Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 70 / Wednesday, April 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules 21685 

Joint Explanatory Statement of the 

committee of conference for section 

14201 stated the expectation that the 

cotton classification fee would be 

established in the same manner as was 

applied during the 1992 through 2007 

fiscal years. Specifically, it states that 

the classification fee should continue to 

be a basic, uniform fee per bale fee as 

determined necessary to maintain costeffective cotton classification service. 

Further, in consulting with the cotton 

industry, the Secretary should 

demonstrate the level of fees necessary 

to maintain effective cotton 

classification services and provide the 

Department of Agriculture with an 

adequate operating reserve, while also 

working to limit adjustments in the 

year-to-year fee. 

Under the provisions of section 

14201, a user fee (dollar amount per 

bale classed) is proposed for the 2012 

cotton crop that, when combined with 

other sources of revenue, will result in 

projected revenues sufficient to 

reasonably cover budgeted costs— 

adjusted for inflation—and allow for 

adequate operating reserves to be 

maintained. Costs considered in this 

method include salaries, costs of 

equipment and supplies, and other 

overhead costs, such as facility costs 

and costs for administration and 

supervision. In addition to covering 

expected costs, the user fee is set such 

that projected revenues will generate an 

operating reserve adequate to effectively 

manage uncertainties related to crop 

size and cash-flow timing while meeting 

minimum reserve requirements set by 

the Agricultural Marketing Service, 

which require maintenance of a reserve 

fund amount equal to at least four 

months of projected operating costs. 

The user fee proposed to be charged 

cotton producers for cotton 

classification in 2012 is $2.20 per bale, 

which is the same fee charged for the 

2011 crop. This fee is based on the 

preseason projection that 14,475,000 

bales will be classed by the United 

States Department of Agriculture during 

the 2012 crop year. 

Accordingly, § 28.909, paragraph (b) 

would reflect the continuation of the 

cotton classification fee at $2.20 per 

bale. 

As provided for in the 1987 Act, a 5 

cent per bale discount would continue 

to be applied to voluntary centralized 

billing and collecting agents as specified 

in § 28.909(c). 

Growers or their designated agents 

receiving classification data would 

continue to incur no additional fees if 

classification data is requested only 

once. The fee for each additional 

retrieval of classification data in 

§ 28.910 would remain at 5 cents per 

bale. The fee in § 28.910 (b) for an 

owner receiving classification data from 

the National database would remain at 

5 cents per bale, and the minimum 

charge of $5.00 for services provided per 

monthly billing period would remain 

the same. The provisions of § 28.910(c) 

concerning the fee for new classification 

memoranda issued from the National 

Database for the business convenience 

of an owner without reclassification of 

the cotton will remain the same at 15 

cents per bale or a minimum of $5.00 

per sheet. 

The fee for review classification in 

§ 28.911 would be maintained at $2.20 

per bale. 

The fee for returning samples after 

classification in § 28.911 would remain 

at 50 cents per sample. 

A 15-day comment period is provided 

for public comments. This period is 

appropriate because user fees are not 

changing and it is anticipated that the 

proposed fees, if adopted, would be 

made effective for the 2012 cotton crop 

on July 1, 2012. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 28 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Cotton, Cotton samples, 

Grades, Market news, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Standards, 

Staples, Testing, Warehouses. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, 7 CFR part 28 is proposed to 

be amended to read as follows: 

PART 28—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR 

part 28, Subpart D, continues to read as 

follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 471–476. 

2. In § 28.909, paragraph (b) is revised 

to read as follows: 

§ 28.909 Costs. 

* * * * * 

(b) The cost of High Volume 

Instrument (HVI) cotton classification 

service to producers is $2.20 per bale. 

* * * * * 

3. In § 28.911, the last sentence of 

paragraph (a) is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 28.911 Review classification. 

(a) * * * The fee for review 

classification is $2.20 per bale. 

* * * * * 

Dated: April 4, 2012. 

Robert C. Keeney, 

Acting Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2012–8677 Filed 4–10–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Grain Inspection, Packers and 

Stockyards Administration 

7 CFR Part 810 

RIN 0580–AB12 

United States Standards for Wheat 

AGENCY: Grain Inspection, Packers and 

Stockyards Administration, USDA. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Grain Inspection, Packers 

and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) 

is proposing to revise the U.S. Standards 

for Wheat (wheat standards) under the 

U.S. Grain Standards Act (USGSA) to 

change the definition of Contrasting 

classes (CCL) in Hard White wheat and 

change the grade limits for shrunken 

and broken kernels (SHBN). GIPSA 

believes that these proposed changes 

will help to facilitate the marketing of 

wheat. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before June 11, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit written or 

electronic comments on this proposed 

rule to: 

• Mail: Tess Butler, GIPSA, USDA, 

STOP 3642, 1400 Independence Avenue 

SW., Room 2530–B, Washington, DC 

20250–3604. 

• Fax: (202) 690–2173 

• Internet: Go to http://www.

regulations.gov and follow the on-line 

instruction for submitting comments. 

All comments will become a matter of 

public record and should be identified 

as ‘‘U.S. wheat standards proposed rule 

comments,’’ making reference to the 

date and page number of this issue of 

the Federal Register. All comments 

received become the property of the 

Federal government, are a part of the 

public record, and will generally be 

posted to www.regulations.gov without 

change. If you send an email comment 

directly to GIPSA without going through 

www.regulations.gov, or you submit a 

comment to GIPSA via fax, the 

originating email address or telephone 

number will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. Also, all 

personal identifying information (for 

example, name, address, etc.) 

voluntarily submitted by the commenter 

may be publicly accessible. Do not 

submit confidential business 

information or otherwise sensitive or 

protected information. 

Electronic submissions should avoid 

the use of special characters, avoid any 

form of encryption, and be free of any 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
21686 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 70 / Wednesday, April 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

defects or viruses, since these may 

prevent GIPSA from being able to read 

and understand, and thus consider your 

comment. 

GIPSA will post a transcript or report 

summarizing each substantive oral 

comment that we receive about this 

proposed rule. This would include 

comments about this rule made at any 

public meetings hosted by GIPSA 

during the comment period, unless 

GIPSA publically announces otherwise. 

All comments will also be available 

for public inspection at the above 

address during regular business hours 

(7 CFR 1.27(b)). Please call the GIPSA 

Management and Budget Services 

support staff (202) 720–7486 for an 

appointment to view the comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Patrick McCluskey at GIPSA, USDA, 

10383 N. Ambassador Drive, Kansas 

City, MO, 64153; Telephone (816) 659– 

8403; Fax Number (816) 872–1258; 

email Patrick.J.McCluskey@usda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Wheat is defined in the wheat 

standards as grain that, before the 

removal of dockage, consists of 50 

percent or more common wheat 

(Triticum aestivum L.), club wheat (T. 

compactum Host.), and durum wheat 

(T. durum Desf.), and not more than 10 

percent of other grains for which 

Standards have been established under 

the USGSA (7 U.S.C. 71–87k) and that, 

after the removal of dockage, contains 

50 percent or more of whole kernels of 

one or more of these wheats. The wheat 

standards identify eight market classes: 

Durum (DU) wheat, Hard Red Spring 

(HRS) wheat, Hard Red Winter (HRW) 

wheat, Soft Red Winter (SRW) wheat, 

Hard White (HDWH) wheat, Soft White 

(SWH) wheat, Unclassed wheat, and 

Mixed wheat. 

Wheat is consumed primarily as a 

human food but is also used for animal 

feeding and industrial purposes. Wheat 

acreage under cultivation in the U.S. has 

decreased gradually from 1980 to the 

present, dropping from a high of over 88 

million planted acres in 1981 to 

approximately 59 million acres in 2009 

(USDA–NASS Crop Production Track 

Records—April 2010). During the same 

period, U.S. wheat producers produced 

a high of 2.785 billion bushels in 1981 

to 2.220 billion bushels in 2009, with a 

low of 1.605 billion bushels in 2002. 

Under the USGSA (7 U.S.C. 76), 

GIPSA is authorized to establish and 

maintain the wheat standards and for 

other grains regarding kind, class, 

quality and condition. The wheat 

standards, which were established on 

August 1, 1917, were last revised in 

1993 and 2006, and appear in the 

USGSA regulations at 7 CFR 810.2201— 

810.2205. The wheat standards facilitate 

the marketing of wheat and define U.S. 

wheat quality and commonly used 

industry terms in the domestic and 

global marketplace; contain basic 

principles governing the application of 

the wheat standards, such as the type of 

sample used for a particular quality 

analysis; and, specify grades, grade 

requirements, special grades and special 

grade requirements. 

On November 27, 2009, GIPSA 

published an Advance Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) in the 

Federal Register (74 FR 62257) 

requesting public comment on what 

revisions, if any, are needed to the 

current wheat standards. GIPSA 

received 13 comments from wheat 

producers, breeders, market 

development groups, industry 

associations, and exporters. 

One comment from a trade association 

representing approximately 1,000 grain, 

feed, processing and grain-related firms 

comprising more than 6,000 facilities 

that handle more than 70 percent of U.S. 

grains and oilseeds urged GIPSA not to 

propose any major changes to the wheat 

standards that would adversely impact 

the marketing system or current 

priorities and operations of GIPSA. 

GIPSA received several comments 

related to its official grain inspection 

services regarding mycotoxin testing, 

predicting protein quality, certifying 

protein content, certifying the actual 

grade when the ‘‘or better’’ option is 

specified, and quality control in rail and 

container shipments. GIPSA will take 

no action on these comments in this 

proposed rule, however, because the 

comments are outside the scope of this 

rulemaking, which covers only possible 

revisions to the wheat standards. 

GIPSA received several general 

comments that recommended 

amendments to the standards. The 

general comments and GIPSA’s 

discussion of those comments follow: 

Commenters stated that GIPSA should 

(1) consider using a flexible, generic 

approach to grading that would allow 

uniform blending of any U.S. wheat 

classes with the classes identified 

appropriately on any official grain 

inspection certificate, (2) develop a 

generic approach that would allow 

blending of any classes of wheat with 

the classes identified appropriately on 

the export certificate, and/or (3) develop 

appropriate class names for specific 

class blends that are being demanded in 

the marketplace. 

GIPSA does not believe that the 

blending of wheat would facilitate the 

marketing of wheat, as a buyer may 

purchase Mixed wheat, and GIPSA can 

certify the percentage of various market 

classes. GIPSA believes it is more 

appropriate that market participants 

handle this issue contractually. While 

flour mills blend classes of wheat for 

milling, GIPSA does not believe that 

wheat buyers would want wheat sellers 

to assume responsibility for blending 

wheat for milling, given that flour mills 

typically have their own quality 

standards for wheat used in their mill 

mixes. Therefore, GIPSA will not 

propose any revisions to the wheat 

standards based on this comment. 

Commenters also stated that the U.S. 

should lead in integrating processing 

parameters into the grading system (i.e., 

thousand kernel weight and wheat size 

distribution). 

For many years, GIPSA has made 

available wheat kernel average weight 

and diameter determinations, as 

measured by the Single Kernel 

Characterization System (SKCS). The 

wheat industry, however, has been slow 

in its acceptance of average weight and 

diameter determinations. Because the 

industry has shown little interest in 

SKCS results, GIPSA will not propose 

any revisions to the wheat standards 

based on this comment. 

Commenters also urged GIPSA to 

begin studying how a simple, precise 

and repeatable flour yield test can be 

incorporated into the wheat standards. 

This comment recommends that 

GIPSA initiate a research project, which 

is beyond the scope of this rulemaking. 

Therefore, GIPSA will not propose any 

revisions to the wheat standards based 

on this comment. 

Finally, commenters stated that 

GIPSA should study appropriate ways 

to incorporate mycotoxins as a grading 

factor and implement a mycotoxin 

testing check sample program with 

naturally contaminated material. 

GIPSA is developing a mycotoxin 

check sample program similar to other 

check sample programs that it currently 

has in place. Because GIPSA believes 

that offering mycotoxin testing as 

Official Criteria, rather than including 

as a grade determining factor, facilitates 

the market’s ability to discover the 

price/value relationship, GIPSA will not 

propose any revisions to the wheat 

standards based on this comment. 

Three specific issues emerged from 

comments to the ANPR that GIPSA 

believes are pertinent to revising the 

wheat standards. GIPSA received 

comments from nine commenters 

representing a broad cross section of the 

wheat industry regarding the definition 

of contrasting classes in hard white 

wheat. GIPSA received one comment 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 70 / Wednesday, April 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules 21687 

from a wheat market development 

organization regarding the grade limits 

for shrunken and broken kernels in U.S. 

No. 1 and U.S. No. 2. Finally, GIPSA 

received a comment from an 

organization representing grain millers 

regarding the limits for insect damaged 

kernels and live insects. Based on the 

comments received from the industry, 

GIPSA proposes to revise the wheat 

standards as follows: 

Contrasting Class Definition 

Of the comments to the ANPR 

received by GIPSA on the issue of 

revising the CCL definition, six 

commenters favored revision, two 

commenters opposed revision and one 

commenter stated that it was not 

opposed to revision. Revising the 

definition of CCL for HDWH has been 

discussed by various industry groups 

since the 2006 rulemaking, at meetings 

of producer organizations, grain 

handling organizations, and 

international market developers. GIPSA 

did not receive any comments from 

international users of HDWH in 

response to the ANPR. 

Effective May 1, 2006, GIPSA revised 

the definition of CCL for hard red winter 

wheat and hard red spring wheat by 

removing hard white wheat as 

contrasting in those two classes (70 FR 

8233). Subsequently, GIPSA heard from 

wheat industry stakeholders that said 

GIPSA should do the same thing for the 

CCL definition of hard white wheat (i.e., 

GIPSA should remove hard red winter 

wheat and hard red spring wheat from 

the definition of CCL in hard white 

wheat, and allow those classes to 

function only as wheat of other classes). 

Doing so would permit five percent hard 

red winter wheat and/or hard red spring 

wheat in U.S. No. 2 hard white wheat, 

where currently U.S. No. 2 hard white 

wheat may not contain more than two 

percent hard red winter wheat and/or 

hard red spring wheat. Notably, GIPSA 

considered class purity when hard 

white wheat was established as a 

separate market class, effective May 1, 

1990 (54 FR 48735). 

In the 2006 rulemaking GIPSA stated 

that there would be no functional 

downside from allowing five percent 

hard white wheat in hard red winter 

wheat or hard red spring wheat, (where 

the previous grade limit was 2% for U.S. 

No. 2) because hard white wheat protein 

quality is equivalent, polyphenol 

oxidase is not an issue, extraction rate 

is equivalent, and reduced 

concentration of bitter compounds in 

hard white wheat is not problematic for 

hard red wheat products. GIPSA does 

assume however, that there would be no 

functional downside in flour quality 

from allowing an additional three 

percent of hard red wheat in hard white 

wheat (beyond the two percent already 

allowed). International and domestic 

users of hard white wheat have 

demonstrated their desire for low 

polyphenol oxidase concentration and 

concomitant reduced bitter flavor in 

products made with white wheat (e.g., 

various styles of Asian noodles) as 

evidenced from sales of white wheat 

produced by other exporting nations. 

GIPSA understands that domestic users 

in the U.S., such as bread baking 

companies, may not have the same 

sensitivity to diminution of class purity 

as international users. 

U.S. producers of hard white wheat 

and/or their market development 

organizations have told GIPSA that they 

are penalized by elevator owners when 

taking hard white wheat to an elevator. 

Producers allege that elevator owners do 

not want to handle hard white wheat 

separately from hard red wheat, but are 

willing to purchase hard white wheat at 

a discount. In situations where 

producers contract with wheat milling 

companies or co-operatives to produce 

hard white this reportedly does not 

occur. GIPSA does not know whether 

revising the definition of contrasting 

classes for hard white wheat will result 

in a cessation of discounts when 

producers offer hard white wheat for 

sale to the grain elevator operators. 

GIPSA has heard from wheat industry 

stakeholders that without the relief 

provided by revising the contrasting 

classes definition, producers may forego 

planting hard white wheat, causing 

supply shortages for domestic users of 

hard white wheat such as bread baking 

companies, and hamper future efforts to 

export hard white wheat. 

Production of hard white wheat has 

not been robust except for a brief period 

(2003–2005) when the Federal 

government paid a planting incentive to 

producers under the Farm Security and 

Rural Investment Act of 2002 (Sec. 

1616). Production was 0.26 to 0.33 

million metric tons in the 3 years prior 

to 2003, spiked to 1.1 million metric 

tons under the planting incentive, then 

generally decreased in the ensuing 

years, dropping to 0.70 million metric 

tons in 2009 (USDA crop production 

annual 2005–2010). GIPSA believes that 

reduced planting may be attributed to 

lack of incentive, small export demand, 

special handling to keep HDWH 

segregated from hard red winter wheat 

and hard red spring wheat, and 

alternative crops with greater profit 

potential. 

If desired, buyers can contractually 

specify a maximum of two percent hard 

red wheat in a hard white wheat 

purchase. Because buyers have this 

backstop, GIPSA is therefore proposing 

to revise the wheat standards to change 

the definition of contrasting classes in 

hard white wheat so that hard red 

winter wheat and hard red spring wheat 

are no longer contrasting classes, and 

are considered only as wheat of other 

classes. The grade limits would remain 

unchanged. The following tables 

illustrate the current situation and 

proposed changes for contrasting 

classes. 

TABLE I (CURRENT) 

PRIMARY CLASS

Minor class DU HRS HRW SRW HDWH SWH UNCL 

DU ..................... ......................... CCL ................. CCL ................. CCL ................. CCL ................. CCL ................. WOCL. 

HRS .................. CCL ................. ......................... WOCL ............. WOCL ............. CCL ................. CCL ................. WOCL. 

HRW ................. CCL ................. WOCL ............. ......................... WOCL ............. CCL ................. CCL ................. WOCL. 

SRW ................. CCL ................. WOCL ............. WOCL ............. ......................... CCL ................. CCL ................. WOCL. 

HDWH ............... CCL ................. WOCL ............. WOCL ............. WOCL ............. ......................... WOCL ............. WOCL. 

SWH ................. CCL ................. CCL ................. CCL ................. WOCL ............. WOCL ............. ......................... WOCL. 

UNCL ................ CCL ................. CCL ................. CCL ................. CCL ................. CCL ................. CCL.

CCL: Contrasting class. 

WOCL: Wheat of other Classes. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
21688 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 70 / Wednesday, April 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE II (PROPOSED) 

PRIMARY CLASS

Minor class DU HRS HRW SRW HDWH SWH UNCL 

DU ..................... ......................... CCL ................. CCL ................. CCL ................. CCL ................. CCL ................. WOCL. 

HRS .................. CCL ................. ......................... WOCL ............. WOCL ............. WOCL ............. CCL ................. WOCL. 

HRW ................. CCL ................. WOCL ............. ......................... WOCL ............. WOCL ............. CCL ................. WOCL. 

SRW ................. CCL ................. WOCL ............. WOCL ............. ......................... CCL ................. CCL ................. WOCL. 

HDWH ............... CCL ................. WOCL ............. WOCL ............. WOCL ............. ......................... WOCL ............. WOCL. 

SWH ................. CCL ................. CCL ................. CCL ................. WOCL ............. WOCL ............. ......................... WOCL. 

UNCL ................ CCL ................. CCL ................. CCL ................. CCL ................. CCL ................. CCL.

CCL: Contrasting class. 

WOCL: Wheat of other Classes. 

Shrunken and Broken Kernel Grade 

Limits 

GIPSA received one comment from a 

wheat market development organization 

recommending that grade limits for 

SHBN should be more restrictive for 

U.S. No. 1 and U.S. No. 2 graded wheat, 

leaving the grade limits unchanged for 

U.S. No. 3, 4, and 5 graded wheat. The 

commenter indicated that foreign 

millers have often suggested that SHBN 

content be reduced in U.S. No. 1 and 2 

graded wheat, to help improve the value 

of the wheat being purchased. While 

making the SHBN grade limits more 

restrictive would not change wheat 

quality or affect the amount of wheat 

available at those grades, GIPSA 

believes that more restrictive SHBN 

grade limits would more accurately 

reflect the quality of wheat moving 

throughout the marketing system, thus 

offering users of these standards the best 

possible information from which to 

define quality and end-product yield. 

GIPSA analyzed SHBN data available 

for over 100,000 official export and 

domestic inspection samples for all 

wheat classes in market years 2005 

through 2009 (summarized in Table 1) 

to project the availability of wheat by 

grade, under the current and proposed 

grade limits. Under the current grade 

limits, 100 percent would have graded 

U.S. No. 1 if SHBN had been the grade 

determining factor. Under the proposed 

grade limits, 95 percent of all samples 

would have graded U.S. No. 1 if SHBN 

had been the grade determining factor, 

a reduction of 5 percent. Under the 

proposed limits, 100 percent of the 

samples would have graded U.S. No. 2 

if SHBN was the grade determining 

factor. While GIPSA’s analysis shows a 

5 percent grade deflation at the U.S. No. 

1 grade, virtually all wheat is traded at 

U.S. No. 2 or better (2 o.b.). Under the 

proposed grade limits, GIPSA’s analysis 

showing 100 percent of samples being 

graded 2 o.b. means zero net effect on 

the amount of wheat available for 

shipping at export or elsewhere in the 

value chain. 

TABLE 1 

U.S. grade G.L. (%) 

current % C.D. G.L. (%) proposed % C.D. 

#1 ..................................................................................................................... 3.0 100.0 2.0 95.0 

#2 ..................................................................................................................... 5.0 100.0 4.0 100.0 

#3 ..................................................................................................................... 8.0 100.0 8.0 100.0 

#4 ..................................................................................................................... 12.0 100.0 12.0 100.0 

#5 ..................................................................................................................... 20.0 100.0 20.0 100.0 

G.L. (%): Grade Limit. 

% C.D.: Cumulative Distribution. 

Given the foregoing discussion, 

GIPSA is proposing to revise the 

standards to reduce the grade limits on 

SHBN for grades U.S. No. 1 and U.S. No. 

2 graded wheat. 

Insect Damaged Kernels and Live 

Insects 

GIPSA received one comment 

recommending that the grade limit for 

insect damaged kernels (IDK) be 

restricted from a maximum of 31 IDK in 

100 grams of wheat to 5 IDK in 100 

grams of wheat. IDK is a factor on which 

Sample Grade is determined. The limit 

of 32 or more IDK is the defect action 

level established by the U.S. Food and 

Drug Administration (FDA). GIPSA 

determines IDK in accordance with FDA 

guidelines under a memorandum of 

understanding that is currently in effect 

between USDA and FDA. A party to a 

commercial transaction can 

contractually specify a lower maximum 

allowable level of IDK if desired. 

Accordingly, GIPSA will not propose a 

revision to the IDK limit based on this 

comment. 

The commenter suggested that GIPSA 

not permit any live insects in wheat, 

whereas the current wheat standards 

apply a tolerance. (To receive the 

special designation ‘‘infested,’’ a 

kilogram sample must contain two or 

more live weevils, two or more live 

insects injurious to stored grain or a 

combination of the two.) 

Grain standards define kind, 

wholesomeness and cleanliness, while 

allowing market participants to impose 

more restrictive conditions on the grain 

in commerce, if desired. The current 

wheat standard appears to be 

appropriate for international 

commercial trade, which encompasses 

stakeholders who are primary users of 

the standards. Export sales contracts for 

wheat frequently specify ‘‘zero live 

insects’’. If live insects are found, GIPSA 

reports the finding; and if fumigation of 

the lot is ordered, GIPSA witnesses the 

fumigation. GIPSA believes that the 

market deals effectively through 

contract specifications with live insects, 

and accordingly, will not propose 

revising the wheat standards regarding 

the live insect tolerance. 

Proposed Action 

GIPSA is issuing this proposed rule to 

invite comments and suggestions from 

all interested persons on how GIPSA 

can further enhance the wheat standards 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 70 / Wednesday, April 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules 21689 

to better facilitate the marketing of 

wheat. 

GIPSA proposes to revise 

§ 810.2202(b)(4) to read: ‘‘Durum wheat, 

Hard Red Spring wheat, Hard Red 

Winter wheat, Soft Red Winter wheat, 

and Unclassed wheat in the class Soft 

White wheat.’’ GIPSA also proposes to 

add a new sentence, § 810.2202(b)(5) to 

read: ‘‘Durum wheat, Soft Red Winter 

wheat, and Unclassed wheat in the class 

Hard White wheat.’’ 

GIPSA proposes to revise the table 

showing Grade and Grade Requirements 

for wheat in § 810.2204 to reduce the 

grading limits for shrunken and broken 

kernels to 2.0 and 4.0 percent for U.S. 

Nos. 1 and 2 graded wheat, respectively. 

We invite comments, including data, 

views, and arguments for and against 

this proposed rule from all interested 

parties. Pursuant to section 4(b)(1) of the 

USGSA, as amended (7 U.S.C. 76(b)(1)), 

no standards established, or 

amendments or revocations of the 

standards, are to become effective less 

than 1 calendar year after promulgation 

unless, in the judgment of the Secretary 

of Agriculture, the public health, 

interest, or safety require that they 

become effective sooner. 

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

The Office of Management and Budget 

designated this rule as not significant 

for the purposes of Executive Order 

12866. 

GIPSA has determined that these 

proposed amendments would not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities as 

defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601–612). The RFA 

requires agencies to consider the 

economic impact of each rule on small 

entities and evaluate alternatives that 

would accomplish the objectives of the 

rule without unduly burdening small 

entities or erecting barriers that would 

restrict their ability to compete in the 

market. The purpose is to fit regulatory 

actions to the scale of businesses subject 

to the action. 

Under the USGSA, grain exported 

from the U.S. must be officially 

inspected and weighed. Mandatory 

inspection and weighing services are 

provided by GIPSA and delegated states 

at 59 export elevators (including four 

floating elevators). All of these facilities 

are owned by multi-national 

corporations, large cooperatives, or 

public entities that do not meet the 

requirements for small entities 

established by the Small Business 

Administration. For North American 

Industry Classification System (NAICS) 

code 424510 ‘‘grain and field bean 

merchant wholesalers’’ the Small 

Business Administration size standard 

is 100 or fewer employees. Most users 

of the official inspection and weighing 

services, and these entities that perform 

these services, do not meet the 

regulations for small entities. In 

addition to GIPSA, there are 56 official 

agencies that perform official services 

under the USGSA, and most of these 

entities do not meet the requirements 

for small entities. 

GIPSA is proposing to revise the 

wheat standards to change the 

definition of contrasting classes in hard 

white wheat. GIPSA’s proposal also 

recommends amendments to the grade 

limits of shrunken and broken kernels. 

GIPSA believes that these proposed 

changes to the wheat standards would 

facilitate the marketing of wheat. 

The U.S. wheat industry, including 

approximately 159,527 wheat farms 

(USDA–2007 Census of Agricultureupdated), handlers, processors, and 

merchandisers are the primary users of 

the wheat standards and utilize the 

official standards as a common trading 

language to market wheat. The USGSA 

(7 U.S.C. 87f–1) requires that all persons 

engaged in the business of buying grain 

for sale in foreign commerce be 

registered with USDA. In addition, 

those individuals who handle, weigh, or 

transport grain for sale in foreign 

commerce must also register. The 

USGSA regulations (7 CFR 800.30) 

define a foreign commerce grain 

business as persons who regularly 

engage in buying for sale, handling, 

weighing, or transporting grain totaling 

15,000 metric tons or more during the 

preceding or current calendar year. 

At present, there are 138 registrants 

who account for practically 100 percent 

of U.S. wheat exports, which for fiscal 

year 2009 totaled approximately 

21,096,894 metric tons. While most of 

the 138 registrants are large businesses, 

some entities may be small. GIPSA 

believes that this proposed rule would 

not adversely affect or burden these 

users, nor add any additional cost for 

entities of any size. 

Executive Order 12988 

This proposed rule has been reviewed 

under Executive Order 12988, Civil 

Justice Reform. This action is not 

intended to have retroactive effect. The 

USGSA provides in section 87g (7 

U.S.C. 87g) that no subdivision may 

require or impose any requirements or 

restrictions concerning the inspection, 

weighing, or description of grain under 

the USGSA. Otherwise, this rule would 

not preempt any State or local laws, or 

regulations, or policies unless they 

present an irreconcilable conflict with 

this rule. There are no administrative 

procedures which must be exhausted 

prior to any judicial challenge to the 

provisions of this rule. 

Executive Order 13175 

This proposed rule has been reviewed 

with the requirements of Executive 

Order 13175, Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments. This rule would not have 

substantial and direct effects on Tribal 

governments and would not have 

significant Tribal implications. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501– 

3520), the existing information 

collection requirements are approved 

under the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) Number 0580–0013. No 

additional collection or recordkeeping 

requirements are imposed on the public 

by this proposed rule. 

E-Government Compliance 

GIPSA is committed to complying 

with the E-Government Act, to promote 

the use of the Internet and other 

information technologies to provide 

increased opportunities for citizen 

access to Government information and 

services, and for other purposes. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 810 

Exports, grain. 

For reasons set out in the preamble, 

GIPSA proposes to amend 7 CFR part 

810 as follows: 

PART 810—OFFICIAL UNITED STATES 

STANDARDS FOR GRAIN 

1. The authority citation for part 810 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 71–87k. 

2. Amend § 810.2202 by revising 

paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 810.2202 Definition of other terms. 

* * * * * 

(b) Contrasting Classes. Contrasting 

classes are: 

(1) Durum wheat, Soft White wheat, 

and Unclassed wheat in the classes 

Hard Red Spring wheat and Hard Red 

Winter wheat. 

(2) Hard Red Spring wheat, Hard Red 

Winter wheat, Hard White wheat, Soft 

Red Winter wheat, Soft White wheat, 

and Unclassed wheat in the class 

Durum wheat. 

(3) Durum wheat and Unclassed 

wheat in the class Soft Red Winter 

wheat. 

(4) Durum wheat, Hard Red Spring 

wheat, Hard Red Winter wheat, Soft Red 

Winter wheat, and Unclassed wheat in 

the class Soft White wheat. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
21690 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 70 / Wednesday, April 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

(5) Durum wheat, Soft Red Winter 

wheat, and Unclassed wheat in the class 

Hard White wheat. 

* * * * * 

3. Amend § 810.2204 by revising 

paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 810.2204 Grades and grade requirements 

for wheat. 

(a) Grades and grade requirements for 

all classes of wheat, except Mixed 

wheat. 

GRADES AND GRADE REQUIREMENTS

Grading factors 

Grades U.S. Nos. 

1 2 3 4 5 

Minimum pound limits of 

Test weight per bushel: 

Hard Red Spring wheat or White Club wheat .................................. 58.0 57.0 55.0 53.0 50.0 

All other classes and subclasses ..................................................... 60.0 58.0 56.0 54.0 51.0 

Maximum percent limits of 

Defects: 

Damaged kernels 

Heat (part of total) ..................................................................... 0.2 0.2 0.5 1.0 3.0 

Total ........................................................................................... 2.0 4.0 7.0 10.0 15.0 

Foreign material ....................................................................................... 0.4 0.7 1.3 3.0 5.0 

Shrunken and broken kernels .................................................................. 2.0 4.0 8.0 12.0 20.0 

Total 1 ....................................................................................................... 3.0 5.0 8.0 12.0 20.0 

Wheat of other classes 2 .......................................................................... 1.0 2.0 3.0 10.0 10.0 

Contrasting classes ................................................................................. 3.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 

Total 3 ....................................................................................................... 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 

Stones 

Maximum count limits of 

Other material in one kilogram: 

Animal filth ........................................................................................ 1 1 1 1 1 

Castor beans .................................................................................... 1 1 1 1 1 

Crotalaria seeds ................................................................................ 2 2 2 2 2 

Glass ................................................................................................. 0 0 0 0 0 

Stones ............................................................................................... 3 3 3 3 3 

Unknown foreign substances ........................................................... 3 3 3 3 3 

Total 4 ................................................................................................ 4 4 4 4 4 

Insect-damaged kernels in 100 grams ............................................. 31 31 31 31 31 

U.S. Sample grade is Wheat that: 

(a) Does not meet the requirements for U.S. Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5; or 

(b) Has a musty, sour, or commercially objectionable foreign odor (except smut or garlic odor) or 

(c) Is heating or of distinctly low quality. 

1 Includes damaged kernels (total), foreign material, shrunken and broken kernels. 

2 Unclassed wheat of any grade may contain not more than 10.0 percent of wheat of other classes. 

3 Includes contrasting classes. 

4 Includes any combination of animal filth, castor beans, crotalaria seeds, glass, stones, or unknown foreign substance. 

* * * * * 

Alan R. Christian, 

Acting Administrator, Grain Inspection, 

Packers and Stockyards Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2012–8663 Filed 4–10–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–KD–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0253; FRL–9658–6] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plan for 1997 

8-Hour Ozone Standard; Arizona 

AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

revisions to the Arizona state 

implementation plan (SIP) that 

demonstrate attainment of the 1997 

8-hour ozone national ambient air 

quality standards in the Phoenix-Mesa 

nonattainment area by June 15, 2009. 

These SIP revisions are the 2007 Ozone 

Plan developed by the Maricopa 

Association of Governments and 

adopted and submitted to EPA by the 

Arizona Department of Environmental 

Quality on June 13, 2007. EPA is 

proposing to approve the 2007 Ozone 

Plan based on our determination that 

the plan contains all the provisions 

required for areas classified as 

nonattainment under Part D, Subpart 1 

of the Clean Air Act, including the 

demonstration of reasonably available 

control measures (RACM), reasonable 

further progress (RFP), emission 

inventories, transportation conformity 

motor vehicle emission budgets for 

2008, and contingency measures to be 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS