADVERSE ACTIONS 

1. The authority for part 752 

continues to read: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 7504, 7514, and 7543. 

2. Revise § 752.401 (c)(1) and (2), 

(d)(11) and (12), and add (d)(13) to read 

as follows: 

§ 752.401 Coverage. 

(a) * * * 

(b) * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) A career or career conditional 

employee in the competitive service 

who is not serving a probationary or 

trial period; 

(2) An employee in the competitive 

service who has completed 1 year of 

current continuous service under other 

than a temporary appointment limited 

to 1 year or less; 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

* * * * * 

(11) A nonpreference eligible 

employee serving a probationary or trial 

period under an initial appointment in 

the excepted service pending 

conversion to the competitive service, 

unless they meet the requirements of 

paragraph (c)(5) of this section; 

(12) An employee whose agency or 

position has been excluded from the 

appointing provisions of title 5, United 

States Code, by separate statutory 

authority in the absence of any 

provision to place the employee within 

the coverage of chapter 75 of title 5, 

United States Code; and 

(13) An employee in the competitive 

service serving a probationary or trial 

period, unless they meet the 

requirements of paragraph (c)(2) of this 

section. 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 83 / Tuesday, May 1, 2007 / Proposed Rules 23775 

3. Revise § 752.402 (b) to read as 

follows: 

§ 752.402 Definitions. 

(a) * * * 

(b) Current continuous employment 

means a period of employment or 

service immediately preceding an 

adverse action without a break in 

Federal civilian employment of a 

workday. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. E7–8061 Filed 4–30–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6325–39–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Grain Inspection, Packers and 

Stockyards Administration 

7 CFR Part 810 

RIN 0580–AA96 

Request for Public Comment on the 

United States Standards for Soybeans 

AGENCY: Grain Inspection, Packers and 

Stockyards Administration, USDA. 

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: We are initiating a review of 

the United States Standards for 

Soybeans to determine their 

effectiveness and responsiveness to 

current grain industry needs. Numerous 

changes have occurred in the breeding 

and production practices of soybeans as 

well as in the technology used to 

harvest, process, and test soybeans, and 

in the marketing practices of soybeans. 

As a result, soybean producer groups 

have asked us to initiate a review of the 

soybean standards. In order to ensure 

that the standards and subsequent 

grading practices remain relevant, we 

invite interested persons to submit 

comments and supporting information 

to assist in the evaluation of current 

standards and grading practices for 

soybeans and in the development of any 

recommendations for change. 

DATES: We will consider comments that 

we receive by July 2, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: We invite you to submit 

comments on this advance notice of 

proposed rulemaking. You may submit 

comments by any of the following 

methods: 

<bullet≤ E-Mail: Send comments via 

electronic mail to 

comments.gipsa@usda.gov. <bullet≤ Mail: Send hardcopy written 

comments to Tess Butler, GIPSA, USDA, 

1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Room 

1647–S, Washington, DC 20250–3604. <bullet≤ Fax: Send comments by 

facsimile transmission to: (202) 690– 

2755. 

<bullet≤ Hand Delivery or Courier: 

Deliver comments to: Tess Butler, 

GIPSA, USDA, 1400 Independence 

Avenue, SW., Room 1647–S, 

Washington, DC 20250–3604. <bullet≤ Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

Go to http://www.regulations.gov. 

Follow the online instructions for 

submitting comments. <bullet≤ Instructions: All comments 

should make reference to the date and 

page number of this issue of the Federal 

Register. <bullet≤ Read Comments: All 

comments will be available for public 

inspection in the above office during 

regular business hours (7 CFR 1.27(b)). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Rebecca Riese at GIPSA, USDA, 1400 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20250–3630; 

Telephone (202) 720–4116; Fax Number 

(202) 720–7883; e-mail 

Rebecca.A.Riese@usda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Order 12866 

This rule has been determined to be 

exempt from the purpose of Executive 

Order 12866, and therefore has not been 

reviewed by the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB). We established the U.S. soybean 

standards on November 20, 1940, under 

the authority of the United States Grain 

Standards Act (7 U.S.C. 76). To further 

facilitate the marketing of U.S. 

soybeans, we revised the standards in 

1994 and 2006. The 2006 revision 

becomes effective September 1, 2007. In 1994, we revised the reporting 

requirements of splits (broken soybeans 

where more than one fourth of the 

soybean removed and that are not 

damaged), reduced the U.S. Sample 

Grade criteria for stones and glass, 

established a special grade Purple 

Mottled or Stained, eliminated the grade 

limitation on materially weathered 

soybeans, clarified references to Mixed 

soybeans, and established a cumulative 

total for U.S. Sample Grade factors. In 

2006, we published a Final Rule (71 FR 

52403–52406), to be effective September 

1, 2007, that changes the minimum test 

weight per bushel (TW) from a grade 

determining factor to an informational 

factor. Various factors are identified for 

soybeans and are used to determine the 

level of the grade of the shipment of 

soybeans. TW will continue to be 

measured, but no longer used to 

determine grade; it will be provided as 

additional information on the certificate 

unless the applicant for inspection 

service for the soybeans indicates that 

the information is not needed. As an 

informational factor TW may continue 

to be of interest and specified in 

contracts for soybean shipments. 

The standards serve as the 

fundamental starting point to define 

U.S. soybean quality in the global 

marketplace. They include definitions, 

the basic principles governing 

application of standards, such as the 

type of sample used for a particular 

quality analysis, grades and grade 

requirements, and special grades and 

special grade requirements, such as for 

Garlicky soybeans and Purple Mottled 

or Stained soybeans. Official procedures 

for how the various grading factors are 

determined are provided in the Grain 

Inspection Handbook, Book II, Chapter 

10, ‘‘Soybeans.’’ Official procedures 

may be viewed and printed from the 

GIPSA Web site at: http:// 

archive.gipsa.usda.gov/referencelibrary/handbooks/grain-insp/grbook2/ 

soybean.pdf.) Also included are 

standardized procedures for additional 

soybean quality attributes not used to 

determine grade, such as oil and protein 

content. Together, the grading and 

testing standards allow buyers and 

sellers to communicate quality 

requirements for trade, compare 

soybean quality using equivalent forms 

of measurement, and assist in the 

establishment of price. 

GIPSA’s grading and inspection 

services, as provided through a network 

of federal, state, and private 

laboratories, determine the quality and 

condition of soybeans. These 

determinations are performed in 

accordance with applicable standards 

using approved methodologies, and can 

be applied at any point in the marketing 

chain. The current testing technology 

for quality attributes, such as oil and 

protein content, is rapid and reliable, 

yielding consistent results. In addition, 

GIPSA issues certificates describing the 

quality and condition of the graded 

soybeans that are accepted as evidence 

in all Federal courts. U.S. soybean 

standards, and the affiliated grading and 

testing services offered by GIPSA, verify 

that the seller’s commodity meets 

specified requirements, and that 

customers receive the quality they 

expect. 

Over time, numerous changes have 

occurred in the breeding and production 

practices of soybeans as well as in the 

technology used to harvest, process, and 

test soybeans, and in the marketing 

practices of soybeans. In this rapidly 

evolving market, we need to ensure that 

the U.S. soybean standards and 

associated grading procedures remain 

relevant. Therefore, we are issuing this 

advance notice of proposed rulemaking 

to invite comments from all interested 

persons for input and suggestions for 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS