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
23776 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 83 / Tuesday, May 1, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

amendments to the soybean standards 

and associated grading procedures so 

that the standards remain applicable 

and best facilitate the marketing of U.S. 

soybeans. We are requesting comments, 

supporting data, and other information 

in response to questions on the 

following topics, as well as about all 

aspects of the soybean standards and 

inspection procedures. This information 

may be viewed and printed from the 

GIPSA Web site at: http:// 

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

soybean.pdf. 

Foreign Material 

The soybean standards currently 

define foreign material (FM) as: ‘‘All 

matter that passes through an 8/64 

round-hole sieve and all matter other 

than soybeans remaining in the sieved 

sample after sieving according to 

procedures prescribed in FGIS 

instructions.’’ 

When separating FM (impurities) 

from soybeans, inspectors follow a 

process that entails using a combined 

mechanical (sieve) and manual 

separation procedure. Specifically, 

inspectors first handpick the 1,000 to 

1,050-gram soybean sample for coarse 

foreign material (e.g., whole kernels of 

corn, cockleburs, sticks, and pods). 

Next, inspectors cut down the sample 

(free of coarse FM) to a portion of 125 

grams. Using an approved shaker or 

hand sieve, the inspector sieves the 

sample with an 8/64’’ round-hole sieve. 

The inspector must handpick the 

material other than soybeans from the 

material remaining on top of the sieve 

and add it to the material that passed 

through the sieve (fine FM). 

It is important to note that when 

inspectors see soybean pods in the 

sample, they remove the soybeans from 

the pods and only the pod is considered 

as foreign material. Further, soybean 

hulls which remain on top of the sieve 

are not considered FM; whereas small 

broken pieces of soybeans, which pass 

through the sieve, are considered as FM. 

Finally, inspectors calculate the total 

amount of FM by adding the percentage 

of coarse FM to the percentage of fine 

FM. (This procedure may be viewed and 

printed from the GIPSA Web site at: 

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

soybean.pdf.) 

The following is a series of questions 

about the FM definition and procedure: 

1. Is the definition of FM, as provided 

in the soybean standards, still sufficient 

for current marketing practices? 

2. How does our method for 

separating FM from soybeans compare 

to the commercial cleaning process? 

Please provide as much detail as 

possible as to how FM is determined in 

the market or for the segment of the 

market that you represent. 

3. In order to provide a better 

representation of actual market value of 

soybeans, should we consider 

developing and adopting a fullyautomated process to better reflect 

commercial cleaning capabilities? 

Please elaborate on the type of 

equipment (and sieves, if applicable) 

necessary for using such a procedure for 

separating FM from soybeans. 

4. Do small broken pieces of soybeans 

have processing value? Should the 

procedure be amended so that brokens 

are not considered as FM? 

5. Do processors have a method for 

removing soybeans from the pod? If not, 

should the procedure be amended so 

that pods, with or without soybeans in 

them, will be considered as FM? 

6. In light of changes in the 

production practices of soybeans 

brought about by various technological 

developments, farm programs, and other 

factors, should the grading limits for FM 

be amended? What should the new 

grade limits be? Please provide a 

rationale for any changes, and if 

possible, project the quantifiable costs 

and benefits for the U.S. soybean market 

if the grade limits were amended. 

Damage 

According to our current inspection 

procedures, inspectors cross section 

soybeans and pieces of soybeans that are 

immature and have a thin, flat, 

wrinkled, or wafer-like appearance to 

determine if there is ‘‘meat’’ in the 

kernel. If there is ‘‘meat’’ in the kernel 

and the ‘‘meat’’ is not otherwise 

damaged, the inspector considers the 

soybean to be sound. 

7. Do wafered kernels (wafers) 

containing minimal amounts of ‘‘meat’’ 

have processing value? If not, or if the 

value is appreciably reduced, should the 

procedure be amended so that wafers, to 

include soybeans with minimal 

amounts of meat, are considered 

damaged for inspection and grading 

purposes? 

Other Factors 

In the Official Inspection and 

Weighing System, we currently offer 

analyses or determinations for a number 

of official criteria factors for soybeans. 

8. Are there other factors for which 

we should offer analyses/determinations 

that would provide better or more 

complete information to facilitate the 

marketing and/or processing of 

soybeans? 

9. Since oil and protein content are 

considered to be the true determinants 

of value for soybean processing, should 

analysis of oil and protein content be 

mandatory, nongrade-determining 

factors that would be determined and 

reported on all official certificates for 

grade? 

10. Are there certain aspects about the 

oil and protein content that would 

provide more meaningful information? 

For example, should we offer not only 

protein content, but also the amino acid 

profile of the protein? 

11. Considering the rapid growth in 

biodiesel production, would the 

information exchange between sellers 

and buyers of soybeans be facilitated if 

standardized tests existed for attributes, 

such as fatty acids? 

a. Please list the specific attributes. 

b. Should we have a role in 

standardizing tests for the attributes 

listed? Should we assist only in the 

standardization of the tests (e.g., 

develop reference methods or improve 

existing reference methods) or should 

we make tests for these attributes 

available throughout the official system? 

GIPSA has been working with life 

science companies in the pursuit of a 

standardized, rapid test for the 

determination of linolenic acid content 

in soybeans. Acres currently devoted to 

production of low linolenic acid 

soybean varieties are lower than 

previously anticipated. In 2006, these 

acres totaled approximately 750,000 out 

of the 72 million total planted soybean 

acres, less than 1 percent. However, 

seed distributors project acres devoted 

to production of low linolenic acid 

soybean varieties in 2007 to triple. 

12. Should GIPSA continue to pursue 

a standardized, rapid test for the 

determination of linolenic acid content 

and, if so, why? 

Visual Reference Images 

In the determination of the grading 

factor total damage, inspectors look for 

a number of types of damage, including 

badly ground-damaged, badly 

weathered-damaged, diseased, frostdamaged, germ-damaged, heat-damaged, 

insect-bored, mold-damaged, sproutdamaged, stinkbug-stung, or otherwise 

materially damaged. 

13. Are these the right types of 

damage, and are visual reference 

images/interpretive lines that are 

currently used to determine the various 

types of damages reflective of the level 

of quality desired in the marketplace? 

(Visual reference images/interpretive 

lines may be viewed on the GIPSA Web 

site at: http://www.gipsa.usda.gov/ 

GIPSA/webapp?area=home&subject= 

grpi&topic=sq-isd-soybeans.) 

Inspectors also rely on visual 

reference images to determine whether 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 83 / Tuesday, May 1, 2007 / Proposed Rules 23777 

a sample meets the general appearance 

criteria for the special grade designation 

‘‘Purple Mottled or Stained.’’ 

14. In consideration of the fact that 

the overall appearance of the product is 

an important consideration for some 

customers, should we create other 

general appearance images? What 

appearance factors are of greatest 

interest? (Visual reference images/ 

general appearance factors may be 

viewed on the GIPSA Web site at: http:// 

www.gipsa.usda.gov/GIPSA/webapp? 

area=home&subject=grpi&topic=sq-isd.) 

Basis of Determination 

As provided in 9 CFR 810.1603, Basis 

of determination, ‘‘each determination 

of class, heat-damaged kernels, damaged 

kernels, splits, and soybeans of other 

colors is made on the basis of the grain 

when free from foreign material. 

Inspectors make other determinations 

not specifically provided for under the 

general provisions on the basis of the 

grain as a whole.’’ For example, 

inspectors determine moisture content 

on the sample as a whole. 

15. What basis of determination is 

used in the marketplace for the various 

factors? Why does the marketplace use 

that basis? 

16. Would there be any positive or 

detrimental consequences if we were to 

determine all factors on the basis of a 

sample when free from foreign matter? 

Food Grade Soybeans 

17. Should we establish a separate 

standard, for example, U.S. Standards 

for Food Grade Soybeans or a separate 

grade level, class, or special grade 

within the existing soybeans standards 

for food-grade soybeans? Please provide 

as much detail as possible as to: 

a. Explain why. 

b. What would a new standard look 

like or what would the grade limits be 

for a new grade level? 

We are committed to provide marketrelevant soybean standards. We 

welcome your comments on these issues 

as well as any comments or suggestions 

on changes to the soybean standards 

and grading procedures. 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 71–87. 

James E. Link, 

Administrator, Grain Inspection, Packers and 

Stockyards Administration. 

[FR Doc. E7–8291 Filed 4–30–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–KD–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

7 CFR Part 929 

[Docket No. AMS–FV–07–0034; FV07–929– 

1] 

Cranberries Grown in the States of 

Massachusetts, Rhode Island, 

Connecticut, New Jersey, Wisconsin, 

Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, 

Washington, and Long Island in the 

State of New York; Continuance 

Referendum 

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, 

USDA. 

ACTION: Referendum order. 

SUMMARY: This document directs that a 

continuance referendum be conducted 

among eligible growers of cranberries in 

the States of Massachusetts, Rhode 

Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, 

Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, 

Oregon, Washington, and Long Island in 

the State of New York to determine 

whether they favor continuance of the 

marketing order regulating the handling 

of cranberries grown in the production 

area. 

DATES: The referendum will be 

conducted from May 17 through May 

31, 2007. To vote in this referendum, 

growers must have been engaged in 

producing cranberries within the 

production area during the period 

September 1, 2005, through August 31, 

2006. 

ADDRESSES: Copies of the marketing 

order may be obtained from USDA, 

Washington, DC Marketing Field Office, 

4700 River Road, Unit 155, Riverdale, 

Maryland 20737, or the Office of the 

Docket Clerk, Marketing Order 

Administration Branch, Fruit and 

Vegetable Programs, Agricultural 

Marketing Service, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, 1400 Independence 

Avenue, SW., Stop 0237, Washington, 

DC 20250–0237. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Patricia A. Petrella or Kenneth G. 

Johnson, Marketing Order 

Administration Branch, Fruit and 

Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, Unit 

155, 4700 River Road, Riverdale, MD 

20737; telephone: (301) 734–5243, Fax: 

(301) 734–5275; or e-mail at: 

Kenneth.Johnson@usda.gov or 

Patricia.Petrella@usda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant 

to Marketing Order No. 929 (7 CFR part 

929), hereinafter referred to as the 

‘‘order,’’ and the applicable provisions 

of the Agricultural Marketing 

Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 

U.S.C. 601–674), hereinafter referred to 

as the ‘‘Act,’’ it is hereby directed that 

a referendum be conducted to ascertain 

whether continuance of the order is 

favored by growers. The referendum 

shall be conducted during the period 

May 17 through May 31, 2007, among 

eligible cranberry growers in the 

production area. Only growers that were 

engaged in the production of cranberries 

in the States of Massachusetts, Rhode 

Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, 

Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, 

Oregon, Washington, and Long Island in 

the State of New York during the period 

of September 1, 2005, through August 

31, 2006, may participate in the 

continuance referendum. 

USDA has determined that 

continuance referenda are an effective 

means for determining whether growers 

favor continuation of marketing order 

programs. The USDA would not 

consider termination of the order if 

more than 50 percent of the growers 

who vote in the referendum and growers 

of more than 50 percent of the volume 

of cranberries represented in the 

referendum favor continuance of their 

program. 

In evaluating the merits of 

continuance versus termination, the 

USDA will not only consider the results 

of the continuance referendum. The 

USDA will also consider all other 

relevant information concerning the 

operation of the order and the relative 

benefits and disadvantages to growers, 

processors, and consumers in order to 

determine whether continued operation 

of the order would tend to effectuate the 

declared policy of the Act. 

In accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 

Chapter 35), the ballot materials used in 

the referendum herein ordered have 

been previously approved by the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) 

under OMB No. 0581–0189, OMB 

Generic Fruit Crops. It has been 

estimated that it will take an average of 

20 minutes for each of the 

approximately 1,100 producers of 

cranberries in the production area to 

cast a ballot. Participation is voluntary. 

Ballots postmarked after May 31, 2007, 

will be marked invalid and not included 

in the vote tabulation. 

Kenneth G. Johnson, Patricia A. 

Petrella and Dawana Clark of the 

Washington, DC Marketing Field Office, 

Fruit and Vegetable Programs, 

Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA, 

are hereby designated as the referendum 

agents of USDA to conduct such 

referendum. The procedure applicable 

to the referendum shall be the 

‘‘Procedure for the Conduct of 

Referenda in Connection With 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS