Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 55 / Wednesday, March 22, 1995 / Proposed Rules 15075

(b) Participating plans. * * *

[FR Doc. 95–7031 Filed 3–21–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6325–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Grain Inspection, Packers and

Stockyards Administration

7 CFR Parts 800 and 810

RIN 0580–AA14

United States Standards for Barley

AGENCY: Grain Inspection, Packers and

Stockyards Administration, USDA.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: In its periodic review of

existing regulations, the Grain

Inspection, Packers and Stockyards

Administration (GIPSA) proposes to

amend the United States Standards for

Barley by: Modifying the classification

system of barley to better reflect current

marketing practices by establishing two

classes, ‘‘Malting barley and Barley’’;

revising procedures to permit applicants

the option of requesting either the

malting standards or barley standards

for malting types; revising the standards

for Two-rowed Malting barley by

removing the ‘‘U.S. Choice’’ grade

designation and also combining the

grading factors and limits for two- and

six-rowed malting types onto a single

grade chart; Amending the definition for

suitable malting type to include other

proprietary malting varieties used by

private malting and brewing companies;

revising the dockage certification

procedure by reporting results in half

and whole percent with a fraction less

than one-half percent being disregarded;

amending the definition of thins to

require the use of a single sieve (5⁄64 x 3⁄4 slotted-hole) only in the proposed

class Barley and removing the grading

limits from the standards; however, the

level of thins will continue to be

reported on the inspection certificate;

revising the standards by removing the

grading limits for damaged kernels, heat

damaged kernels, and foreign material

in the proposed class Barley; and

eliminating the numerical grade

restriction for badly stained and

materially weathered from the

standards. GIPSA further proposes to

amend the inspection plan tolerances

based on these proposed changes.

The objective of this review is to

ensure that the barley standards are

serving their intended purpose, are

clear, and are consistent with GIPSA

policy and authority.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on

or before May 22, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Written comments must be

submitted to George Wollam, GIPSA,

USDA, Room 0623, South Building, PO

Box 96454, Washington, DC, 20090–

6454; FAX (202) 720–4628.

All comments received will be made

available for public inspection at Room

0624 South Building, 1400

Independence Avenue, SW,

Washington, D.C., during regular

business hours (7 CFR 1.27 (b)).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

George Wollam, address as above,

telephone (202) 720–0292; FAX (202)

720–4628.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Order 12866

The Department is issuing this rule in

conformance with Executive Order

12866.

Executive Order 12778

This proposed rule has been reviewed

under Executive Order 12778, Civil

Justice Reform. This action is not

intended to have retroactive effect. The

United States Grain Standards Act

provides in section 87g that no State or

subdivision may require or impose any

requirements or restrictions concerning

the inspection, weighing, or description

of grain under the Act. Otherwise, this

proposed rule will not preempt any

State or local laws, 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.

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

James R. Baker, Administrator,

GIPSA, has determined that this

proposed rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities as defined in

the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.

601 et seq.) because most users of the

official inspection and weighing

services and those entities that perform

these services do not meet the

requirements for small entities. Further,

the regulations are applied equally to all

entities.

Information Collection Requirements

In accordance with the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C.

Chapter 35), the information collection

requirements contained in the rule to be

amended have been previously

approved by OMB under control

number 0580–0013.

Background

During December 1991, the Federal

Grain Inspection Service (FGIS), which

is now part of GIPSA, distributed a

discussion paper concerning the U.S.

Standards for Barley. This paper

addressed several issues relating to the

standards and served as a starting point

for discussions with producers, trade

associations, processors, maltsters,

brewers, handlers, and merchandisers to

better understand their views on

changes needed to improve existing

standards. FGIS received positive

feedback from the grain industry

regarding the barley discussion paper;

in fact, several industry officials

suggested that FGIS develop and

distribute similar documents before

amending other marketing standards.

FGIS received a total of 13 written

comments concerning the discussion

paper: 1 from a malting company; 1

from a barley trade association that

represents the major U.S. malting and

brewing companies; 1 from a barley feed

processor; 1 from a major feed grain

association; 7 from producer

organizations and associations; 1 from a

grain handler; and 1 from a grain

inspection/weighing association.

FGIS also reviewed the barley

discussion paper with the FGIS

Advisory Committee and the Grain

Quality Workshop in January 1992. In

addition, FGIS personnel participated in

an industry sponsored forum in Pasco,

Washington in May 1993 to gather

further information on the need for

changes to the barley standards. FGIS

also considered ideas received during

the normalcourse of business,

recommendations from internal

management and program reviews, and

various other sources.

Based on the comments received and

other available information, GIPSA is

proposing eight changes to the barley

standards that reflect current market

needs and also serve to improve the

effectiveness of the standards. The

proposed amendments include: (1)

Modifying the classification system of

barley to better reflect current marketing

practices by establishing two classes,

‘‘Malting barley and Barley’’; (2)

revising procedures to permit applicants

the option of requesting either the

malting standards or barley standards

for malting types; (3) revising the

standards for Two-rowed Malting barley

by removing the ‘‘U.S. Choice’’ grade

designation and also combining the

grading factors and limits for two- and

six-rowed malting types onto a single

grade chart; (4) amending the definition

for suitable malting type to include

other proprietary malting varieties used

by private malting and brewing

companies; (5) revising the dockage

certification procedure by reporting

results in half and whole percent with
15076 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 55 / Wednesday, March 22, 1995 / Proposed Rules

a fraction less than one-half percent

being disregarded; (6) amending the

definition of thins to require the use of

a single sieve (5⁄64 x 3⁄4 slotted-hole)

only in the proposed class ‘‘Barley’’ and

removing the grading limits from the

standards; however, the level of thins

will continue to be reported on the

inspection certificate; (7) revising the

standards by removing the grading

limits for damaged kernels, heatdamaged kernels, and foreign material

in the proposed class ‘‘Barley’’; and (8)

eliminating the numerical grade

restriction for badly stained and

materially weathered from the

standards. Furthermore, this proposal

amends inspection plan tolerances

based on the proposed revisions to the

standards.

Barley Classification

GIPSA proposes to amend the barley

classification system in 7 CFR 810.202,

paragraph (c), by establishing two

classes of barley. Specifically, a new

class ‘‘Malting barley’’ will be divided

into three subclasses, Six-rowed Malting

barley, Six-rowed Blue Malting barley,

and Two-rowed Malting barley.

Additionally, the new class ‘‘Barley’’

will be divided into three subclasses,

Six-rowed barley, Two-rowed barley,

and Barley. GIPSA believes these

changes will assist in simplifying the

barley standards.

The present barley classification

system was introduced into the

standards during the 1974 revisions.

Prior to 1974, barley was classed based

on production areas (i.e., east of the

Rocky Mountains and Alaska was

classed ‘‘Barley’’ and barley grown west

of the Rocky Mountains was classed

‘‘Western barley’’). The 1974 review of

the standards determined that the

production area was not the best

method for identifying barley classes.

Accordingly, the classing procedure was

revised and kernel characteristics were

established as the basis for this

determination. Present-day standards

divide barley into the three classes; Sixrowed barley, Two-rowed barley, and

Barley. The class Six-rowed barley is

divided into three subclasses; Six-rowed

Malting barley, Six-rowed Blue Malting

barley, and Six-rowed barley. The class

Two-rowed barley is divided into two

subclasses; Two-rowed Malting barley

and Two-rowed barley. The class Barley

has no subclasses.

GIPSA believes that the existing

barley classing system may not reflect

current marketing practices. That is,

barley produced in the United States is

used primarily as livestock feed or for

malting. Consequently, GIPSA believes

that the barley classing system should

be structured in a manner consistent

with current trading practices.

Therefore, GIPSA proposes to revise the

classification system for barley by

establishing two classes; Malting barley

and Barley. The Malting class will be

divided into three subclasses, Six-rowed

Malting barley, Six-rowed Blue Malting

barley, and Two-rowed Malting barley.

The Barley class will be divided into

three subclasses, Six-rowed barley,

Two-rowed barley, and Barley.

Applying the Malting Standards

GIPSA proposes to amend the

subclass definitions for Six-rowed

barley and Two-rowed barley in 7 CFR

part 810.202, paragraphs (c)(1)(iii) and

(c)(2)(ii) by deleting the reference to

Malting barley. This change is needed to

permit applicants the option of

requesting either the malting standards

or the barley standards for malting

types.

The present standards require official

personnel to initially apply the Malting

barley requirements and assign grades

covered in 7 CFR 810.206 only if the

sample fails to meet the malting criteria.

This policy is based on the subclass

definitions for Six- and Two-rowed

barley. The subclass definitions for Sixand Two-rowed barley state, in part,

that barley not meeting the applicable

subclass requirement for malting shall

be graded using the 7 CFR 810.206 grade

chart.

GIPSA believes the present practice of

initially applying the malting standards

hampers inspection efficiency and may

create market disruptions for malting

varieties that are used for other

purposes. Labeling barley as malting

when it is being marketed for another

use causes confusion and could lead to

unnecessary marketing complications.

Therefore, GIPSA proposes to amend

the subclass definitions for Six- and

Two-rowed barley to provide the

inspection system greater flexibility in

meeting the market needs. This

proposed amendment will also bring

existing standards more in line with

today’s marketing practices for Malting

barley.

U.S. ‘‘Choice Grade Designations’’

GIPSA proposes to revise 7 CFR

810.205 by removing the U.S. No. 1

‘‘Choice’’ grade designation from the

chart. The factors and limits pertaining

to the ‘‘Choice’’ grade will be retained.

This revision is being sought to bring

more consistency between the standards

for two- and six-rowed malting types.

The current Two-rowed Malting

barley standard includes a U.S. No. 1

‘‘Choice’’ grade designation. The Sixrowed Malting barley standard does not

include a similar grade. The differences

between No. 1 ‘‘Choice’’ Two-rowed

Malting barley and No. 1 Two-rowed

Malting barley are reflected in the test

weight, skinned and broken kernels, and

the thin barley grade units.

GIPSA believes that the factors and

limits for the ‘‘Choice’’ grade

designation are important to producers,

maltsters, and brewers. Furthermore,

GIPSA believes that the quality

requirements in the standards for Sixand Two-rowed Malting barley should

be more consistent in order to eliminate

confusion in the marketplace and to

provide more meaningful information to

our customers. Therefore, GIPSA

proposes to delete the U.S. No. 1

‘‘Choice’’ grade designation from 7 CFR

810.205 for Two-rowed Malting barley,

but retain the factors and limits as the

U.S. No. 1 grade.

Malting Barley Grading Charts

GIPSA proposes to revise the grade

requirements in 7 CFR 810.204 and

810.205 by: (a) Combining the factors

and limits for Two- and Six-rowed

Malting barley onto a single grade chart;

(b) establishing four numerical grades

for all Malting barley; (c) establishing

separate grade limits for test weight,

suitable malting types, sound barley,

skinned and broken kernels, and thin

barley for two- and six-rowed malting

types; (d) applying the current damaged

kernels grade limits in Six-rowed

Malting barley to Two-rowed Malting

barley and also establishing a new 5.0

percent damaged kernels limit to

correspond with the proposed four

grade categories; (e) applying the

present limits for mold damage and

injured-by-mold in Two-rowed Malting

barley to Six-rowed Malting barley; and

(f) applying the current grade limits for

other grains and wild oats to both Sixand Two-rowed Malting barley.

In the present malting standards,

separate grade charts exist for two- and

six-rowed malting types. Additionally,

the factor requirements differ based on

the subclass. For example, the current

malting standards impose limits for

other grains, wild oats, mold-damage,

and injured-by-mold, but not

consistently for all malting types. These

differences reflect the traditional

variances between the production areas

and markets dealing with Six- and Tworowed Malting barley. GIPSA believes

that the malting standards should be

revised to more consistently apply

factor requirements between two- and

six-rowed types. GIPSA believes also

that the proposed revisions to combine

7 CFR 810.204 and 810.205 simplify the

malting standards and make them more

user friendly.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 55 / Wednesday, March 22, 1995 / Proposed Rules 15077

Suitable Malting Type

GIPSA proposes to amend the

definition of suitable malting type in 7

CFR Part 810.202, paragraph (t), to

expand the list of approved malting

varieties. The proposed definition will

include other proprietary malting types

used by various maltsters and brewers.

This change will bring existing

standards more in line with today’s

processing practices of the malting and

brewing industries. Current standards

require a specified level of suitable

malting type before the Malting barley

designation is assigned. GIPSA

presently relies on The American

Malting Barley Association (AMBA) to

determine which malting varieties are

considered suitable. Varieties other than

the AMBA-designated varieties are

bought and sold as Malting barley in the

marketplace. For instance, several

breweries are involved in the

development of Malting barley types to

meet various end-product specifications

(Ref. 1). In many instances, these

varietal types are not tested and

approved by AMBA; although such

varieties meet all quality requirements

of the brewery.

Furthermore, AMBA revises its list of

approved malting types annually by

adding new varieties and deleting

outdated ones. Many malting varieties

that are removed from AMBA’s list

continue to be produced, marketed, and

processed. If a previously approved

malting type was offered for official

inspection, the current grading system

would not permit the assignment of a

malting grade designation because the

variety would not meet the suitable

malting type criteria.

Consequently, GIPSA proposes to

amend the suitable malting type

definition to include varieties

recommended by AMBA and other

proprietary malting types.

Dockage Certification

GIPSA proposes to amend the

dockage certification procedure in 7

CFR 810.104, paragraph (b). It is

proposed that dockage in barley be

reported in half and whole percent with

a fraction less than one-half percent

being disregarded. For example, at a

level of 0.0 to 0.49 percent, no dockage

would be reported; and 0.50 to 0.99

percent would be reported as 0.5

percent dockage. Persons interested in

actual dockage percentage may request

that this information be reported in the

remarks section of the certificate. GIPSA

believes that the change in reporting

dockage will provide a more accurate

description of non-barley material.

Dockage in barley consists of dust,

chaff, small weed seed, very small

pieces of broken barley, and coarse

grains larger than barley. Present

standards certify dockage in whole

percents with fractions of a percent

being disregarded. For example, at a

level of 0.0 to 0.99 percent, no dockage

is reported; and 1.0 to 1.99 percent is

reported as 1.0 percent dockage. GIPSA

believes that this method of reporting

dockage often understates dockage

levels. GIPSA believes that reporting

dockage in half and whole percent

increments provides a more accurate

description of non-barley material,

thereby, enabling handlers and endusers to make more informed decisions

regarding quality, storability, and endproduct yield. In addition, providing

information concerning the actual

dockage percentage in the remarks

section of the certificate is currently

available upon request. Consequently,

GIPSA proposes to revise 7 CFR 810.104

(b) to certify barley dockage in half and

whole percent with a fraction less than

one-half percent being disregarded.

Thin Barley

GIPSA proposes to revise the sieve

requirement for determining thin barley

in 7 CFR 810.202, paragraph (u). It is

proposed that thin barley be determined

using the 5⁄64 x 3⁄4 slotted-hole sieve in

the proposed class Barley and the factor

thin as a grade determining factor be

removed. The amount of thin kernels

will continue to be reported on the

official certificate as a non-grade

determining factor. GIPSA also proposes

to amend 7 CFR 800.162 of the

regulations under the United States

Grain Standards Act by adding a

paragraph to require that thin be

reported on each inspection certificate

when the grade is reported for the

proposed class Barley. GIPSA is not

proposing changes to the thin

determinations in the standards for

Malting barley.

Present standards define thin barley

as Six-rowed barley which passes

through a 5⁄64 x 3⁄4 slotted-hole sieve or

Two-rowed barley which passes through

a 55⁄64 x 3⁄4 slotted-hole sieve. In

addition, for the class Barley, which

consists of a mixture of six-rowed and

two-rowed barley types, thin is defined

as barley passing through the 5⁄64 x 3⁄4

slotted-hole sieve. Thin is a grade

determining factor in all classes and

subclasses of Barley.

The issue of sieve size for determining

thin kernels has been a topic of

discussion for many years, and GIPSA

recognizes the need for uniformity in

applying procedures. Concerns over the

level of thins is directly related to the

processing technique employed by the

end-user. There are generally two

processing strategies employed by

processors which take into account the

levels of thins. One involves the

removal of thins before processing, and

the other involves processing the grain

with thins. Many buyers and sellers of

barley often establish contractually the

amount of thins considered appropriate.

The factor thin in the standards is a

measurement of kernel size more than

an indicator of overall quality in barley.

A measurement of kernel size

distribution may be more important to

the barley industry than simply the

percent of thins. GIPSA recognizes that

the percent of thins is a factor used by

the industry to determine market value.

GIPSA has not found research that

correlates barley quality to the level of

thin kernels. That is, at what level do

thins in barley impact on the overall

nutritional quality or value. GIPSA

believes that the end-user is in the best

position to determine the appropriate

level of thins and the market value of

the grain.

GIPSA reviewed discount schedules

for thins in barley from various grain

companies. GIPSA’s survey revealed

that discounts for thins are assessed at

levels ranging from 15 to 20 percent

with higher discounts for thins over 20

percent. The marketplace, through

discounting practices, makes

adjustments for thin levels; in many

instances, without regard to the official

system. In brief, the industry establishes

the value of barley including thins

based on the end-users’ needs rather

than the levels as defined in the official

standards.

Therefore, GIPSA proposes to amend

7 CFR 810.206 by deleting the factor

thins and its corresponding grade limits

for the proposed class Barley. It is

further proposed to amend 7 CFR

800.162 by requiring that the level of

thins be reported on each certificate

representing an inspection for grade.

This proposed reporting requirement,

which is similar to the certification

procedure for moisture, provides the

marketplace with the flexibility to

establish more meaningful quality limits

for thins based on the specific needs of

end-users. In addition, GIPSA proposes

to revise 7 CFR 810.202(u) of the

standards to require the use of the 5⁄64

x 3⁄4 slotted-hole sieve for thin

determinations in the proposed class

Barley. This proposed change would

streamline the inspection process and

promote uniformity in determining

thins. Moreover, GIPSA believes that

using a single sieve to determine thins

is the best approach in order to

standardize the inspection process.
15078 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 55 / Wednesday, March 22, 1995 / Proposed Rules

Sound Barley

GIPSA proposes to revise 7 CFR

810.206 by removing the factors and

limits for damaged kernels, heatdamaged kernels, and foreign material

in the proposed class Barley. The

standards will rely on the factor ‘‘sound

barley’’ to relate the overall amount of

damaged kernels, heat-damaged kernels,

foreign material, other grains, and wild

oats. In addition, applicants interested

in the percentage and composition of

damaged kernels, heat-damaged kernels,

foreign material, other grains, and wild

oats may request this information be

reported on the inspection certificate.

Sound barley is the sum of the

percentages of damaged kernels, foreign

material, other grains, and wild oats

subtracted from 100 percent. Sound

barley is a grading factor in all classes

and subclasses of barley. Revising the

manner in which the factors sound

barley, heat-damaged kernels, damaged

kernels, foreign material, other grains,

and wild oats influence the grade

designation could simplify the

standards and improve their usefulness.

GIPSA believes that the factor sound

barley provides adequate information

without the need to establish grading

limits for its component factors.

GIPSA believes that the malting

barley standards should continue to

provide a breakdown of non-barley

material (i.e., damaged kernels, foreign

material, other grains, and wild oats)

due to the impact these factors have on

the malting process. GIPSA believes

further that the malting and brewing

industries need precise information on

the overall amount of sound barley as

well as information as to the level of

damaged barley, non-barley material,

and other grains.

GIPSA believes that the standards for

the proposed class Barley should be

revised to rely on the factor ‘‘sound’’ to

determine quality, provided other

information concerning non-barley

material and damaged kernels is

available to interested parties upon

request. GIPSA reviewed inspection

information from its Grain Inspection

Monitoring System database to

determine how the factors and limits for

sound barley, damaged kernels, heatdamaged kernels, and foreign material

influence the final grade. GIPSA’s

analysis revealed that sound barley was

the grade determining factor

approximately 83 percent of the time

when compared to component factors

that define sound (i.e., damaged kernels,

heat-damaged kernels, and foreign

material). Consequently, GIPSA believes

that it is unnecessary to have limits for

the component factors. GIPSA believes

that the proposed revisions to 7 CFR

810.206 will streamline and simplify the

standards while providing customers

useful information needed to facilitate

marketing.

Badly Stained or Materially Weathered

Barley

GIPSA proposes that the grade

limitation for barley that is badly

stained or materially weathered in 7

CFR 810.206 be eliminated. Currently,

barley that is badly stained or materially

weathered is graded not higher than

U.S. No. 4. In addition, it is further

proposed to remove the definition for

stained barley from 7 CFR 810.202(s).

The determination of badly stained or

materially weathered is seldom

necessary because this condition also

affects the level of sound kernels. In

brief, factor limits for the other damages

adequately conveys quality; therefore,

this criterion is rarely used.

Miscellaneous Changes

GIPSA proposes to revise the format

of the grade charts in the standards for

Malting barley and Barley. These

revisions serve to improve the

readability of the grade tables.

Inspection Plan Tolerances

Shiplots, unit trains, and lash barge

lots are inspected by a statistically based

inspection plan (55 FR 24030; June 13,

1990). Inspection tolerances, commonly

referred to as breakpoints, are used to

determine acceptable quality. The

proposed changes to the barley

standards require revisions to some

breakpoints. Therefore, GIPSA proposes

to amend the breakpoint for dockage

from 0.47 to 0.23. GIPSA also proposes

to establish new range limits as

specified by contracts and new

breakpoints for heat-damaged kernels,

damaged kernels, foreign material, thin

barley, other grains, and wild oats in the

standards.

Proposed Action

GIPSA proposes to revise § 800.86,

Inspection of shiplot, unit train, and

lash barge grain in single lots, paragraph

(c)(2), Table 1, by combining the factors

and limits from Table 2 onto a single

table and amending the title. GIPSA also

proposes to: (1) Delete the U.S. No. 1

‘‘Choice’’ grade designation from the

malting standards and create four

numerical grade categories; (2) establish

a minimum 43.0 pound test weight limit

with a breakpoint of ¥0.5 for No. 4 Sixrowed Malting barley; (3) establish a

minimum 95.0 percent suitable malting

type limit with a breakpoint of ¥1.3 for

No. 4 Six-rowed Malting barley; (4)

establish a minimum 87.0 percent

sound barley limit with a breakpoint of

1.9 for No. 4 Six-rowed Malting barley;

(5) apply current limits for damaged

kernels to Two-rowed Malting barley

and establish a maximum 5.0 percent

damaged kernels grade limit with a

breakpoint of 1.3 for barley meeting the

No. 4 malting grade requirements; (6)

establish foreign material limits at 0.5

percent with a breakpoint of 0.1, 1.0

percent with a breakpoint of 0.4, 2.0

percent with a breakpoint 0.5, and 3.0

percent with a breakpoint of 0.6, in

grade Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively;

(7) apply current limits for wild oats to

Six-rowed Malting barley; (8) apply

present limits for other grains to tworowed malting types and establish a

maximum 4.0 percent grade limit with

a breakpoint of 1.0 for barley meeting

the No. 3 malting grade requirements;

(9) establish a maximum 10.0 percent

skinned and broken kernel limit with a

breakpoint of 1.6 for No. 4 Six-rowed

Malting barley; and (10) establish a

maximum 15.0 percent thin barley grade

limit with a breakpoint of 0.9 for No. 4

Six-rowed Malting barley. GIPSA also

proposes to incorporate other malting

factor grade limits and breakpoints (i.e.,

injured-by-frost, injured-by-heat, frostdamaged, heat-damaged, and kernel

texture) from Table 4 onto Table 1

without any change in requirements.

GIPSA further proposes to reserve

Table 2 for future use. In addition, the

grade limits and breakpoints for

damaged kernels, heat-damaged kernels,

foreign material, and thin barley are

deleted from Table 3; however, these

factors are being moved to Table 4. Also,

the footnote that limits barley which is

badly stained or materially weathered to

grade not higher than U.S. No. 4 is

deleted.

Additionally, GIPSA proposes to

amend Table 4 by establishing a

breakpoint of 0.23 for dockage at any

level. GIPSA also proposes to allow

buyers and sellers of barley, excluding

malting types, to specify contractually

the appropriate level of heat-damaged

kernels, damaged kernels, foreign

material, thin barley, other grains, and

wild oats. FGIS proposes to include

range limits with breakpoints for these

factors in Table 4 as follows:

TABLE 4.—FACTORS, RANGE LIMITS,

AND BREAKPOINTS FOR BARLEY

Factor Range limit Breakpoint

Heat damage .......... 0.0–0.5 ..... 0.1

Do .................... 0.6–1.0 ..... 0.2

Do .................... 1.1–2.5 ..... 0.3

Do .................... 2.6–3.0 ..... 0.4

Do .................... 3.1–3.5 ..... 0.5

Do .................... Above 3.5 0.6
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 55 / Wednesday, March 22, 1995 / Proposed Rules 15079

TABLE 4.—FACTORS, RANGE LIMITS,

AND BREAKPOINTS FOR BARLEY—

Continued

Factor Range limit Breakpoint

Damage kernels ..... 0.0–1.0 ..... 0.3

Do .................... 1.1–2.0 ..... 0.4

Do .................... 2.1–3.0 ..... 0.5

Do .................... 3.1–4.0 ..... 0.6

Do .................... 4.1–5.0 ..... 0.7

Do .................... Above 5.0 0.9

Foreign material ..... 0.0–0.5 ..... 0.1

Do .................... 0.6–1.5 ..... 0.2

Do .................... 1.6–2.5 ..... 0.3

Do .................... 2.6–3.5 ..... 0.4

Do .................... 3.6–4.5 ..... 0.5

Do .................... Above 4.5 0.6

Thin barley .............. 0.0–2.5 ..... 0.5

Do .................... 2.6–4.5 ..... 0.6

Do .................... 4.6–6.5 ..... 0.7

Do .................... 6.6–8.5 ..... 0.8

Do .................... 8.6–11.0 ... 0.9

Do .................... Above 11.0 1.0

Other grains ............ 0.0–0.5 ..... 0.4

Do .................... 0.6–1.5 ..... 0.5

Do .................... 1.6–2.5 ..... 0.6

Do .................... 2.6–3.5 ..... 0.7

TABLE 4.—FACTORS, RANGE LIMITS,

AND BREAKPOINTS FOR BARLEY—

Continued

Factor Range limit Breakpoint

Do .................... 3.6–4.5 ..... 0.8

Do .................... 4.6–5.5 ..... 0.9

Wild Oats ................ 0.0–0.5 ..... 0.4

Do .................... 0.6–1.5 ..... 0.5

Do .................... 1.6–2.5 ..... 0.6

Do .................... 2.6–3.5 ..... 0.7

Do .................... 3.6–4.5 ..... 0.8

Do .................... Above 4.5 1.0

GIPSA also proposes to amend section

§ 800.162 by redesignating paragraph (b)

Cargo shipments as (c) and adding a

new paragraph (b) Barley.

Reference

(1) U.S. Department of Agriculture in

cooperation with the Colorado

Agricultural Statistics Service; ‘‘1992

Colorado Barley Varieties.’’ Published

by the Colorado Agricultural Statistics

Service; Lakewood, Colorado.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 800

Administrative practice and

procedure, Export, Grain.

7 CFR Part 810

Export, Grain.

For reasons set forth in the preamble,

7 CFR part 800 and 7 CFR part 810 are

proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 800—GENERAL REGULATIONS

1. The authority citation for Part 800

continues to read as follows:

Authority: Pub. L. 94–582, 90 Stat. 2867,

as amended (7 U.S.C. 71 et seq.).

2. Section 800.86 (c)(2) Table 2 is

removed and reserved and Tables 1, 3,

and 4 are revised to read as follows:

§ 800.86 Inspection of shiplot, unit train,

and lash barge grain in single lots.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(2) * * *

TABLE 1.—GRADE LIMITS (GL) AND BREAKPOINTS (BP) FOR MALTING BARLEY

Grade

Minimum limits of—

Test weight (pounds) Suitable malting types

(percent) Sound barley 1 (percent)

Kernel

texture

(percent)

Six-rowed Two-rowed Six-rowed Two-rowed Six-rowed Two-rowed

Six-rowed

only

GL BP GL BP GL BP GL BP GL BP GL BP GL BP

U.S. No. 1 ................................................. 47.0 ¥0.5 50.0 ¥0.5 95.0 ¥1.3 97.0 ¥1.0 97.0 ¥1.0 98.0 ¥0.8 90.0 ¥1.3

U.S. No. 2 ................................................. 45.0 ¥0.5 48.0 ¥0.5 95.0 ¥1.3 97.0 ¥1.0 94.0 ¥1.4 98.0 ¥0.8 90.0 ¥1.3

U.S. No. 3 ................................................. 43.0 ¥0.5 48.0 ¥0.5 95.0 ¥1.3 95.0 ¥1.3 90.0 ¥1.6 96.0 ¥1.1 90.0 ¥1.3

U.S. No. 4 ................................................. 43.0 ¥0.5 48.0 ¥0.5 95.0 ¥1.3 95.0 ¥1.3 87.0 ¥1.9 93.0 ¥1.1 90.0 ¥1.3

Grade

Maximum limits of—

Damaged 1

kernels

(percent)

Foreign material

(percent)

Wild oats

(percent)

Other grains

(percent)

Skinned and broken

kernels (percent) Thin barley (percent)

Six-rowed Two-rowed Six-rowed Two-rowed

GL BP GL BP GL BP GL BP GL BP GL BP GL BP GL BP

U.S. No. 1 ......................... 2.0 0.8 0.5 0.1 1.0 0.6 2.0 0.8 4.0 1.1 5.0 1.3 7.0 0.6 5.0 0.4

U.S. No. 2 ......................... 3.0 0.9 1.0 0.4 1.0 0.6 3.0 0.9 6.0 1.4 7.0 1.3 10.0 0.9 7.0 0.5

U.S. No. 3 ......................... 4.0 1.1 2.0 0.5 2.0 0.8 4.0 1.0 8.0 1.5 10.0 1.8 15.0 0.9 10.0 0.9

U.S. No. 4 ......................... 5.0 1.3 3.0 0.6 3.0 0.9 5.0 1.3 10.0 1.6 10.0 1.8 15.0 0.9 10.0 0.9

Grade

Frost-damaged

(percent)

Injured-byfrost

(percent)

Heat-damaged

(percent)

Injured-byheat

(percent)

Mold-damaged

(percent)

Injured-bymold

(percent)

GL BP GL BP GL BP GL BP GL BP GL BP

U.S. Nos. 1, 2, 3, & 4 ....................................................... 0.4 0.05 1.9 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.04 0.4 0.05 1.9 0.1

1 Injured-by-frost and injured-by-mold kernels are not considered damaged kernels or count as a deduction against sound barley.

Note: Malting barley shall not be infested in accordance with § 810.107 (b) and shall not contain any special grades as defined

in § 810.206. Six- and Two-rowed barley varieties not meeting the above requirements shall be graded in accordance with standards

established for the class Barley.
15080 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 55 / Wednesday, March 22, 1995 / Proposed Rules

Table 2 [Reserved]

TABLE 3.—GRADE LIMITS (GL) AND BREAKPOINTS (BP) FOR BARLEY

Grade

Minimum limits of— Maximum

limits of broken kernels

(percent)

Test weight

(pounds)

Sound barley

(percent)

GL BP GL BP GL BP

U.S. No. 1 .......................................................................................................................................... 47.0 ¥0.5 97.0 ¥1.1 4.0 1.0

U.S. No. 2 .......................................................................................................................................... 45.0 ¥0.5 94.0 ¥1.4 8.0 1.0

U.S. No. 3 .......................................................................................................................................... 43.0 ¥0.5 90.0 ¥1.6 12.0 1.8

U.S. No. 4 .......................................................................................................................................... 40.0 ¥0.5 85.0 ¥2.2 18.0 1.8

U.S. No. 5 .......................................................................................................................................... 36.0 ¥0.5 75.0 ¥2.2 28.0 2.4

TABLE 4.—BREAKPOINTS FOR BARLEY SPECIAL GRADES AND FACTORS

Special grade or factor Grade or range limit Breakpoint

Dockage ....................................... As specified by contract or load order grade ........................................................................... 0.23

Two-rowed Barley ........................ Not more than 10.0% of Six-rowed in Two-rowed ................................................................... 1.8

Six-rowed Barley .......................... Not more than 10.0% of Two-rowed in Six-rowed ................................................................... 1.8

Smutty .......................................... More than 0.20% ...................................................................................................................... 0.06

Garlicky ........................................ 3 or more in 500 grams ............................................................................................................ 21⁄3

Ergoty ........................................... More than 0.10% ...................................................................................................................... 0.13

Infested ........................................ Same as in § 810.107 ............................................................................................................... 0

Blighted ........................................ More than 4.0% ........................................................................................................................ 1.1

Heat-damaged kernels ................. 0.0 – 0.5 .................................................................................................................................... 0.1

0.6 – 1.0 .................................................................................................................................... 0.2

1.1 – 2.5 .................................................................................................................................... 0.3

2.6 – 3.0 .................................................................................................................................... 0.4

3.1 – 3.5 .................................................................................................................................... 0.5

Above 3.5 .................................................................................................................................. 0.6

Damaged kernels ......................... 0.0 – 1.0 .................................................................................................................................... 0.3

1.1 – 2.0 .................................................................................................................................... 0.4

2.1 – 3.0 .................................................................................................................................... 0.5

3.1 – 4.0 .................................................................................................................................... 0.6

4.1 – 5.0 .................................................................................................................................... 0.7

Above 5.0 .................................................................................................................................. 0.9

Foreign material ........................... 0.0 – 0.5 .................................................................................................................................... 0.1

0.6 – 1.5 .................................................................................................................................... 0.2

1.6 – 2.5 .................................................................................................................................... 0.3

2.6 – 3.5 .................................................................................................................................... 0.4

3.6 – 4.5 .................................................................................................................................... 0.5

Above 4.5 .................................................................................................................................. 0.6

Thin barley ................................... 0.0 – 2.5 .................................................................................................................................... 0.5

2.6 – 4.5 .................................................................................................................................... 0.6

4.6 – 6.5 .................................................................................................................................... 0.7

6.6 – 8.5 .................................................................................................................................... 0.8

8.6 – 11.0 .................................................................................................................................. 0.9

Above 11.0 ................................................................................................................................ 1.0

Other grains ................................. 0.0 – 0.5 .................................................................................................................................... 0.4

0.6 – 1.5 .................................................................................................................................... 0.5

1.6 – 2.5 .................................................................................................................................... 0.6

2.6 – 3.5 .................................................................................................................................... 0.7

3.6 – 4.5 .................................................................................................................................... 0.8

4.6 – 6.0 .................................................................................................................................... 0.9

Wild oats ...................................... 0.0 – 0.5 .................................................................................................................................... 0.4

0.6 – 1.5 .................................................................................................................................... 0.5

1.6 – 2.5 .................................................................................................................................... 0.6

2.6 – 3.5 .................................................................................................................................... 0.7

3.6 – 4.5 .................................................................................................................................... 0.8

Above 4.5 .................................................................................................................................. 1.0

Moisture ....................................... As specified by contract or load order grade ........................................................................... 0.5

* * * * *

3. Section 800.162, paragraph (b) is

revised and (c) is added to read as

follows:

§ 800.162 Certification of grade; special

requirements.

* * * * *

(b) Barley. Each official certificate for

grade shall show, in addition to the

requirements of paragraphs (a) and (c) of

this section, the percent of thin barley.

(c) Cargo shipments. Each official

certificate for grade representing a cargo

shipment shall show, in addition to the

requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of

this section, the results of all official

grade factors defined in the Official
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 55 / Wednesday, March 22, 1995 / Proposed Rules 15081

United States Standards for Grain for

the type of grain being inspected.

* * * * *

PART 810—OFFICIAL UNITED STATES

STANDARDS FOR GRAIN

4. The authority citation for Part 810

continues to read as follows:

Authority: Pub. L. 94–582, 90 Stat. 2867,

as amended (7 U.S.C. 71 et seq.).

5. and 6. Section 810.104, paragraph

(b), is amended by revising the first and

second sentences to read as follows:

Subpart A—General Provisions

* * * * *

§ 810.104 Percentages.

* * * * *

(b) Recording. The percentage of

dockage in flaxseed, rye, and sorghum

are reported in whole percent with

fractions of a percent being disregarded.

Dockage in barley and triticale is

reported in whole and half percent with

a fraction less than one-half percent

being disregarded. * * *

7. Section 810.202, paragraph (c) is

revised; paragraph (s) is removed;

paragraph (t) is revised and redesignated

as (s); paragraph (u) is revised and

redesignated as (t); paragraph (v) is

redesignated as (u) to read as follows:

§ 810.202 Definition of other terms.

* * * * *

(c) Classes. There are two classes of

barley: Malting barley and Barley.

(1) Malting barley. Barley of a sixrowed or two-rowed malting type. The

class Malting barley is divided into the

following three subclasses:

(i) Six-rowed Malting barley. Barley

that has a minimum of 95.0 percent of

a six-rowed suitable malting type that

has 90.0 percent or more of kernels with

white aleurone layers that contains not

more than: 1.9 percent injured-by-frost

kernels, 0.4 percent frost-damaged

kernels, 0.2 percent injured-by-heat

kernels, 0.1 percent heat-damaged

kernels, 1.9 percent injured-by-mold

kernels, and 0.4 percent mold-damaged

kernels. Six-rowed Malting barley shall

not be infested, blighted, ergoty,

garlicky, or smutty as defined in

§ 810.107(b) and § 810.206.

(ii) Six-Rowed Blue Malting barley.

Barley that has a minimum of 95.0

percent of a six-rowed suitable malting

type that has 90.0 percent or more of

kernels with blue aleurone layers that

contains not more than: 1.9 percent

injured-by-frost kernels, 0.4 percent

frost-damaged kernels, 0.2 percent

injured-by-heat kernels, 0.1 percent

heat-damaged kernels, 1.9 percent

injured-by-mold kernels, and 0.4

percent mold-damaged kernels. Sixrowed Blue Malting barley shall not be

infested, blighted, ergoty, garlicky, or

smutty as defined in § 810.107(b) and

§ 810.206.

(iii) Two-rowed Malting barley. Barley

that has a minimum of 95.0 percent of

a two-rowed suitable malting type that

contains not more than: 1.9 percent

injured-by-frost kernels, 0.4 percent

frost-damaged kernels, 0.2 percent

injured-by-heat kernels, 0.1 percent

heat-damaged kernels, 1.9 percent

injured-by-mold kernels, and 0.4

percent mold-damaged kernels. Tworowed Malting barley shall not be

infested, blighted, ergoty, garlicky, or

smutty as defined in § 810.107(b) and

§ 810.206.

(2) Barley. Any barley of a six-rowed

or two-rowed type. The class Barley is

divided into the following three

subclasses:

(i) Six-rowed barley. Any Six-rowed

barley with white hulls that contains

not more than 10.0 percent of tworowed varieties.

(ii) Two-rowed barley. Any Tworowed barley with white hulls that

contains not more than 10.0 percent of

six-rowed varieties.

(iii) Barley. Any barley that does not

meet the requirements for the subclasses

Six-rowed barley or Two-rowed barley.

* * * * *

(s) Suitable malting type. Varieties of

malting barley that are recommended by

the American Malting Barley

Association and any other proprietary

malting type(s) used by the malting and

brewing industry. The recommended

varieties are listed in FGIS instructions.

(t) Thin barley. Thin barley shall be

defined for the appropriate class as

follows:

(1) Malting barley. Six-rowed Malting

barley that passes through a 5⁄64 x 3⁄4

slotted-hole sieve and Two-rowed

Malting barley which passes through a

5.5/64 x 3⁄4 slotted-hole sieve in

accordance with procedures prescribed

in FGIS instructions.

(2) Barley. Six-rowed barley, Tworowed barley, or barley that passes

through a 5⁄64 x 3⁄4 slotted-hole sieve in

accordance with procedures prescribed

in FGIS instructions.

* * * * *

8. Section 810.204 is revised to read

as follows:

§ 810.204 Grades and grade requirements

for malting barley.

Grading factors

Grades U.S. Nos.

1 2 3 4

Minimum limits of:

Test weight:

Six-rowed ........................................................................................................... 47.0 45.0 43.0 43.0

Two-rowed ......................................................................................................... 50.0 48.0 48.0 48.0

Minimum percent limits of:

Suitable malting types:

Six-rowed ........................................................................................................... 95.0 95.0 95.0 95.0

Two-rowed ......................................................................................................... 97.0 97.0 95.0 95.0

Sound Barley:1

Six-rowed ........................................................................................................... 97.0 94.0 90.0 87.0

Two-rowed ......................................................................................................... 98.0 98.0 96.0 93.0

Kernel Texture:

Six-rowed (only) ................................................................................................. 90.0 90.0 90.0 90.0

Maximum percent limits of:

Damaged kernels total 1 ............................................................................................ 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Malting factors:

Frost damage ..................................................................................................... 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4

Injured-by-frost ................................................................................................... 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9

Heat damage ..................................................................................................... 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

Injured-by-heat ................................................................................................... 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

Mold damage ..................................................................................................... 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4

Injured-by-mold .................................................................................................. 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9
15082 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 55 / Wednesday, March 22, 1995 / Proposed Rules

Grading factors

Grades U.S. Nos.

1 2 3 4

Foreign material ........................................................................................................ 0.5 1.0 2.0 3.0

Wild oats ............................................................................................................ 1.0 1.0 2.0 3.0

Other grains ....................................................................................................... 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Skinned and broken kernels:

Six-rowed ........................................................................................................... 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0

Two-rowed ......................................................................................................... 5.0 7.0 10.0 10.0

Thin barley:

Six-rowed ........................................................................................................... 7.0 10.0 15.0 15.0

Two-rowed ......................................................................................................... 5.0 7.0 10.0 10.0

Stones ................................................................................................................ 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

Maximum count limits of: 2

Other material:

Animal filth ......................................................................................................... 9 9 9 9

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

Cockleburs ......................................................................................................... 7 7 7 7

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

Glass .................................................................................................................. 1 1 1 1

Stones ................................................................................................................ 7 7 7 7

Unknown foreign substance .............................................................................. 3 3 3 3

1 Injured-by-frost and injured-by-mold kernels are not considered damaged kernels or count as a deduction against sound barley.

2 Determined on a representative sample before the removal of dockage, except for stones. Determine stones on a dockage-free sample.

Malting barley shall not be infested in accordance with § 810.107(b) and shall not contain any special grades as

defined in § 810.206. Six- and Two-rowed barley varieties not meeting the above requirements shall be graded in accordance with standards established for the class Barley.

9. Section 810.205 is removed and § 810.206 is redesignated as 810.205 and revised to read as follows:

§ 810.205 Grades and Grade Requirements for Barley.

Grading factor

Grades U.S. Nos.

1 2 3 4 5

Minimum limits of:

Test weight ........................................................................................ 47.0 45.0 43.0 40.0 36.0

Minimum percent limits of:

Sound barley 1 ................................................................................... 97.0 94.0 90.0 85.0 75.0

Maximum percent limits of:

Broken kernels .................................................................................. 4.0 8.0 12.0 18.0 28.0

Stones ............................................................................................... 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

Maximum count limits of: 2

Other material:

Animal filth ................................................................................. 9 9 9 9 9

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

Cockleburs ................................................................................. 7 7 7 7 7

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

Glass .......................................................................................... 1 1 1 1 1

Stones ........................................................................................ 7 7 7 7 7

Unknown foreign substance ....................................................... 3 3 3 3 3

1 Injured-by-frost and injured-by-mold kernels are not considered damaged kernels or count as a deduction against sound barley.

2 Determined on a representative sample before the removal of dockage, except for stones. Determine stones on a dockage-free sample.

U.S. Sample grade shall be barley

that: (a) does not meet the requirements

for the grades U.S. Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5;

(b) has a musty, sour, or commercially

objectionable foreign odor; or (c) is

heating or of distinctly low quality.

§ 810.20 [Redesignated as § 810.206]

10. Section 810.207 is redesignated as

810.206.

Dated: March 15, 1995.

James R. Baker,

Administrator, Grain Inspection, Packers and

Stockyards Administration.

[FR Doc. 95–6905 Filed 3–21–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–EN–P

Agricultural Marketing Service

7 CFR Part 1220

[No. LS–94–003]

RIN 0581–AB18

Soybean Promotion and Research:

Amend the Order To Adjust

Representation on the United Soybean

Board and Adjust Number of Board

Meetings Required

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service,

USDA.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This proposed rule would

adjust the number of members for

certain States on the United Soybean

Board (Board) to reflect changes in

production levels that have occurred

since the Board was appointed in 1991

and decrease the number of required

Board meetings from four a year to three

a year.

DATES: Written comments must be

received by April 21, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Send two copies of

comments to Ralph L. Tapp, Chief;

Marketing Programs Branch; Livestock

and Seed Division; Agricultural

Marketing Service (AMS), USDA, Room