United States Standards for Wheat, 21685-21690 [2012-8663]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 70 / Wednesday, April 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Joint Explanatory Statement of the
committee of conference for section
14201 stated the expectation that the
cotton classification fee would be
established in the same manner as was
applied during the 1992 through 2007
fiscal years. Specifically, it states that
the classification fee should continue to
be a basic, uniform fee per bale fee as
determined necessary to maintain costeffective cotton classification service.
Further, in consulting with the cotton
industry, the Secretary should
demonstrate the level of fees necessary
to maintain effective cotton
classification services and provide the
Department of Agriculture with an
adequate operating reserve, while also
working to limit adjustments in the
year-to-year fee.
Under the provisions of section
14201, a user fee (dollar amount per
bale classed) is proposed for the 2012
cotton crop that, when combined with
other sources of revenue, will result in
projected revenues sufficient to
reasonably cover budgeted costs—
adjusted for inflation—and allow for
adequate operating reserves to be
maintained. Costs considered in this
method include salaries, costs of
equipment and supplies, and other
overhead costs, such as facility costs
and costs for administration and
supervision. In addition to covering
expected costs, the user fee is set such
that projected revenues will generate an
operating reserve adequate to effectively
manage uncertainties related to crop
size and cash-flow timing while meeting
minimum reserve requirements set by
the Agricultural Marketing Service,
which require maintenance of a reserve
fund amount equal to at least four
months of projected operating costs.
The user fee proposed to be charged
cotton producers for cotton
classification in 2012 is $2.20 per bale,
which is the same fee charged for the
2011 crop. This fee is based on the
preseason projection that 14,475,000
bales will be classed by the United
States Department of Agriculture during
the 2012 crop year.
Accordingly, § 28.909, paragraph (b)
would reflect the continuation of the
cotton classification fee at $2.20 per
bale.
As provided for in the 1987 Act, a 5
cent per bale discount would continue
to be applied to voluntary centralized
billing and collecting agents as specified
in § 28.909(c).
Growers or their designated agents
receiving classification data would
continue to incur no additional fees if
classification data is requested only
once. The fee for each additional
retrieval of classification data in
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:20 Apr 10, 2012
Jkt 226001
§ 28.910 would remain at 5 cents per
bale. The fee in § 28.910 (b) for an
owner receiving classification data from
the National database would remain at
5 cents per bale, and the minimum
charge of $5.00 for services provided per
monthly billing period would remain
the same. The provisions of § 28.910(c)
concerning the fee for new classification
memoranda issued from the National
Database for the business convenience
of an owner without reclassification of
the cotton will remain the same at 15
cents per bale or a minimum of $5.00
per sheet.
The fee for review classification in
§ 28.911 would be maintained at $2.20
per bale.
The fee for returning samples after
classification in § 28.911 would remain
at 50 cents per sample.
A 15-day comment period is provided
for public comments. This period is
appropriate because user fees are not
changing and it is anticipated that the
proposed fees, if adopted, would be
made effective for the 2012 cotton crop
on July 1, 2012.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 28
Administrative practice and
procedure, Cotton, Cotton samples,
Grades, Market news, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Standards,
Staples, Testing, Warehouses.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, 7 CFR part 28 is proposed to
be amended to read as follows:
PART 28—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR
part 28, Subpart D, continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 471–476.
2. In § 28.909, paragraph (b) is revised
to read as follows:
§ 28.909
Costs.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) The cost of High Volume
Instrument (HVI) cotton classification
service to producers is $2.20 per bale.
*
*
*
*
*
3. In § 28.911, the last sentence of
paragraph (a) is revised to read as
follows:
§ 28.911
Review classification.
(a) * * * The fee for review
classification is $2.20 per bale.
*
*
*
*
*
Dated: April 4, 2012.
Robert C. Keeney,
Acting Administrator, Agricultural Marketing
Service.
[FR Doc. 2012–8677 Filed 4–10–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–02–P
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
21685
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Grain Inspection, Packers and
Stockyards Administration
7 CFR Part 810
RIN 0580–AB12
United States Standards for Wheat
Grain Inspection, Packers and
Stockyards Administration, USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Grain Inspection, Packers
and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA)
is proposing to revise the U.S. Standards
for Wheat (wheat standards) under the
U.S. Grain Standards Act (USGSA) to
change the definition of Contrasting
classes (CCL) in Hard White wheat and
change the grade limits for shrunken
and broken kernels (SHBN). GIPSA
believes that these proposed changes
will help to facilitate the marketing of
wheat.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before June 11, 2012.
ADDRESSES: You may submit written or
electronic comments on this proposed
rule to:
• Mail: Tess Butler, GIPSA, USDA,
STOP 3642, 1400 Independence Avenue
SW., Room 2530–B, Washington, DC
20250–3604.
• Fax: (202) 690–2173
• Internet: Go to https://www.
regulations.gov and follow the on-line
instruction for submitting comments.
All comments will become a matter of
public record and should be identified
as ‘‘U.S. wheat standards proposed rule
comments,’’ making reference to the
date and page number of this issue of
the Federal Register. All comments
received become the property of the
Federal government, are a part of the
public record, and will generally be
posted to www.regulations.gov without
change. If you send an email comment
directly to GIPSA without going through
www.regulations.gov, or you submit a
comment to GIPSA via fax, the
originating email address or telephone
number will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment
that is placed in the public docket and
made available on the Internet. Also, all
personal identifying information (for
example, name, address, etc.)
voluntarily submitted by the commenter
may be publicly accessible. Do not
submit confidential business
information or otherwise sensitive or
protected information.
Electronic submissions should avoid
the use of special characters, avoid any
form of encryption, and be free of any
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\11APP1.SGM
11APP1
21686
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 70 / Wednesday, April 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
defects or viruses, since these may
prevent GIPSA from being able to read
and understand, and thus consider your
comment.
GIPSA will post a transcript or report
summarizing each substantive oral
comment that we receive about this
proposed rule. This would include
comments about this rule made at any
public meetings hosted by GIPSA
during the comment period, unless
GIPSA publically announces otherwise.
All comments will also be available
for public inspection at the above
address during regular business hours
(7 CFR 1.27(b)). Please call the GIPSA
Management and Budget Services
support staff (202) 720–7486 for an
appointment to view the comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Patrick McCluskey at GIPSA, USDA,
10383 N. Ambassador Drive, Kansas
City, MO, 64153; Telephone (816) 659–
8403; Fax Number (816) 872–1258;
email Patrick.J.McCluskey@usda.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Background
Wheat is defined in the wheat
standards as grain that, before the
removal of dockage, consists of 50
percent or more common wheat
(Triticum aestivum L.), club wheat (T.
compactum Host.), and durum wheat
(T. durum Desf.), and not more than 10
percent of other grains for which
Standards have been established under
the USGSA (7 U.S.C. 71–87k) and that,
after the removal of dockage, contains
50 percent or more of whole kernels of
one or more of these wheats. The wheat
standards identify eight market classes:
Durum (DU) wheat, Hard Red Spring
(HRS) wheat, Hard Red Winter (HRW)
wheat, Soft Red Winter (SRW) wheat,
Hard White (HDWH) wheat, Soft White
(SWH) wheat, Unclassed wheat, and
Mixed wheat.
Wheat is consumed primarily as a
human food but is also used for animal
feeding and industrial purposes. Wheat
acreage under cultivation in the U.S. has
decreased gradually from 1980 to the
present, dropping from a high of over 88
million planted acres in 1981 to
approximately 59 million acres in 2009
(USDA–NASS Crop Production Track
Records—April 2010). During the same
period, U.S. wheat producers produced
a high of 2.785 billion bushels in 1981
to 2.220 billion bushels in 2009, with a
low of 1.605 billion bushels in 2002.
Under the USGSA (7 U.S.C. 76),
GIPSA is authorized to establish and
maintain the wheat standards and for
other grains regarding kind, class,
quality and condition. The wheat
standards, which were established on
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:20 Apr 10, 2012
Jkt 226001
August 1, 1917, were last revised in
1993 and 2006, and appear in the
USGSA regulations at 7 CFR 810.2201—
810.2205. The wheat standards facilitate
the marketing of wheat and define U.S.
wheat quality and commonly used
industry terms in the domestic and
global marketplace; contain basic
principles governing the application of
the wheat standards, such as the type of
sample used for a particular quality
analysis; and, specify grades, grade
requirements, special grades and special
grade requirements.
On November 27, 2009, GIPSA
published an Advance Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) in the
Federal Register (74 FR 62257)
requesting public comment on what
revisions, if any, are needed to the
current wheat standards. GIPSA
received 13 comments from wheat
producers, breeders, market
development groups, industry
associations, and exporters.
One comment from a trade association
representing approximately 1,000 grain,
feed, processing and grain-related firms
comprising more than 6,000 facilities
that handle more than 70 percent of U.S.
grains and oilseeds urged GIPSA not to
propose any major changes to the wheat
standards that would adversely impact
the marketing system or current
priorities and operations of GIPSA.
GIPSA received several comments
related to its official grain inspection
services regarding mycotoxin testing,
predicting protein quality, certifying
protein content, certifying the actual
grade when the ‘‘or better’’ option is
specified, and quality control in rail and
container shipments. GIPSA will take
no action on these comments in this
proposed rule, however, because the
comments are outside the scope of this
rulemaking, which covers only possible
revisions to the wheat standards.
GIPSA received several general
comments that recommended
amendments to the standards. The
general comments and GIPSA’s
discussion of those comments follow:
Commenters stated that GIPSA should
(1) consider using a flexible, generic
approach to grading that would allow
uniform blending of any U.S. wheat
classes with the classes identified
appropriately on any official grain
inspection certificate, (2) develop a
generic approach that would allow
blending of any classes of wheat with
the classes identified appropriately on
the export certificate, and/or (3) develop
appropriate class names for specific
class blends that are being demanded in
the marketplace.
GIPSA does not believe that the
blending of wheat would facilitate the
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
marketing of wheat, as a buyer may
purchase Mixed wheat, and GIPSA can
certify the percentage of various market
classes. GIPSA believes it is more
appropriate that market participants
handle this issue contractually. While
flour mills blend classes of wheat for
milling, GIPSA does not believe that
wheat buyers would want wheat sellers
to assume responsibility for blending
wheat for milling, given that flour mills
typically have their own quality
standards for wheat used in their mill
mixes. Therefore, GIPSA will not
propose any revisions to the wheat
standards based on this comment.
Commenters also stated that the U.S.
should lead in integrating processing
parameters into the grading system (i.e.,
thousand kernel weight and wheat size
distribution).
For many years, GIPSA has made
available wheat kernel average weight
and diameter determinations, as
measured by the Single Kernel
Characterization System (SKCS). The
wheat industry, however, has been slow
in its acceptance of average weight and
diameter determinations. Because the
industry has shown little interest in
SKCS results, GIPSA will not propose
any revisions to the wheat standards
based on this comment.
Commenters also urged GIPSA to
begin studying how a simple, precise
and repeatable flour yield test can be
incorporated into the wheat standards.
This comment recommends that
GIPSA initiate a research project, which
is beyond the scope of this rulemaking.
Therefore, GIPSA will not propose any
revisions to the wheat standards based
on this comment.
Finally, commenters stated that
GIPSA should study appropriate ways
to incorporate mycotoxins as a grading
factor and implement a mycotoxin
testing check sample program with
naturally contaminated material.
GIPSA is developing a mycotoxin
check sample program similar to other
check sample programs that it currently
has in place. Because GIPSA believes
that offering mycotoxin testing as
Official Criteria, rather than including
as a grade determining factor, facilitates
the market’s ability to discover the
price/value relationship, GIPSA will not
propose any revisions to the wheat
standards based on this comment.
Three specific issues emerged from
comments to the ANPR that GIPSA
believes are pertinent to revising the
wheat standards. GIPSA received
comments from nine commenters
representing a broad cross section of the
wheat industry regarding the definition
of contrasting classes in hard white
wheat. GIPSA received one comment
E:\FR\FM\11APP1.SGM
11APP1
21687
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 70 / Wednesday, April 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
from a wheat market development
organization regarding the grade limits
for shrunken and broken kernels in U.S.
No. 1 and U.S. No. 2. Finally, GIPSA
received a comment from an
organization representing grain millers
regarding the limits for insect damaged
kernels and live insects. Based on the
comments received from the industry,
GIPSA proposes to revise the wheat
standards as follows:
Contrasting Class Definition
Of the comments to the ANPR
received by GIPSA on the issue of
revising the CCL definition, six
commenters favored revision, two
commenters opposed revision and one
commenter stated that it was not
opposed to revision. Revising the
definition of CCL for HDWH has been
discussed by various industry groups
since the 2006 rulemaking, at meetings
of producer organizations, grain
handling organizations, and
international market developers. GIPSA
did not receive any comments from
international users of HDWH in
response to the ANPR.
Effective May 1, 2006, GIPSA revised
the definition of CCL for hard red winter
wheat and hard red spring wheat by
removing hard white wheat as
contrasting in those two classes (70 FR
8233). Subsequently, GIPSA heard from
wheat industry stakeholders that said
GIPSA should do the same thing for the
CCL definition of hard white wheat (i.e.,
GIPSA should remove hard red winter
wheat and hard red spring wheat from
the definition of CCL in hard white
wheat, and allow those classes to
function only as wheat of other classes).
Doing so would permit five percent hard
red winter wheat and/or hard red spring
wheat in U.S. No. 2 hard white wheat,
where currently U.S. No. 2 hard white
wheat may not contain more than two
percent hard red winter wheat and/or
hard red spring wheat. Notably, GIPSA
considered class purity when hard
white wheat was established as a
separate market class, effective May 1,
1990 (54 FR 48735).
In the 2006 rulemaking GIPSA stated
that there would be no functional
downside from allowing five percent
hard white wheat in hard red winter
wheat or hard red spring wheat, (where
the previous grade limit was 2% for U.S.
No. 2) because hard white wheat protein
quality is equivalent, polyphenol
oxidase is not an issue, extraction rate
is equivalent, and reduced
concentration of bitter compounds in
hard white wheat is not problematic for
hard red wheat products. GIPSA does
assume however, that there would be no
functional downside in flour quality
from allowing an additional three
percent of hard red wheat in hard white
wheat (beyond the two percent already
allowed). International and domestic
users of hard white wheat have
demonstrated their desire for low
polyphenol oxidase concentration and
concomitant reduced bitter flavor in
products made with white wheat (e.g.,
various styles of Asian noodles) as
evidenced from sales of white wheat
produced by other exporting nations.
GIPSA understands that domestic users
in the U.S., such as bread baking
companies, may not have the same
sensitivity to diminution of class purity
as international users.
U.S. producers of hard white wheat
and/or their market development
organizations have told GIPSA that they
are penalized by elevator owners when
taking hard white wheat to an elevator.
Producers allege that elevator owners do
not want to handle hard white wheat
separately from hard red wheat, but are
willing to purchase hard white wheat at
a discount. In situations where
producers contract with wheat milling
companies or co-operatives to produce
hard white this reportedly does not
occur. GIPSA does not know whether
revising the definition of contrasting
classes for hard white wheat will result
in a cessation of discounts when
producers offer hard white wheat for
sale to the grain elevator operators.
GIPSA has heard from wheat industry
stakeholders that without the relief
provided by revising the contrasting
classes definition, producers may forego
planting hard white wheat, causing
supply shortages for domestic users of
hard white wheat such as bread baking
companies, and hamper future efforts to
export hard white wheat.
Production of hard white wheat has
not been robust except for a brief period
(2003–2005) when the Federal
government paid a planting incentive to
producers under the Farm Security and
Rural Investment Act of 2002 (Sec.
1616). Production was 0.26 to 0.33
million metric tons in the 3 years prior
to 2003, spiked to 1.1 million metric
tons under the planting incentive, then
generally decreased in the ensuing
years, dropping to 0.70 million metric
tons in 2009 (USDA crop production
annual 2005–2010). GIPSA believes that
reduced planting may be attributed to
lack of incentive, small export demand,
special handling to keep HDWH
segregated from hard red winter wheat
and hard red spring wheat, and
alternative crops with greater profit
potential.
If desired, buyers can contractually
specify a maximum of two percent hard
red wheat in a hard white wheat
purchase. Because buyers have this
backstop, GIPSA is therefore proposing
to revise the wheat standards to change
the definition of contrasting classes in
hard white wheat so that hard red
winter wheat and hard red spring wheat
are no longer contrasting classes, and
are considered only as wheat of other
classes. The grade limits would remain
unchanged. The following tables
illustrate the current situation and
proposed changes for contrasting
classes.
TABLE I (CURRENT)
PRIMARY CLASS
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Minor class
DU
HRS
HRW
SRW
HDWH
SWH
DU .....................
HRS ..................
HRW .................
SRW .................
HDWH ...............
SWH .................
UNCL ................
.........................
CCL .................
CCL .................
CCL .................
CCL .................
CCL .................
CCL .................
CCL .................
.........................
WOCL .............
WOCL .............
WOCL .............
CCL .................
CCL .................
CCL .................
WOCL .............
.........................
WOCL .............
WOCL .............
CCL .................
CCL .................
CCL .................
WOCL .............
WOCL .............
.........................
WOCL .............
WOCL .............
CCL .................
CCL .................
CCL .................
CCL .................
CCL .................
.........................
WOCL .............
CCL .................
CCL .................
CCL .................
CCL .................
CCL .................
WOCL .............
.........................
CCL.
CCL: Contrasting class.
WOCL: Wheat of other Classes.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:20 Apr 10, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\11APP1.SGM
11APP1
UNCL
WOCL.
WOCL.
WOCL.
WOCL.
WOCL.
WOCL.
21688
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 70 / Wednesday, April 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
TABLE II (PROPOSED)
PRIMARY CLASS
Minor class
DU
HRS
HRW
SRW
HDWH
SWH
UNCL
DU .....................
HRS ..................
HRW .................
SRW .................
HDWH ...............
SWH .................
UNCL ................
.........................
CCL .................
CCL .................
CCL .................
CCL .................
CCL .................
CCL .................
CCL .................
.........................
WOCL .............
WOCL .............
WOCL .............
CCL .................
CCL .................
CCL .................
WOCL .............
.........................
WOCL .............
WOCL .............
CCL .................
CCL .................
CCL .................
WOCL .............
WOCL .............
.........................
WOCL .............
WOCL .............
CCL .................
CCL .................
WOCL .............
WOCL .............
CCL .................
.........................
WOCL .............
CCL .................
CCL .................
CCL .................
CCL .................
CCL .................
WOCL .............
.........................
CCL.
WOCL.
WOCL.
WOCL.
WOCL.
WOCL.
WOCL.
CCL: Contrasting class.
WOCL: Wheat of other Classes.
Shrunken and Broken Kernel Grade
Limits
GIPSA received one comment from a
wheat market development organization
recommending that grade limits for
SHBN should be more restrictive for
U.S. No. 1 and U.S. No. 2 graded wheat,
leaving the grade limits unchanged for
U.S. No. 3, 4, and 5 graded wheat. The
commenter indicated that foreign
millers have often suggested that SHBN
content be reduced in U.S. No. 1 and 2
graded wheat, to help improve the value
of the wheat being purchased. While
making the SHBN grade limits more
restrictive would not change wheat
quality or affect the amount of wheat
available at those grades, GIPSA
believes that more restrictive SHBN
grade limits would more accurately
reflect the quality of wheat moving
throughout the marketing system, thus
offering users of these standards the best
possible information from which to
define quality and end-product yield.
GIPSA analyzed SHBN data available
for over 100,000 official export and
domestic inspection samples for all
wheat classes in market years 2005
through 2009 (summarized in Table 1)
to project the availability of wheat by
grade, under the current and proposed
grade limits. Under the current grade
limits, 100 percent would have graded
U.S. No. 1 if SHBN had been the grade
determining factor. Under the proposed
grade limits, 95 percent of all samples
would have graded U.S. No. 1 if SHBN
had been the grade determining factor,
a reduction of 5 percent. Under the
proposed limits, 100 percent of the
samples would have graded U.S. No. 2
if SHBN was the grade determining
factor. While GIPSA’s analysis shows a
5 percent grade deflation at the U.S. No.
1 grade, virtually all wheat is traded at
U.S. No. 2 or better (2 o.b.). Under the
proposed grade limits, GIPSA’s analysis
showing 100 percent of samples being
graded 2 o.b. means zero net effect on
the amount of wheat available for
shipping at export or elsewhere in the
value chain.
TABLE 1
G.L. (%)
current
U.S. grade
#1
#2
#3
#4
#5
.....................................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................................
% C.D.
3.0
5.0
8.0
12.0
20.0
G.L. (%)
proposed
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
2.0
4.0
8.0
12.0
20.0
% C.D.
95.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
G.L. (%): Grade Limit.
% C.D.: Cumulative Distribution.
Given the foregoing discussion,
GIPSA is proposing to revise the
standards to reduce the grade limits on
SHBN for grades U.S. No. 1 and U.S. No.
2 graded wheat.
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Insect Damaged Kernels and Live
Insects
GIPSA received one comment
recommending that the grade limit for
insect damaged kernels (IDK) be
restricted from a maximum of 31 IDK in
100 grams of wheat to 5 IDK in 100
grams of wheat. IDK is a factor on which
Sample Grade is determined. The limit
of 32 or more IDK is the defect action
level established by the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration (FDA). GIPSA
determines IDK in accordance with FDA
guidelines under a memorandum of
understanding that is currently in effect
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:20 Apr 10, 2012
Jkt 226001
between USDA and FDA. A party to a
commercial transaction can
contractually specify a lower maximum
allowable level of IDK if desired.
Accordingly, GIPSA will not propose a
revision to the IDK limit based on this
comment.
The commenter suggested that GIPSA
not permit any live insects in wheat,
whereas the current wheat standards
apply a tolerance. (To receive the
special designation ‘‘infested,’’ a
kilogram sample must contain two or
more live weevils, two or more live
insects injurious to stored grain or a
combination of the two.)
Grain standards define kind,
wholesomeness and cleanliness, while
allowing market participants to impose
more restrictive conditions on the grain
in commerce, if desired. The current
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
wheat standard appears to be
appropriate for international
commercial trade, which encompasses
stakeholders who are primary users of
the standards. Export sales contracts for
wheat frequently specify ‘‘zero live
insects’’. If live insects are found, GIPSA
reports the finding; and if fumigation of
the lot is ordered, GIPSA witnesses the
fumigation. GIPSA believes that the
market deals effectively through
contract specifications with live insects,
and accordingly, will not propose
revising the wheat standards regarding
the live insect tolerance.
Proposed Action
GIPSA is issuing this proposed rule to
invite comments and suggestions from
all interested persons on how GIPSA
can further enhance the wheat standards
E:\FR\FM\11APP1.SGM
11APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 70 / Wednesday, April 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
to better facilitate the marketing of
wheat.
GIPSA proposes to revise
§ 810.2202(b)(4) to read: ‘‘Durum wheat,
Hard Red Spring wheat, Hard Red
Winter wheat, Soft Red Winter wheat,
and Unclassed wheat in the class Soft
White wheat.’’ GIPSA also proposes to
add a new sentence, § 810.2202(b)(5) to
read: ‘‘Durum wheat, Soft Red Winter
wheat, and Unclassed wheat in the class
Hard White wheat.’’
GIPSA proposes to revise the table
showing Grade and Grade Requirements
for wheat in § 810.2204 to reduce the
grading limits for shrunken and broken
kernels to 2.0 and 4.0 percent for U.S.
Nos. 1 and 2 graded wheat, respectively.
We invite comments, including data,
views, and arguments for and against
this proposed rule from all interested
parties. Pursuant to section 4(b)(1) of the
USGSA, as amended (7 U.S.C. 76(b)(1)),
no standards established, or
amendments or revocations of the
standards, are to become effective less
than 1 calendar year after promulgation
unless, in the judgment of the Secretary
of Agriculture, the public health,
interest, or safety require that they
become effective sooner.
Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory
Flexibility Act
The Office of Management and Budget
designated this rule as not significant
for the purposes of Executive Order
12866.
GIPSA has determined that these
proposed amendments would not have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities as
defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601–612). The RFA
requires agencies to consider the
economic impact of each rule on small
entities and evaluate alternatives that
would accomplish the objectives of the
rule without unduly burdening small
entities or erecting barriers that would
restrict their ability to compete in the
market. The purpose is to fit regulatory
actions to the scale of businesses subject
to the action.
Under the USGSA, grain exported
from the U.S. must be officially
inspected and weighed. Mandatory
inspection and weighing services are
provided by GIPSA and delegated states
at 59 export elevators (including four
floating elevators). All of these facilities
are owned by multi-national
corporations, large cooperatives, or
public entities that do not meet the
requirements for small entities
established by the Small Business
Administration. For North American
Industry Classification System (NAICS)
code 424510 ‘‘grain and field bean
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:20 Apr 10, 2012
Jkt 226001
merchant wholesalers’’ the Small
Business Administration size standard
is 100 or fewer employees. Most users
of the official inspection and weighing
services, and these entities that perform
these services, do not meet the
regulations for small entities. In
addition to GIPSA, there are 56 official
agencies that perform official services
under the USGSA, and most of these
entities do not meet the requirements
for small entities.
GIPSA is proposing to revise the
wheat standards to change the
definition of contrasting classes in hard
white wheat. GIPSA’s proposal also
recommends amendments to the grade
limits of shrunken and broken kernels.
GIPSA believes that these proposed
changes to the wheat standards would
facilitate the marketing of wheat.
The U.S. wheat industry, including
approximately 159,527 wheat farms
(USDA–2007 Census of Agricultureupdated), handlers, processors, and
merchandisers are the primary users of
the wheat standards and utilize the
official standards as a common trading
language to market wheat. The USGSA
(7 U.S.C. 87f–1) requires that all persons
engaged in the business of buying grain
for sale in foreign commerce be
registered with USDA. In addition,
those individuals who handle, weigh, or
transport grain for sale in foreign
commerce must also register. The
USGSA regulations (7 CFR 800.30)
define a foreign commerce grain
business as persons who regularly
engage in buying for sale, handling,
weighing, or transporting grain totaling
15,000 metric tons or more during the
preceding or current calendar year.
At present, there are 138 registrants
who account for practically 100 percent
of U.S. wheat exports, which for fiscal
year 2009 totaled approximately
21,096,894 metric tons. While most of
the 138 registrants are large businesses,
some entities may be small. GIPSA
believes that this proposed rule would
not adversely affect or burden these
users, nor add any additional cost for
entities of any size.
Executive Order 12988
This proposed rule has been reviewed
under Executive Order 12988, Civil
Justice Reform. This action is not
intended to have retroactive effect. The
USGSA provides in section 87g (7
U.S.C. 87g) that no subdivision may
require or impose any requirements or
restrictions concerning the inspection,
weighing, or description of grain under
the USGSA. Otherwise, this rule would
not preempt any State or local laws, or
regulations, or policies unless they
present an irreconcilable conflict with
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
21689
this rule. There are no administrative
procedures which must be exhausted
prior to any judicial challenge to the
provisions of this rule.
Executive Order 13175
This proposed rule has been reviewed
with the requirements of Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments. This rule would not have
substantial and direct effects on Tribal
governments and would not have
significant Tribal implications.
Paperwork Reduction Act
Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501–
3520), the existing information
collection requirements are approved
under the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) Number 0580–0013. No
additional collection or recordkeeping
requirements are imposed on the public
by this proposed rule.
E-Government Compliance
GIPSA is committed to complying
with the E-Government Act, to promote
the use of the Internet and other
information technologies to provide
increased opportunities for citizen
access to Government information and
services, and for other purposes.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 810
Exports, grain.
For reasons set out in the preamble,
GIPSA proposes to amend 7 CFR part
810 as follows:
PART 810—OFFICIAL UNITED STATES
STANDARDS FOR GRAIN
1. The authority citation for part 810
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 71–87k.
2. Amend § 810.2202 by revising
paragraph (b) to read as follows:
§ 810.2202
Definition of other terms.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Contrasting Classes. Contrasting
classes are:
(1) Durum wheat, Soft White wheat,
and Unclassed wheat in the classes
Hard Red Spring wheat and Hard Red
Winter wheat.
(2) Hard Red Spring wheat, Hard Red
Winter wheat, Hard White wheat, Soft
Red Winter wheat, Soft White wheat,
and Unclassed wheat in the class
Durum wheat.
(3) Durum wheat and Unclassed
wheat in the class Soft Red Winter
wheat.
(4) Durum wheat, Hard Red Spring
wheat, Hard Red Winter wheat, Soft Red
Winter wheat, and Unclassed wheat in
the class Soft White wheat.
E:\FR\FM\11APP1.SGM
11APP1
21690
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 70 / Wednesday, April 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
(5) Durum wheat, Soft Red Winter
wheat, and Unclassed wheat in the class
Hard White wheat.
*
*
*
*
*
§ 810.2204
for wheat.
3. Amend § 810.2204 by revising
paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Grades and grade requirements
(a) Grades and grade requirements for
all classes of wheat, except Mixed
wheat.
GRADES AND GRADE REQUIREMENTS
Grades U.S. Nos.
Grading factors
1
2
3
4
5
Minimum pound limits of
Test weight per bushel:
Hard Red Spring wheat or White Club wheat ..................................
All other classes and subclasses .....................................................
58.0
60.0
57.0
58.0
55.0
56.0
53.0
54.0
50.0
51.0
0.2
4.0
0.7
4.0
5.0
2.0
5.0
0.1
0.5
7.0
1.3
8.0
8.0
3.0
10.0
0.1
1.0
10.0
3.0
12.0
12.0
10.0
10.0
0.1
3.0
15.0
5.0
20.0
20.0
10.0
10.0
0.1
1
1
2
0
3
3
4
31
1
1
2
0
3
3
4
31
1
1
2
0
3
3
4
31
1
1
2
0
3
3
4
31
Maximum percent limits of
Defects:
Damaged kernels
Heat (part of total) .....................................................................
Total ...........................................................................................
Foreign material .......................................................................................
Shrunken and broken kernels ..................................................................
Total 1 .......................................................................................................
Wheat of other classes 2 ..........................................................................
Contrasting classes .................................................................................
Total 3 .......................................................................................................
Stones
0.2
2.0
0.4
2.0
3.0
1.0
3.0
0.1
Maximum count limits of
Other material in one kilogram:
Animal filth ........................................................................................
Castor beans ....................................................................................
Crotalaria seeds ................................................................................
Glass .................................................................................................
Stones ...............................................................................................
Unknown foreign substances ...........................................................
Total 4 ................................................................................................
Insect-damaged kernels in 100 grams .............................................
1
1
2
0
3
3
4
31
U.S. Sample grade is Wheat that:
(a) Does not meet the requirements for U.S. Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5; or
(b) Has a musty, sour, or commercially objectionable foreign odor (except smut or garlic odor) or
(c) Is heating or of distinctly low quality.
1 Includes
damaged kernels (total), foreign material, shrunken and broken kernels.
wheat of any grade may contain not more than 10.0 percent of wheat of other classes.
3 Includes contrasting classes.
4 Includes any combination of animal filth, castor beans, crotalaria seeds, glass, stones, or unknown foreign substance.
2 Unclassed
*
*
*
*
*
Alan R. Christian,
Acting Administrator, Grain Inspection,
Packers and Stockyards Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012–8663 Filed 4–10–12; 8:45 am]
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0253; FRL–9658–6]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plan for 1997
8-Hour Ozone Standard; Arizona
BILLING CODE 3410–KD–P
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is proposing to approve
revisions to the Arizona state
implementation plan (SIP) that
demonstrate attainment of the 1997
8-hour ozone national ambient air
quality standards in the Phoenix-Mesa
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:20 Apr 10, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
nonattainment area by June 15, 2009.
These SIP revisions are the 2007 Ozone
Plan developed by the Maricopa
Association of Governments and
adopted and submitted to EPA by the
Arizona Department of Environmental
Quality on June 13, 2007. EPA is
proposing to approve the 2007 Ozone
Plan based on our determination that
the plan contains all the provisions
required for areas classified as
nonattainment under Part D, Subpart 1
of the Clean Air Act, including the
demonstration of reasonably available
control measures (RACM), reasonable
further progress (RFP), emission
inventories, transportation conformity
motor vehicle emission budgets for
2008, and contingency measures to be
E:\FR\FM\11APP1.SGM
11APP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 70 (Wednesday, April 11, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 21685-21690]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8663]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration
7 CFR Part 810
RIN 0580-AB12
United States Standards for Wheat
AGENCY: Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration
(GIPSA) is proposing to revise the U.S. Standards for Wheat (wheat
standards) under the U.S. Grain Standards Act (USGSA) to change the
definition of Contrasting classes (CCL) in Hard White wheat and change
the grade limits for shrunken and broken kernels (SHBN). GIPSA believes
that these proposed changes will help to facilitate the marketing of
wheat.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 11, 2012.
ADDRESSES: You may submit written or electronic comments on this
proposed rule to:
Mail: Tess Butler, GIPSA, USDA, STOP 3642, 1400
Independence Avenue SW., Room 2530-B, Washington, DC 20250-3604.
Fax: (202) 690-2173
Internet: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and follow the
on-line instruction for submitting comments.
All comments will become a matter of public record and should be
identified as ``U.S. wheat standards proposed rule comments,'' making
reference to the date and page number of this issue of the Federal
Register. All comments received become the property of the Federal
government, are a part of the public record, and will generally be
posted to www.regulations.gov without change. If you send an email
comment directly to GIPSA without going through www.regulations.gov, or
you submit a comment to GIPSA via fax, the originating email address or
telephone number will be automatically captured and included as part of
the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on
the Internet. Also, all personal identifying information (for example,
name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be
publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential business information or
otherwise sensitive or protected information.
Electronic submissions should avoid the use of special characters,
avoid any form of encryption, and be free of any
[[Page 21686]]
defects or viruses, since these may prevent GIPSA from being able to
read and understand, and thus consider your comment.
GIPSA will post a transcript or report summarizing each substantive
oral comment that we receive about this proposed rule. This would
include comments about this rule made at any public meetings hosted by
GIPSA during the comment period, unless GIPSA publically announces
otherwise.
All comments will also be available for public inspection at the
above address during regular business hours (7 CFR 1.27(b)). Please
call the GIPSA Management and Budget Services support staff (202) 720-
7486 for an appointment to view the comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick McCluskey at GIPSA, USDA,
10383 N. Ambassador Drive, Kansas City, MO, 64153; Telephone (816) 659-
8403; Fax Number (816) 872-1258; email Patrick.J.McCluskey@usda.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Wheat is defined in the wheat standards as grain that, before the
removal of dockage, consists of 50 percent or more common wheat
(Triticum aestivum L.), club wheat (T. compactum Host.), and durum
wheat (T. durum Desf.), and not more than 10 percent of other grains
for which Standards have been established under the USGSA (7 U.S.C. 71-
87k) and that, after the removal of dockage, contains 50 percent or
more of whole kernels of one or more of these wheats. The wheat
standards identify eight market classes: Durum (DU) wheat, Hard Red
Spring (HRS) wheat, Hard Red Winter (HRW) wheat, Soft Red Winter (SRW)
wheat, Hard White (HDWH) wheat, Soft White (SWH) wheat, Unclassed
wheat, and Mixed wheat.
Wheat is consumed primarily as a human food but is also used for
animal feeding and industrial purposes. Wheat acreage under cultivation
in the U.S. has decreased gradually from 1980 to the present, dropping
from a high of over 88 million planted acres in 1981 to approximately
59 million acres in 2009 (USDA-NASS Crop Production Track Records--
April 2010). During the same period, U.S. wheat producers produced a
high of 2.785 billion bushels in 1981 to 2.220 billion bushels in 2009,
with a low of 1.605 billion bushels in 2002.
Under the USGSA (7 U.S.C. 76), GIPSA is authorized to establish and
maintain the wheat standards and for other grains regarding kind,
class, quality and condition. The wheat standards, which were
established on August 1, 1917, were last revised in 1993 and 2006, and
appear in the USGSA regulations at 7 CFR 810.2201--810.2205. The wheat
standards facilitate the marketing of wheat and define U.S. wheat
quality and commonly used industry terms in the domestic and global
marketplace; contain basic principles governing the application of the
wheat standards, such as the type of sample used for a particular
quality analysis; and, specify grades, grade requirements, special
grades and special grade requirements.
On November 27, 2009, GIPSA published an Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (ANPR) in the Federal Register (74 FR 62257) requesting
public comment on what revisions, if any, are needed to the current
wheat standards. GIPSA received 13 comments from wheat producers,
breeders, market development groups, industry associations, and
exporters.
One comment from a trade association representing approximately
1,000 grain, feed, processing and grain-related firms comprising more
than 6,000 facilities that handle more than 70 percent of U.S. grains
and oilseeds urged GIPSA not to propose any major changes to the wheat
standards that would adversely impact the marketing system or current
priorities and operations of GIPSA.
GIPSA received several comments related to its official grain
inspection services regarding mycotoxin testing, predicting protein
quality, certifying protein content, certifying the actual grade when
the ``or better'' option is specified, and quality control in rail and
container shipments. GIPSA will take no action on these comments in
this proposed rule, however, because the comments are outside the scope
of this rulemaking, which covers only possible revisions to the wheat
standards.
GIPSA received several general comments that recommended amendments
to the standards. The general comments and GIPSA's discussion of those
comments follow:
Commenters stated that GIPSA should (1) consider using a flexible,
generic approach to grading that would allow uniform blending of any
U.S. wheat classes with the classes identified appropriately on any
official grain inspection certificate, (2) develop a generic approach
that would allow blending of any classes of wheat with the classes
identified appropriately on the export certificate, and/or (3) develop
appropriate class names for specific class blends that are being
demanded in the marketplace.
GIPSA does not believe that the blending of wheat would facilitate
the marketing of wheat, as a buyer may purchase Mixed wheat, and GIPSA
can certify the percentage of various market classes. GIPSA believes it
is more appropriate that market participants handle this issue
contractually. While flour mills blend classes of wheat for milling,
GIPSA does not believe that wheat buyers would want wheat sellers to
assume responsibility for blending wheat for milling, given that flour
mills typically have their own quality standards for wheat used in
their mill mixes. Therefore, GIPSA will not propose any revisions to
the wheat standards based on this comment.
Commenters also stated that the U.S. should lead in integrating
processing parameters into the grading system (i.e., thousand kernel
weight and wheat size distribution).
For many years, GIPSA has made available wheat kernel average
weight and diameter determinations, as measured by the Single Kernel
Characterization System (SKCS). The wheat industry, however, has been
slow in its acceptance of average weight and diameter determinations.
Because the industry has shown little interest in SKCS results, GIPSA
will not propose any revisions to the wheat standards based on this
comment.
Commenters also urged GIPSA to begin studying how a simple, precise
and repeatable flour yield test can be incorporated into the wheat
standards.
This comment recommends that GIPSA initiate a research project,
which is beyond the scope of this rulemaking. Therefore, GIPSA will not
propose any revisions to the wheat standards based on this comment.
Finally, commenters stated that GIPSA should study appropriate ways
to incorporate mycotoxins as a grading factor and implement a mycotoxin
testing check sample program with naturally contaminated material.
GIPSA is developing a mycotoxin check sample program similar to
other check sample programs that it currently has in place. Because
GIPSA believes that offering mycotoxin testing as Official Criteria,
rather than including as a grade determining factor, facilitates the
market's ability to discover the price/value relationship, GIPSA will
not propose any revisions to the wheat standards based on this comment.
Three specific issues emerged from comments to the ANPR that GIPSA
believes are pertinent to revising the wheat standards. GIPSA received
comments from nine commenters representing a broad cross section of the
wheat industry regarding the definition of contrasting classes in hard
white wheat. GIPSA received one comment
[[Page 21687]]
from a wheat market development organization regarding the grade limits
for shrunken and broken kernels in U.S. No. 1 and U.S. No. 2. Finally,
GIPSA received a comment from an organization representing grain
millers regarding the limits for insect damaged kernels and live
insects. Based on the comments received from the industry, GIPSA
proposes to revise the wheat standards as follows:
Contrasting Class Definition
Of the comments to the ANPR received by GIPSA on the issue of
revising the CCL definition, six commenters favored revision, two
commenters opposed revision and one commenter stated that it was not
opposed to revision. Revising the definition of CCL for HDWH has been
discussed by various industry groups since the 2006 rulemaking, at
meetings of producer organizations, grain handling organizations, and
international market developers. GIPSA did not receive any comments
from international users of HDWH in response to the ANPR.
Effective May 1, 2006, GIPSA revised the definition of CCL for hard
red winter wheat and hard red spring wheat by removing hard white wheat
as contrasting in those two classes (70 FR 8233). Subsequently, GIPSA
heard from wheat industry stakeholders that said GIPSA should do the
same thing for the CCL definition of hard white wheat (i.e., GIPSA
should remove hard red winter wheat and hard red spring wheat from the
definition of CCL in hard white wheat, and allow those classes to
function only as wheat of other classes). Doing so would permit five
percent hard red winter wheat and/or hard red spring wheat in U.S. No.
2 hard white wheat, where currently U.S. No. 2 hard white wheat may not
contain more than two percent hard red winter wheat and/or hard red
spring wheat. Notably, GIPSA considered class purity when hard white
wheat was established as a separate market class, effective May 1, 1990
(54 FR 48735).
In the 2006 rulemaking GIPSA stated that there would be no
functional downside from allowing five percent hard white wheat in hard
red winter wheat or hard red spring wheat, (where the previous grade
limit was 2% for U.S. No. 2) because hard white wheat protein quality
is equivalent, polyphenol oxidase is not an issue, extraction rate is
equivalent, and reduced concentration of bitter compounds in hard white
wheat is not problematic for hard red wheat products. GIPSA does assume
however, that there would be no functional downside in flour quality
from allowing an additional three percent of hard red wheat in hard
white wheat (beyond the two percent already allowed). International and
domestic users of hard white wheat have demonstrated their desire for
low polyphenol oxidase concentration and concomitant reduced bitter
flavor in products made with white wheat (e.g., various styles of Asian
noodles) as evidenced from sales of white wheat produced by other
exporting nations. GIPSA understands that domestic users in the U.S.,
such as bread baking companies, may not have the same sensitivity to
diminution of class purity as international users.
U.S. producers of hard white wheat and/or their market development
organizations have told GIPSA that they are penalized by elevator
owners when taking hard white wheat to an elevator. Producers allege
that elevator owners do not want to handle hard white wheat separately
from hard red wheat, but are willing to purchase hard white wheat at a
discount. In situations where producers contract with wheat milling
companies or co-operatives to produce hard white this reportedly does
not occur. GIPSA does not know whether revising the definition of
contrasting classes for hard white wheat will result in a cessation of
discounts when producers offer hard white wheat for sale to the grain
elevator operators. GIPSA has heard from wheat industry stakeholders
that without the relief provided by revising the contrasting classes
definition, producers may forego planting hard white wheat, causing
supply shortages for domestic users of hard white wheat such as bread
baking companies, and hamper future efforts to export hard white wheat.
Production of hard white wheat has not been robust except for a
brief period (2003-2005) when the Federal government paid a planting
incentive to producers under the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act
of 2002 (Sec. 1616). Production was 0.26 to 0.33 million metric tons in
the 3 years prior to 2003, spiked to 1.1 million metric tons under the
planting incentive, then generally decreased in the ensuing years,
dropping to 0.70 million metric tons in 2009 (USDA crop production
annual 2005-2010). GIPSA believes that reduced planting may be
attributed to lack of incentive, small export demand, special handling
to keep HDWH segregated from hard red winter wheat and hard red spring
wheat, and alternative crops with greater profit potential.
If desired, buyers can contractually specify a maximum of two
percent hard red wheat in a hard white wheat purchase. Because buyers
have this backstop, GIPSA is therefore proposing to revise the wheat
standards to change the definition of contrasting classes in hard white
wheat so that hard red winter wheat and hard red spring wheat are no
longer contrasting classes, and are considered only as wheat of other
classes. The grade limits would remain unchanged. The following tables
illustrate the current situation and proposed changes for contrasting
classes.
Table I (Current)
Primary Class
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor class DU HRS HRW SRW HDWH SWH UNCL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DU........................... ................ CCL............. CCL............. CCL............. CCL............ CCL............ WOCL.
HRS.......................... CCL............. ................ WOCL............ WOCL............ CCL............ CCL............ WOCL.
HRW.......................... CCL............. WOCL............ ................ WOCL............ CCL............ CCL............ WOCL.
SRW.......................... CCL............. WOCL............ WOCL............ ................ CCL............ CCL............ WOCL.
HDWH......................... CCL............. WOCL............ WOCL............ WOCL............ ............... WOCL........... WOCL.
SWH.......................... CCL............. CCL............. CCL............. WOCL............ WOCL........... ............... WOCL.
UNCL......................... CCL............. CCL............. CCL............. CCL............. CCL............ CCL............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CCL: Contrasting class.
WOCL: Wheat of other Classes.
[[Page 21688]]
Table II (Proposed)
Primary Class
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor class DU HRS HRW SRW HDWH SWH UNCL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DU........................... ................ CCL............. CCL............. CCL............. CCL............ CCL............ WOCL.
HRS.......................... CCL............. ................ WOCL............ WOCL............ WOCL........... CCL............ WOCL.
HRW.......................... CCL............. WOCL............ ................ WOCL............ WOCL........... CCL............ WOCL.
SRW.......................... CCL............. WOCL............ WOCL............ ................ CCL............ CCL............ WOCL.
HDWH......................... CCL............. WOCL............ WOCL............ WOCL............ ............... WOCL........... WOCL.
SWH.......................... CCL............. CCL............. CCL............. WOCL............ WOCL........... ............... WOCL.
UNCL......................... CCL............. CCL............. CCL............. CCL............. CCL............ CCL............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CCL: Contrasting class.
WOCL: Wheat of other Classes.
Shrunken and Broken Kernel Grade Limits
GIPSA received one comment from a wheat market development
organization recommending that grade limits for SHBN should be more
restrictive for U.S. No. 1 and U.S. No. 2 graded wheat, leaving the
grade limits unchanged for U.S. No. 3, 4, and 5 graded wheat. The
commenter indicated that foreign millers have often suggested that SHBN
content be reduced in U.S. No. 1 and 2 graded wheat, to help improve
the value of the wheat being purchased. While making the SHBN grade
limits more restrictive would not change wheat quality or affect the
amount of wheat available at those grades, GIPSA believes that more
restrictive SHBN grade limits would more accurately reflect the quality
of wheat moving throughout the marketing system, thus offering users of
these standards the best possible information from which to define
quality and end-product yield.
GIPSA analyzed SHBN data available for over 100,000 official export
and domestic inspection samples for all wheat classes in market years
2005 through 2009 (summarized in Table 1) to project the availability
of wheat by grade, under the current and proposed grade limits. Under
the current grade limits, 100 percent would have graded U.S. No. 1 if
SHBN had been the grade determining factor. Under the proposed grade
limits, 95 percent of all samples would have graded U.S. No. 1 if SHBN
had been the grade determining factor, a reduction of 5 percent. Under
the proposed limits, 100 percent of the samples would have graded U.S.
No. 2 if SHBN was the grade determining factor. While GIPSA's analysis
shows a 5 percent grade deflation at the U.S. No. 1 grade, virtually
all wheat is traded at U.S. No. 2 or better (2 o.b.). Under the
proposed grade limits, GIPSA's analysis showing 100 percent of samples
being graded 2 o.b. means zero net effect on the amount of wheat
available for shipping at export or elsewhere in the value chain.
Table 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
G.L. (%) G.L. (%)
U.S. grade current % C.D. proposed % C.D.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...................................... 3.0 100.0 2.0 95.0
2...................................... 5.0 100.0 4.0 100.0
3...................................... 8.0 100.0 8.0 100.0
4...................................... 12.0 100.0 12.0 100.0
5...................................... 20.0 100.0 20.0 100.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
G.L. (%): Grade Limit.
% C.D.: Cumulative Distribution.
Given the foregoing discussion, GIPSA is proposing to revise the
standards to reduce the grade limits on SHBN for grades U.S. No. 1 and
U.S. No. 2 graded wheat.
Insect Damaged Kernels and Live Insects
GIPSA received one comment recommending that the grade limit for
insect damaged kernels (IDK) be restricted from a maximum of 31 IDK in
100 grams of wheat to 5 IDK in 100 grams of wheat. IDK is a factor on
which Sample Grade is determined. The limit of 32 or more IDK is the
defect action level established by the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA). GIPSA determines IDK in accordance with FDA
guidelines under a memorandum of understanding that is currently in
effect between USDA and FDA. A party to a commercial transaction can
contractually specify a lower maximum allowable level of IDK if
desired. Accordingly, GIPSA will not propose a revision to the IDK
limit based on this comment.
The commenter suggested that GIPSA not permit any live insects in
wheat, whereas the current wheat standards apply a tolerance. (To
receive the special designation ``infested,'' a kilogram sample must
contain two or more live weevils, two or more live insects injurious to
stored grain or a combination of the two.)
Grain standards define kind, wholesomeness and cleanliness, while
allowing market participants to impose more restrictive conditions on
the grain in commerce, if desired. The current wheat standard appears
to be appropriate for international commercial trade, which encompasses
stakeholders who are primary users of the standards. Export sales
contracts for wheat frequently specify ``zero live insects''. If live
insects are found, GIPSA reports the finding; and if fumigation of the
lot is ordered, GIPSA witnesses the fumigation. GIPSA believes that the
market deals effectively through contract specifications with live
insects, and accordingly, will not propose revising the wheat standards
regarding the live insect tolerance.
Proposed Action
GIPSA is issuing this proposed rule to invite comments and
suggestions from all interested persons on how GIPSA can further
enhance the wheat standards
[[Page 21689]]
to better facilitate the marketing of wheat.
GIPSA proposes to revise Sec. 810.2202(b)(4) to read: ``Durum
wheat, Hard Red Spring wheat, Hard Red Winter wheat, Soft Red Winter
wheat, and Unclassed wheat in the class Soft White wheat.'' GIPSA also
proposes to add a new sentence, Sec. 810.2202(b)(5) to read: ``Durum
wheat, Soft Red Winter wheat, and Unclassed wheat in the class Hard
White wheat.''
GIPSA proposes to revise the table showing Grade and Grade
Requirements for wheat in Sec. 810.2204 to reduce the grading limits
for shrunken and broken kernels to 2.0 and 4.0 percent for U.S. Nos. 1
and 2 graded wheat, respectively.
We invite comments, including data, views, and arguments for and
against this proposed rule from all interested parties. Pursuant to
section 4(b)(1) of the USGSA, as amended (7 U.S.C. 76(b)(1)), no
standards established, or amendments or revocations of the standards,
are to become effective less than 1 calendar year after promulgation
unless, in the judgment of the Secretary of Agriculture, the public
health, interest, or safety require that they become effective sooner.
Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Office of Management and Budget designated this rule as not
significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866.
GIPSA has determined that these proposed amendments would not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612).
The RFA requires agencies to consider the economic impact of each rule
on small entities and evaluate alternatives that would accomplish the
objectives of the rule without unduly burdening small entities or
erecting barriers that would restrict their ability to compete in the
market. The purpose is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of
businesses subject to the action.
Under the USGSA, grain exported from the U.S. must be officially
inspected and weighed. Mandatory inspection and weighing services are
provided by GIPSA and delegated states at 59 export elevators
(including four floating elevators). All of these facilities are owned
by multi-national corporations, large cooperatives, or public entities
that do not meet the requirements for small entities established by the
Small Business Administration. For North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS) code 424510 ``grain and field bean
merchant wholesalers'' the Small Business Administration size standard
is 100 or fewer employees. Most users of the official inspection and
weighing services, and these entities that perform these services, do
not meet the regulations for small entities. In addition to GIPSA,
there are 56 official agencies that perform official services under the
USGSA, and most of these entities do not meet the requirements for
small entities.
GIPSA is proposing to revise the wheat standards to change the
definition of contrasting classes in hard white wheat. GIPSA's proposal
also recommends amendments to the grade limits of shrunken and broken
kernels. GIPSA believes that these proposed changes to the wheat
standards would facilitate the marketing of wheat.
The U.S. wheat industry, including approximately 159,527 wheat
farms (USDA-2007 Census of Agriculture-updated), handlers, processors,
and merchandisers are the primary users of the wheat standards and
utilize the official standards as a common trading language to market
wheat. The USGSA (7 U.S.C. 87f-1) requires that all persons engaged in
the business of buying grain for sale in foreign commerce be registered
with USDA. In addition, those individuals who handle, weigh, or
transport grain for sale in foreign commerce must also register. The
USGSA regulations (7 CFR 800.30) define a foreign commerce grain
business as persons who regularly engage in buying for sale, handling,
weighing, or transporting grain totaling 15,000 metric tons or more
during the preceding or current calendar year.
At present, there are 138 registrants who account for practically
100 percent of U.S. wheat exports, which for fiscal year 2009 totaled
approximately 21,096,894 metric tons. While most of the 138 registrants
are large businesses, some entities may be small. GIPSA believes that
this proposed rule would not adversely affect or burden these users,
nor add any additional cost for entities of any size.
Executive Order 12988
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988,
Civil Justice Reform. This action is not intended to have retroactive
effect. The USGSA provides in section 87g (7 U.S.C. 87g) that no
subdivision may require or impose any requirements or restrictions
concerning the inspection, weighing, or description of grain under the
USGSA. Otherwise, this rule would not preempt any State or local laws,
or regulations, or policies unless they present an irreconcilable
conflict with this rule. There are no administrative procedures which
must be exhausted prior to any judicial challenge to the provisions of
this rule.
Executive Order 13175
This proposed rule has been reviewed with the requirements of
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments. This rule would not have substantial and direct effects on
Tribal governments and would not have significant Tribal implications.
Paperwork Reduction Act
Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C.
3501-3520), the existing information collection requirements are
approved under the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Number 0580-
0013. No additional collection or recordkeeping requirements are
imposed on the public by this proposed rule.
E-Government Compliance
GIPSA is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to
promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies to
provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government
information and services, and for other purposes.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 810
Exports, grain.
For reasons set out in the preamble, GIPSA proposes to amend 7 CFR
part 810 as follows:
PART 810--OFFICIAL UNITED STATES STANDARDS FOR GRAIN
1. The authority citation for part 810 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 71-87k.
2. Amend Sec. 810.2202 by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 810.2202 Definition of other terms.
* * * * *
(b) Contrasting Classes. Contrasting classes are:
(1) Durum wheat, Soft White wheat, and Unclassed wheat in the
classes Hard Red Spring wheat and Hard Red Winter wheat.
(2) Hard Red Spring wheat, Hard Red Winter wheat, Hard White wheat,
Soft Red Winter wheat, Soft White wheat, and Unclassed wheat in the
class Durum wheat.
(3) Durum wheat and Unclassed wheat in the class Soft Red Winter
wheat.
(4) Durum wheat, Hard Red Spring wheat, Hard Red Winter wheat, Soft
Red Winter wheat, and Unclassed wheat in the class Soft White wheat.
[[Page 21690]]
(5) Durum wheat, Soft Red Winter wheat, and Unclassed wheat in the
class Hard White wheat.
* * * * *
3. Amend Sec. 810.2204 by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 810.2204 Grades and grade requirements for wheat.
(a) Grades and grade requirements for all classes of wheat, except
Mixed wheat.
Grades and Grade Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grades U.S. Nos.
Grading factors ----------------------------------------------------------------
1 2 3 4 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum pound limits of
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Test weight per bushel:
Hard Red Spring wheat or White Club wheat.. 58.0 57.0 55.0 53.0 50.0
All other classes and subclasses........... 60.0 58.0 56.0 54.0 51.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum percent limits of
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defects:
Damaged kernels
Heat (part of total)................... 0.2 0.2 0.5 1.0 3.0
Total.................................. 2.0 4.0 7.0 10.0 15.0
Foreign material............................... 0.4 0.7 1.3 3.0 5.0
Shrunken and broken kernels.................... 2.0 4.0 8.0 12.0 20.0
Total \1\...................................... 3.0 5.0 8.0 12.0 20.0
Wheat of other classes \2\..................... 1.0 2.0 3.0 10.0 10.0
Contrasting classes............................ 3.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
Total \3\...................................... 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Stones
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum count limits of
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other material in one kilogram:
Animal filth............................... 1 1 1 1 1
Castor beans............................... 1 1 1 1 1
Crotalaria seeds........................... 2 2 2 2 2
Glass...................................... 0 0 0 0 0
Stones..................................... 3 3 3 3 3
Unknown foreign substances................. 3 3 3 3 3
Total \4\.................................. 4 4 4 4 4
Insect-damaged kernels in 100 grams........ 31 31 31 31 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Sample grade is Wheat that:
(a) Does not meet the requirements for U.S. Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5; or
(b) Has a musty, sour, or commercially objectionable foreign odor (except smut or garlic odor) or
(c) Is heating or of distinctly low quality.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes damaged kernels (total), foreign material, shrunken and broken kernels.
\2\ Unclassed wheat of any grade may contain not more than 10.0 percent of wheat of other classes.
\3\ Includes contrasting classes.
\4\ Includes any combination of animal filth, castor beans, crotalaria seeds, glass, stones, or unknown foreign
substance.
* * * * *
Alan R. Christian,
Acting Administrator, Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012-8663 Filed 4-10-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-KD-P
