18486 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 82 / Friday, April 26, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

(2) Pursuant to the direction of a

public agency because of the detection

of other residues of chemicals or toxic

substances residues, or contamination

from nuclear radiation or fallout in such

whole milk by tests made by a public

agency or under a testing program

deemed adequate for the purpose by a

public agency.

(l) Affected manufacturer means a

person who manufactures dairy

products which are removed from the

commercial market pursuant to the

direction of a public agency because of

the detection of pesticide residue in

such dairy products by tests made by a

public agency or under a testing

program deemed adequate for the

purpose by a public agency.

* * * * *

(o) Application period means any

period during which an affected

farmer’s whole milk is removed from

the commercial market pursuant to

direction of a public agency for a reason

specified in paragraph (k) of this section

and for which application for payment

is made.

* * * * *

Signed in Washington, DC, on April 11,

1996.

Bruce R. Weber,

Acting Administrator, Farm Service Agency.

[FR Doc. 96–9460 Filed 4–25–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–05–P

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: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Grain Inspection, Packers

and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA)

is revising the United States Standards

for Barley to: modify the classification

system of barley to better reflect current

marketing practices by establishing two

classes, Malting barley and Barley;

revise procedures to permit applicants

the option of requesting either the

malting standards or barley standards

for malting types; revise the standards

for Two-rowed Malting barley by

removing the ‘‘U.S. No 1 Choice’’ grade

designation; amend the definition for

suitable malting type to include other

malting varieties used by private

malting and brewing companies; revise

the dockage certification procedure by

reporting results in half and whole

percent with a fraction less than onehalf percent being disregarded; amend

the definition of thins to require the use

of a single sieve (5/64 × 3/4 slotted-hole)

only in the class Barley; and eliminate

the numerical grade restriction for badly

stained and materially weathered from

the standards. In addition, GIPSA is

amending the breakpoint for dockage

and establishing new breakpoints for

malting barley to conform with standard

changes.

The objective of these revisions is to

ensure that the barley standards are

serving their intended purpose to

facilitate the marketing of barley.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 1, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

George Wollam, USDA, GIPSA, Room

0623, South Building, P. O. Box 96454,

Washington, D.C. 20090–6454;

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 final 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 (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 the Office of Management

and Budget 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,

processors, trade associations, maltsters,

handlers, and merchandisers to better

understand their views on changes

needed to improve existing standards.

FGIS received positive feedback. In

addition, FGIS reviewed the barley

discussion paper with the FGIS

Advisory Committee and the Grain

Quality Workshops and considered

ideas received during the normal course

of business, recommendations from

internal management and program

review, and various other sources.

In the March 22, 1995, Federal

Register (60 FR 15075), GIPSA

published a proposal to revise the U.S.

Standards for Barley by: (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. No 1 Choice’’ grade

designation and combining the grading

factors and limits for two- and sixrowed 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 a fraction less

than one-half percent being disregarded;

(6) amending the definition of thins to

require the use of a single sieve (5⁄64×3⁄4

slotted-hole) only in the proposed class

Barley and remove 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. GIPSA further proposed to
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 82 / Friday, April 26, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 18487

amend the inspection plan tolerances

based on these changes.

Comment Review

During the 60-day comment period,

GIPSA received ten comments: two from

grain handling associations, five from

barley producer organizations, one from

a malting barley trade association, one

from a cattle feeding company, and one

from a State Department of Agriculture.

On the basis of these comments and

other available information, GIPSA has

decided to revise the barley standards as

proposed, with the following

exceptions: (1) Combining the grading

factors and limits for two- and sixrowed malting types into one grading

chart; (2) removing the grading limits for

thins in the class Barley; (3) removing

the grading limits for damaged kernels,

heat-damaged kernels, and foreign

material in the class Barley; (4) applying

the current damaged kernels grade

limits in Six-rowed Malting barley to

Two-rowed Malting barley; (5) applying

the present limits for injured-by-mold

and mold damage in Two-rowed

Malting barley to Six-rowed Malting

barley; and (6) applying the current

grade limits for other grains and wild

oats to both Six- and Two-rowed

Malting barley.

Rather than combining the grading

factors and limits for two- and sixrowed malting types into one grading

chart, GIPSA decided to maintain a

separate grading chart for the two-rowed

malting type and the six-rowed malting

type because of their different grade

limits and grading factors. Also, GIPSA

decided to retain the grading limits for

thins, damaged kernels, heat-damaged

kernels, and foreign material in the class

Barley. In addition, GIPSA will continue

to apply the current grade limits in Sixrowed Malting barley for damaged

kernels and other grains only to Sixrowed Malting barley and continue to

apply the present grade limits in Tworowed Malting barley for injured-bymold, mold damage, and wild oats only

to Two-rowed Malting barley.

Barley Classification

GIPSA proposed to amend the barley

classification system in section 7 CFR

810.202, paragraph (c), to better reflect

current marketing practices by

establishing two classes of barley,

specifically, Malting barley and Barley.

The class Malting barley is divided into

three subclasses: Six-rowed Malting

barley, Six-rowed Blue Malting barley,

and Two-rowed Malting barley. The

class Barley is divided into three

subclasses: Six-rowed barley, Tworowed barley, and Barley. GIPSA

believes this new classification system

will assist in simplifying the barley

standards and facilitate the domestic

and export marketing of barley.

The present barley classification

system is based on kernel physical

characteristics. Barley is divided into

three classes: Six-rowed barley, Tworowed barley, and Barley. The class Sixrowed barley is divided into three

subclasses: Six-rowed Malting barley,

Six-rowed Blue Malting barley, and Sixrowed barley. The class Two-rowed

barley is divided into two subclasses:

Two-rowed Malting barley and Tworowed barley. The class Barley has no

subclasses.

This classification system does not

reflect current marketing practices. That

is, barley produced in the United States

is used primarily as livestock feed or for

malting. Consequently, the barley

classing system should be structured in

a manner consistent with current

trading practices.

All comments received were

supportive of the new classification

system.

Based on this information, comments

received, and other available

information, GIPSA is amending the

barley classification system in current

section 7 CFR 810.202, paragraph (c), by

establishing two classes of barley,

Malting barley and Barley. The class

Malting barley is divided into three

subclasses: Six-rowed Malting barley,

Six-rowed Blue Malting barley, and

Two-rowed Malting barley. The class

Barley is divided into three subclasses:

Six-rowed barley, Two-rowed barley,

and Barley.

Applying the Malting Standards

GIPSA proposed to amend the

subclass definitions for Six- and Tworowed barley in current section 7 CFR

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

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

Malting barley. This change is needed to

provide applicants the option of

requesting either the malting standards

or the barley standards for malting

types.

The present standards require official

personnel initially to apply the Malting

barley requirements and assign grades

covered in section 7 CFR 810.206 only

if the sample fails to meet the malting

criteria. This requirement is based on

the subclass definitions for Six- and

Two-rowed barley. The subclass

definitions for Six- and 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.

Initially applying the malting

standard requirements hampers

inspection efficiency and may create

market disruptions for malting varieties

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.

All comments received were

supportive of this revision.

Based on this information, comments

received and other available

information, GIPSA is amending the

subclass definitions for Six- and Tworowed barley in section 7 CFR 810.202,

paragraphs (c)(1)(iii) and (c)(2)(ii), by

deleting the reference to Malting barley

to provide the inspection system greater

flexibility in meeting the market needs.

This change will also bring existing

standards more in line with today’s

marketing practices for Malting barley.

U.S. No 1 Choice Grade Designation

GIPSA proposed to revise section 7

CFR 810.205 by removing the ‘‘U.S. No

1 Choice’’ grade designation from the

grading chart and retain the factors and

limits concerning the Choice grade as

U.S. No 1 and redesignating the factors

and limits for U.S. Nos. 1, 2, and 3 as

U.S. Nos. 2, 3, and 4, respectively. This

revision was sought to bring more

consistency between the standards for

Two- and Six-rowed Malting barley.

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 ‘‘U.S. No 1 Choice’’ Two-rowed

Malting barley and U.S. No. 1 Tworowed Malting barley are reflected in

the test weight, skinned and broken

kernels, and the thin barley grade limits.

GIPSA believes that the factors and

limits for the ‘‘U.S. No 1 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 to eliminate

confusion in the marketplace and to

provide more meaningful information to

our customers.

All commentors agreed with GIPSA’s

proposal.

Based on this information, comments

received and other available

information, GIPSA is removing the

‘‘U.S. No 1 Choice’’ grade designation

from section 800.86(c)(2) Table-2 and

section 7 CFR 810.205 for Two-rowed

Malting barley. Furthermore, GIPSA is

retaining the factors and limits for the

‘‘U.S. No 1 Choice’’ grade as the U.S.

No. 1 grade and redesignating the

factors and limits for U.S. Nos. 1, 2, and

3 as U.S. Nos. 2, 3, and 4 for the Tworowed Malting barley, respectively.
18488 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 82 / Friday, April 26, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

Malting Barley Grading Charts

GIPSA proposed to revise the grade

requirements in section 7 CFR 810.204

and 810.205 by: (1) Combining the

factors and limits for Two- and Sixrowed Malting barley into a single grade

chart; (2) establishing four numerical

grades for all Malting barley; (3)

establishing common foreign material

grade limits for all Malting barley; (4)

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; (5) applying

the current damaged kernels grade

limits in Six-rowed Malting barley to

Two-rowed Malting barley and

establishing a new 5.0 percent damaged

kernels limit to correspond with the

proposed four grade categories; (6)

applying the present limits for mold

damage and injured-by-mold in Tworowed Malting barley to Six-rowed

Malting barley; and (7) applying the

current grade limits for other grains and

wild oats to both Six- and Two-rowed

Malting barley.

In the present standards, separate

grade charts exist for two- and sixrowed malting types. Additionally, the

factor requirements differ based on the

barley subclass. For example, the

current 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. In proposing

changes to the standards, GIPSA

believed that the malting standards

should be revised to more consistently

apply factor requirements between Twoand Six-rowed barley. GIPSA also

believed that the proposed revisions to

combine sections 7 CFR 810.204 and

810.205 simplify the malting standards

and make them more user friendly.

Supporters stated that combining the

factors and grade limits for Six- and

Two-rowed Malting barley into one

chart will make the malting barley

standards more user friendly, make the

standards more compatible between the

Two-rowed and Six-rowed Malting

types, and reduce potential confusion of

foreign purchasers.

Several organizations representing

producers, handlers, and maltsters

opposed applying the present limits for

mold damage and damaged-by-mold in

Two-rowed Malting barley to Six-rowed

malting types and applying the current

grade limits for other grains and wild

oats to both Six- and Two-rowed

Malting types.

With regard to applying the present

limits for mold damage and injured-bymold in Two-rowed Malting barley to

Six-rowed Malting barley, the North

Dakota Barley Council (NDBC) stated

that applying the present limits for mold

damage and damaged-by-mold in Tworowed Malting barley to Six-rowed

Malting barley is restrictive and causes

market disruption because weather

conditions frequently cause mold

damage and damaged-by-mold injury.

They also stated that under this

proposal a significant portion of

Midwestern crop would not receive

malting barley grades. Furthermore, the

NDBC stated that Midwestern Six-rowed

Malting barley is frequently purchased

in excess of the proposed limits.

Further, other comments received

shared similar views.

Upon review of this issue and because

of the expressed concern of potential

market disruption, GIPSA has decided

not to adopt this revision. Consequently,

GIPSA will maintain the current limits

for injured-by-mold and mold damage

for Two- and Six-rowed Malting barley.

In regard to applying current grade

limits for other grains and wild oats to

both Six- and Two-rowed malting types,

the current malting standards impose

grade limits for other grains and wild

oats but not consistently for Two- and

Six-rowed Malting barley. These

differences reflect the traditional

variances between the production areas

and markets dealing with Six- and Tworowed Malting barley. In proposing to

apply current grade limits for other

grains and wild oats to both Six- and

Two-rowed Malting types, GIPSA

believed that the malting standards

should be revised to more consistently

apply factor requirements between Twoand Six-rowed Malting types.

GIPSA received no support for this

proposed action. A commentor

opposing this proposal stated that while

the proposal adds more uniformity to

the grading standards, it fails to

consider the impact on domestic and

export markets.

Applying uniform grade limits for

other grains and wild oats to both sixand two-rowed malting types may

impact negatively on domestic and/or

export markets. Therefore, GIPSA has

decided not to adopt this proposal.

Consequently, GIPSA will continue to

apply the current grade limits for other

grains to six-rowed malting type only

and the current grade limits for wild

oats to two-rowed malting type only.

In its comment, the NDBC

recommended to aggregate wild oats,

other grains, and foreign materials into

one category. They stated —foreign

buyers perceive other grains, wild oats,

and foreign material as non-barley

material in Malting barley.—

Furthermore, the NDBC proposed

different grade limits for two- and sixrowed malting types as follows:

Grade Six-rowed

(percent)

Tworowed

(percent)

U.S. No. 1 ................. 3.0 1.5

U.S. No. 2 ................. 4.0 2.0

U.S. No. 3 ................. 6.0 3.0

U.S. No. 4 ................. 8.0 5.0

NDBC believes that this change would

more accurately describe non-barley

material in Malting barley and facilitate

marketing in export channels.

GIPSA believes that this

recommendation warrants further

evaluation and has decided more

discussions are needed before proposing

such a change. Meanwhile, GIPSA will

continue to use the current factors and

limits as applicable.

In proposing to combine the grade

charts for two- and six-rowed malting

types, GIPSA believed that adopting the

same grading factors would simplify the

malting standards and promote

uniformity between Two- and Sixrowed Malting barley. However, the

proposal to apply the same grading

factors to all malting barley were not

adopted. A single grade chart containing

different factors and grade limits for

two- and six-rowed malting types would

be hard to read or understand.

Therefore, GIPSA has decided not to

combine the grade charts for two- and

six-rowed malting types because

common grading factors and limits were

not established. Consequently, GIPSA

will maintain a separate grading chart

for the Two-rowed Malting barley and

the Six-rowed Malting barley because of

their different grade limits and grading

factors.

GIPSA received no opposition to

establishing four numerical grades for

malting barley; separate grade limits for

test weight; percent suitable malting

types, sound barley, skinned and broken

kernels, and thin barley for two- and

six-rowed malting types; or establishing

common foreign material grade limits

for all Malting barley.

Based on information and suggestions

received from individuals using these

grade charts, comments received, and

other available information, GIPSA will:

(1) Maintain separate grading charts for

two- and six-rowed malting types; (2)

establish four numerical grades for all

Malting barley; (3) apply the current

grade limits for damaged kernels and

other grains to Six-rowed Malting barley

only; (4) apply the present limits for

wild oats, injured-by-mold, and mold
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 82 / Friday, April 26, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 18489

damage to Two-rowed Malting barley

only; (5) apply the proposed foreign

material grade limits to two- and sixrowed malting types; and (6) for sixrowed malting types adopt the proposed

grade limits for test weight, sound

barley, damaged kernels, skinned and

broken kernels, and thin barley.

Suitable Malting Type

GIPSA proposed to amend the

definition of suitable malting type in

current section 7 CFR 810.202,

paragraph (t), to expand the list of

approved malting varieties. The

proposed definition will include other

malting types used by various maltsters

and brewers.

Current standards require a specified

level of suitable malting type before the

Malting barley designation is assigned.

The American Malting Barley

Association (AMBA) identifies which

malting varieties are considered

suitable. The AMBA revises its list of

approved malting types annually by

adding new varieties and deleting

outdated ones. However, many malting

varieties removed from the AMBA list

continue to be produced, marketed, and

processed. Under the current malting

standards, a variety that meets all

quality requirements for malting but is

not included on the AMBA list could

not be classified as Malting barley.

Furthermore, several breweries are

actively involved in the development

and production of malting barley types

to meet various end-use specifications.

Often, these varietal types are not tested

and approved by AMBA, although such

varieties meet all quality requirements

of the brewery. This revision will permit

official inspection personnel to apply

the malting grade designation to any of

these malting varieties. Also, it will

bring existing standards more in line

with today’s processing practices of the

malting and brewing industries.

All comments received were

supportive of the proposal to revise the

definition of suitable malting type to

include varieties recommended by

AMBA and other malting types.

Based on this information, comments

received, and other available

information, GIPSA is revising the

suitable malting type definition in

current section 7 CFR 810.202,

paragraph (t), to include varieties

recommended by AMBA and other

malting types.

Dockage

GIPSA proposed to revise the dockage

certification procedure in section 7 CFR

810.104, paragraph (b), by reporting

results in half and whole percent with

a fraction less than one-half percent

being disregarded.

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. GIPSA believes that

this method of reporting often

understates dockage levels. GIPSA also

believes that reporting dockage in half

and whole percent provides a more

accurate description of non-barley

material, by that, enabling handlers and

end-users to decide quality, storability,

and end-product yield. Also, providing

actual dockage percentage in the

remarks section of the certificate is

currently available upon request.

One commentor supporting this

change stated that much of the

commercial trade is done in tenth of

percent increments. However, GIPSA

believes that the proposed change best

reflects market needs at this time.

Accordingly, no further changes to this

provision are needed. Applicants

interested in receiving dockage

information in tenth of percent

increments may receive it upon request.

Based on this information, comments

received, and other available

information, GIPSA is revising the

dockage certification procedure in

section 7 CFR 810.104, paragraph (b), to

report dockage in barley in half and

whole percent with a fraction less than

one-half percent being disregarded.

Thin Barley

GIPSA proposed to revise the sieve

requirement for determining thin barley

in current section 7 CFR 810.202,

paragraph (u), by requiring the use of a

single sieve (5⁄64 × 3⁄4 slotted-hole), in

determining thins in the class Barley.

GIPSA also proposed to amend section

7 CFR 800.162 to delete the factor thins

and its corresponding grade limits for

the class Barley and require that the

level of thins be reported on each

certificate representing an inspection for

grade. This procedure is similar to the

certification procedure for moisture,

which provides the marketplace with

the flexibility to establish more

meaningful quality limits for thins

based on the specific needs of endusers.

Present standards define thin barley

as Six-rowed barley which passes

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

Two-rowed barley which passes through

a 5.5⁄64 × 3⁄4 slotted-hole sieve. In

addition, for the class Barley, which

consists of a mixture of Six- and Tworowed barley, thin barley is barley

passing through the 5⁄64 × 3⁄4 slotted-hole

sieve. Under this requirement, the factor

thins in the standards is a measurement

of kernel size more than an indicator of

overall quality in barley.

All commentors were supportive of

GIPSA’s proposal to use one standard

sieve size (5⁄64 × 3⁄5 slotted-hole) to

determine thins for the class Barley.

Several commentors opposed the

removal of thins as a grade determining

factor stating: (1) Thins are one of the

most important grading factors,

particularly in livestock feed and export

markets; (2) there is correlation between

barley quality and the level of thins

because a high level of thins can cause

problems in rolling barley and it will

affect the nutritive value of barley; (3)

the end-users rely on the official grading

system to determine the level of thins

and corresponding numerical grade; (4)

if the end-users contract for a certain

grade of barley, they currently can be

assured of a specified maximum

percentage of thin kernels; (5) most of

the barley sold into the feed market is

traded on the basis of thins; (6) they

feared the potential for increased

blending, which may lower the overall

quality; and (7) they stated that FGIS

failed to consider the impacts on export

markets.

GIPSA recognizes that thin barley is a

factor used by the industry to determine

market value. Also, that the end-user is

in the best position to determine the

appropriate level of thins when arriving

at the market value of the grain.

Therefore, GIPSA has decided not to

remove the grade limits for thins in the

class barley because there appears to be

a market need to preserve these limits

based on comments received.

Consequently, the factor ‘‘thins’’ will

continue to be a grade determining

factor in the class Barley.

Based on this information, comments

received, and other available

information, GIPSA is revising current

section 7 CFR 810.202, paragraph (u), to

require the use of the 5⁄64 × 3⁄4 slottedwhole sieve for thin barley

determination in the class Barley.

Sound Barley

GIPSA proposed to revise section 7

CFR 810.206 by removing the factors

and limits for damaged kernels, heatdamaged kernels, and foreign material

in the class Barley. In proposing this

revision, GIPSA believed that the

standards would rely on the factor

‘‘sound barley’’ to relate the overall

amount of damaged kernels, heatdamaged kernels, and foreign material.

In addition, applicants interested in the

percentage and composition of damaged

kernels, heat-damaged kernels, and

foreign material may request this
18490 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 82 / Friday, April 26, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

information be reported on the

inspection certificate.

Supporters of this change stated that

relying on the factor ‘‘sound barley’’ to

determine quality is favorable,

providing other information concerning

non-barley material and damaged

kernels is available to interested parties.

Opponents of this proposed change

stated: Eliminating the factors and grade

limits for damaged kernels, heatdamaged kernels, and foreign material

and relying on sound barley to relate the

overall amount of damage and nonbarley materials will be an incentive to

add non-barley material to barley

shipments; while the domestic market

likely would quickly adapt to this

change, the export market will be at a

serious disadvantage; and U.S.

competitors have much more stringent

quality parameters, and any

retrenchment from the current grading

system would cause further concerns by

overseas customers and cause reduction

in U.S. exports.

Upon further review of this issue and

in view of the comments and concerns,

GIPSA believes that removing the grade

limits for damaged kernels, heatdamaged kernels, and foreign material

in the class Barley and relying on sound

barley to relate the overall amount of

damage and non-barley may not reflect

domestic and/or export markets need.

Therefore, GIPSA has decided to retain

the factors and limits for damaged

kernels, heat-damaged kernels, and

foreign material in the class Barley as

grade determining factors because there

appears to be a market need to maintain

these factors and their grade limits as

grade determining factors.

Based on this information, comments

received, and other available

information, GIPSA has decided not to

revise section 7 CFR 810.206 of the

standards. Consequently, the grade

limits for damaged kernels, heatdamaged kernels, and foreign material

in the class Barley will continue to be

grade determining factors.

Badly Stained or Materially Weathered

Barley

GIPSA proposed to eliminate the

grade limitation for barley that is badly

stained or materially weathered from

section 7 CFR 810.206. GIPSA also

proposed to remove the definition for

stained barley from 7 CFR 810.202 (s).

The determination of badly stained or

materially weathered barley is seldom

made because this condition is generally

reflected in other grading factors

including sound barley. Presently,

barley that is badly stained or materially

weathered is graded not higher than

U.S. No. 4.

Commentors did not oppose GIPSA’s

proposal to remove the badly stained or

materially weathered criterion from the

standards.

Based on this information, comments

received, and other available

information, GIPSA has decided to

amend section 7 CFR 810–206 by

eliminating the grade limitation for

badly stained or materially weathered.

Miscellaneous Changes

GIPSA proposed to revise the format

of the grade charts in the standards for

Malting barley and Barley. These

proposed revisions were intended to

improve the readability of the grading

tables. Based on information and

suggestions received from individuals

using these grading charts, GIPSA has

decided not to adopt the proposed

format. Consequently, the present

format of the grading charts in the

standards for Malting barley and Barley

will not be changed.

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. GIPSA

proposed to amend the breakpoint for

dockage from 0.47 to 0.23 percent.

GIPSA also proposed to establish

breakpoints conforming to the proposed

changes to the barley standards.

GIPSA received no opposition to

amending or establishing breakpoints as

included in the proposal.

Based on this information, comments

received, and other available

information, GIPSA is revising section

800.86, Table 4, by changing the

dockage breakpoint to 0.23 percent.

GIPSA is also adopting breakpoints for

the changes to the malting barley

standards.

Final Action

On the basis of these comments and

other available information, GIPSA has

decided to revise the barley standards as

proposed, with the following

exceptions: (1) Combining the grading

factors and limits for two- and sixrowed malting types into one grade

chart; (2) removing the grading limits for

thins in the class Barley; (3) removing

the grading limits for damaged kernels,

heat-damaged kernels, and foreign

material in the class Barley; (4) applying

the current damaged kernels grade

limits in Six-rowed Malting barley to

Two-rowed Malting barley; (5) applying

the present limits for mold damage and

injured-by-mold in Two-rowed Malting

barley to Six-rowed Malting barley; and

(6) applying the current grade limits for

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

Rather than combining the grading

factors and limits for two- and sixrowed malting types into one grading

chart, GIPSA decided to maintain a

separate grading chart for the two-rowed

malting type and the six-rowed malting

type because of their different grade

limits and grading factors. Also, GIPSA

decided to retain the grading limits for

thins, damaged kernels, heat-damaged

kernels, and foreign material in the class

Barley. In addition, GIPSA will continue

to apply the current grade limits in Sixrowed Malting barley for damaged

kernels and other grains only to Sixrowed Malting barley and continue to

apply the present limits in Two-rowed

Malting barley for injured-by-mold, wild

oats, and mold damage only to Tworowed Malting barley.

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

United States Grain Standards Act (7

U.S.C. 76(b)(1)), no standards

established or amendments or

revocations of standards are to become

effective less than one calendar year

after promulgation unless, in the

judgment of the Administrator, the

public health, interest, or safety requires

that they become effective sooner.

Pursuant to that section of the Act, it

has been determined that in the public

interest the revision becomes effective

June 1, 1996. This effective date will

coincide with the beginning of the 1996

crop year and facilitate domestic and

export marketing of barley.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Parts 800 and

810

Administrative practice and

procedure, Export, Grain.

For reasons set forth in the preamble,

7 CFR Part 800 and 7 CFR Part 810 are

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) Tables 1, 2, 3,

and 4 are revised to read as follows:

§ 800.86 Inspection of shiplot, unit train,

and lash barge grain in single lots.

* * * * *

(2) * * *
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 82 / Friday, April 26, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 18491

TABLE 1—GRADE LIMITS (GL) AND BREAKPOINTS (BP) FOR SIX-ROWED MALTING BARLEY AND SIX-ROWED BLUE

MALTING BARLEY

Grade

Minimum limits of— Maximum limits of—

Test weight per

bushel (pounds)

Suitable malting

types (percent)

Sound barley

(percent) 1

Damaged

kernels (percent)

Foreign material (percent)

Other grains

(percent)

Skinned and

broken kernels (percent)Thin barley

(percent)

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

U.S. No. 1 ......................................................... 47.0 ¥0.5 95.0 ¥1.3 97.0 ¥1.0 2.0 0.8 0.5 0.1 2.0 0.8 4.0 1.1 7.0 0.6

U.S. No. 2 ......................................................... 45.0 ¥0.5 95.0 ¥1.3 94.0 ¥1.4 3.0 0.9 1.0 0.4 3.0 0.9 6.0 1.4 10.0 0.9

U.S. No. 3 ......................................................... 43.0 ¥0.5 95.0 ¥1.3 90.0 ¥1.6 4.0 1.1 2.0 0.5 5.0 1.3 8.0 1.5 15.0 0.9

U.S. No. 4 ......................................................... 43.0 ¥0.5 95.0 ¥1.3 87.0 ¥1.9 5.0 1.3 3.0 0.6 5.0 1.3 10.0 1.6 15.0 0.9

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

TABLE 2—GRADE LIMITS (GL) AND BREAKPOINTS (BP) FOR TWO-ROWED MALTING BARLEY

Grade

Minimum limits of— Maximum limits of—

Test weight per

bushel (pounds)

Suitable malting

types (percent)

Sound barley 1

(percent)

Wild oats (percent)Foreign material

(percent)

Skinned and broken kernels (percent)

Thin barley (percent)

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

U.S. No. 1 ....................................................... 50.0 ¥0.5 97.0 ¥1.0 98.0 ¥0.8 1.0 0.6 0.5 0.1 5.0 1.3 5.0 0.4

U.S. No. 2 ....................................................... 48.0 ¥0.5 97.0 ¥1.0 98.0 ¥0.8 1.0 0.6 1.0 0.4 7.0 1.3 7.0 0.5

U.S. No. 3 ....................................................... 48.0 ¥0.5 95.0 ¥1.3 96.0 ¥1.1 2.0 0.8 2.0 0.5 10.0 1.8 10.0 0.9

U.S. No. 4 ....................................................... 48.0 ¥0.5 95.0 ¥1.3 93.0 ¥1.1 3.0 0.9 3.0 0.6 10.0 1.8 10.0 0.9

1 Injured-by-frost kernels and injured-by-mold kernels are not considered damaged kernels or considered 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.

Grade

Minimum limits of— Maximum limits of—

Test weight per

bushel (pounds)

Sound barley

(percent)

Damaged kernels 1 (percent)Heat damaged

kernels (percent)

Foreign material

(percent)

Broken kernels

(percent)

Thin barley (percent)

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

U.S. No. 1 ....................................................... 47.0 ¥0.5 97.0 ¥1.1 2.0 0.8 0.2 0.1 1.0 0.4 4.0 1.0 10.0 0.9

U.S. No. 2 ....................................................... 45.0 ¥0.5 94.0 ¥1.4 4.0 1.0 0.3 0.1 2.0 0.4 8.0 1.5 15.0 0.9

U.S. No. 3 ....................................................... 43.0 ¥0.5 90.0 ¥1.6 6.0 1.4 0.5 0.2 3.0 0.5 12.0 1.8 25.0 1.3

U.S. No. 4 ....................................................... 40.0 ¥0.5 85.0 ¥2.2 8.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 4.0 0.5 18.0 1.8 35.0 1.9

U.S. No. 5 ....................................................... 36.0 ¥0.5 75.0 ¥2.2 10.0 1.8 3.0 0.6 5.0 0.6 28.0 2.4 75.0 2.3

1 Includes heat-damaged kernels. Injured-by-frost kernels and injured-by-mold kernels are not considered damaged kernels.

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.

0.23

* * * * *

PART 810—OFFICIAL UNITED STATES

STANDARDS FOR GRAIN

3. 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.).

4.–5. Subpart A, 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 is

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. * * *

* * * * *

6. Subpart B, section 810.202,

paragraph (c), is revised and paragraph

(s), Stained barley, is removed.

Paragraph (t), Suitable malting type, is

revised and redesignated as (s).

Paragraph (u), Thin barley, is revised

and redesignated as (t). Paragraph (v),

Wild oats, is redesignated as (u) to read

as follows:

Subpart B—U.S. Standards for Barley

* * * * *

§ 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, and 0.1 percent heat-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, and 0.1 percent

heat-damaged kernels. Six-rowed Blue

Malting barley shall not be infested,
18492 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 82 / Friday, April 26, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

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 that contains not more than 10.0

percent of two-rowed 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 other malting type(s)

used by the malting and brewing

industry. The varieties are listed in

GIPSAs 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 × 3⁄4

slotted-hole sieve and Two-rowed

Malting barley which passes through a

5.5/64 × 3⁄4 slotted-hole sieve in

accordance with procedures prescribed

in GIPSAs instructions.

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

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

accordance with procedures prescribed

in GIPSAs instructions.

* * * * *

7. Section 810.204 is revised to read

as follows:

§ 810.204 Grades and Grade Requirements

for Six-rowed Malting barley and Six-rowed

Blue Malting barley.

Grade

Minimum limits of— Maximum limits of—

Test

weight

per

bushel

(pounds)

Suitable

malting

types

(percent)

Sound

barley 1

(percent)

Damaged

kernels 1

(percent)

Foreign

material

(percent)

Other

grains

(percent)

Skinned

and broken kernels (percent)Thin barley (percent)

U.S. No. 1 .......................................................... 47.0 95.0 97.0 2.0 0.5 2.0 4.0 7.0

U.S. No. 2 .......................................................... 45.0 95.0 94.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 6.0 10.0

U.S. No. 3 .......................................................... 43.0 95.0 90.0 4.0 2.0 5.0 8.0 15.0

U.S. No. 4 .......................................................... 43.0 95.0 87.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 10.0 15.0

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

Notes: 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-rowed Malting barley and Sixrowed Blue Malting barley varieties not

meeting the requirements of this section shall

be graded in accordance with standards

established for the class Barley.

8. Section 810.205 is revised to read

as follows:

§ 810.205 Grades and Grade Requirements

for Two-rowed Malting barley.

Grade

Minimum limits of— Maximum limits of—

Test weight

per bushel

(pounds)

Suitable

malting

types (percent)

Sound barley 1 (percent)

Wild oats

(percent)

Foreign material (percent)

Skinned

and broken

kernels

(percent)

Thin barley

(percent)

U.S. No. 1 ................................................. 50.0 97.0 98.0 1.0 0.5 5.0 5.0

U.S. No. 2 ................................................. 48.0 97.0 98.0 1.0 1.0 7.0 7.0

U.S. No. 3 ................................................. 48.0 95.0 96.0 2.0 2.0 10.0 10.0

U.S. No. 4 ................................................. 48.0 95.0 93.0 3.0 3.0 10.0 10.0

1 Injured-by-frost kernels and injured-by-mold kernels are not considered damaged kernels or considered 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. Two-rowed Malting barley

varieties not meeting the requirements of this

section shall be graded in accordance with

standards established for the class Barley.

9. Section 810.206 is revised to read

as follows:

§ 810.206 Grades and Grade Requirements

for Barley.

Grade

Minimum limits of— Maximum Limits of—

Test weight

per bushel

(pounds)

Sound barley (percent)Damaged

kernels 1

(percent)

Heat damaged kernels (percent)

Foreign material (percent)Broken kernels (percent)

Thin barley

(percent)

U.S. No. 1 ................................................. 47.0 97.0 2.0 0.2 1.0 4.0 10.0

U.S. No. 2 ................................................. 45.0 94.0 4.0 0.3 2.0 8.0 15.0

U.S. No. 3 ................................................. 43.0 90.0 6.0 0.5 3.0 12.0 25.0

U.S. No. 4 ................................................. 40.0 85.0 8.0 1.0 4.0 18.0 35.0
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 82 / Friday, April 26, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 18493

Grade

Minimum limits of— Maximum Limits of—

Test weight

per bushel

(pounds)

Sound barley (percent)Damaged

kernels 1

(percent)

Heat damaged kernels (percent)

Foreign material (percent)Broken kernels (percent)

Thin barley

(percent)

U.S. No. 5 ................................................. 36.0 75.0 10.0 3.0 5.0 28.0 75.0

U.S. Sample Grade:

U.S. Sample grade shall be barley that:

(a) Does not meet the requirements for the grades 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5; or

(b) Contains 8 or more stones or any number of stones which have an aggregate weight in excess of 0.2 percent of the sample weight, 2 or

more pieces of glass, 3 or more crotalaria seeds (Crotalaria spp.), 2 or more caster beans (Ricinus communis L.), 4 or more particles of unknown foreign substance(s) or commonly recognized harmful or toxic substance(s), 8 or more cocklebur (Xanthium spp.) or similar seeds singly

or in combination, 10 or more rodent pellets, bird droppings, or equivalent quantity of other animal filth per 11⁄8 to 11⁄4 quarts of barley; or

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

(d) Is heating or otherwise of distinctly low quality.

1 Includes heat-damaged kernels. Injured-by-frost kernels and injured-by-mold kernels are not considered damaged kernels.

Dated: April 8, 1996.

James R. Baker,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 96–10305 Filed 4–25–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–EN–P

Rural Housing Service

Rural Business-Cooperative Service

Rural Utilities Service

Farm Service Agency

7 CFR Part 1980

RIN 0570–AA11

Business and Industrial Loan

Program—Audit Requirements

AGENCIES: Rural Housing Services, Rural

Business-Cooperative Service, Rural

Utilities Service, and Farm Service

Agency, USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Rural BusinessCooperative Service (RBS) is amending

the regulations for the Business and

Industry (B&I) Loan Program. The action

clarifies the requirements for annual

financial statements and establishes

thresholds for determining which

borrowers will be required to provide

audited statements.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 26, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Richard T. Bonnet, Commercial Loan

Specialist, Rural Business-Cooperative

Service, USDA, Ag Box 3221,

Washington DC 20250–3221, Telephone

(202) 720–1804.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Classification

This final rule has been determined to

be significant and was reviewed by the

Office of Management and Budget under

Executive Order 12866.

Intergovernmental Review

This program is listed in the Catalog

of Federal Domestic Assistance under

number 10.768, and is subject to

intergovernmental consultation in

accordance with Executive Order 12372,

and as stated in FmHA Instruction

1940–J, ‘‘Intergovernmental Review of

Farmers Home Administration Programs

and Activities.’’

Environmental Impact Statement

This action has been reviewed in

accordance with 7 CFR Part 1940,

Subpart G, ‘‘Environmental Program.’’

The Agency has determined that this

action does not constitute a major

Federal action significantly affecting the

quality of the human environment and,

in accordance with the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Pub.

L. 91–190, an Environmental Impact

Statement is not required.

Civil Justice

This rule has been reviewed under

Executive Order 12778, Civil Justice

Reform. In accordance with this rule: (1)

All State and local laws and regulations

that are in conflict with this rule will be

preempted; (2) no retroactive effect will

be given to this rule; and (3)

administrative proceedings in

accordance with the regulations of the

agency at 7 CFR Part 1900 Subpart B or

those regulations published by the

Department of Agriculture to implement

the provisions of the National Appeals

Division as mandated by the

Department of Agriculture

Reorganization Act of 1994 must be

exhausted before bringing suit in court

challenging action taken under this rule

unless those regulations specifically

allow bringing suit at an earlier time.

Unfunded Mandate Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandate

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub. L.

104–4, establishes requirements for

Federal agencies to assess the effects of

their regulatory actions on State, local,

and tribal governments and the private

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,

RBS generally must prepare a written

statement, including a cost-benefit

analysis, for proposed and final rules

with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may

result in expenditures to State, local, or

tribal governments, in the aggregate, or

to the private sector, of $100 million or

more in any one year. When such a

statement is needed for a rule, section

205 of the UMRA generally requires

RBS to identify and consider a

reasonable number of regulatory

alternatives and adopt the least

burdensome alternative that achieves

the objectives of the rule.

This rule contains no Federal

mandates (under the regulatory

provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for

State, local, and tribal governments or

the private sector. Thus today’s rule is

not subject to the requirements of

sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

Paperwork Reduction Act

The collection of information

requirements contained in this

regulation have been previously

approved by the Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) under the provisions

of 44 U.S.C. chapter 35 and have been

assigned OMB control number 0575–

0029. This final rule does not impose

any new information collection

requirements from those approved by

OMB.

Background

This regulatory package is an Agency

initiative to enhance the program by

reducing the financial burden on small

business borrowers of obtaining annual

audits of their financial statements. The

existing regulations require annual

audited financial statements from all

borrowers, except those with loans that

have been paid down to no more than

$100,000 and to no more than twothirds of the original balance and have