[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 44 (Monday, March 7, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-5067]
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 1994 /
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: March 7, 1994]
VOL. 59, NO. 44
Monday, March 7, 1994
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Federal Grain Inspection Service
7 CFR Part 810
RIN 0580-AA14
United States Standards for Soybeans
AGENCY: Federal Grain Inspection Service, Agriculture.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Grain Inspection Service (FGIS) is revising the
U.S. Standards for Soybeans to: report the percentage of splits in
tenths percent; reduce the U.S. Sample grade criteria for stones from
eight or more to four or more and reduce the U.S. Sample grade
aggregate weight criteria for stones from more than 0.2 percent by
weight to more than 0.1 percent by weight; reduce the U.S. Sample grade
criteria for pieces of glass from 2 to 0; eliminate the grade
limitation on purple mottled or stained soybeans and establish a
special grade, Purple Mottled or Stained, in the standards; eliminate
the grade limitation on soybeans that are materially weathered; clarify
the reference to Mixed soybeans in the standards; and establish a
cumulative total for factors which may cause a sample to grade U.S.
Sample grade.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 1, 1994.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George Wollam, Federal Grain
Inspection Service, USDA, room 0624-S, Box 96454, Washington, DC 20090-
6454. Telephone (202) 720-0292.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Order 12866
The Department is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive
Order 12866. This rule has been determined to be not-significant for
purposes of Executive Order 12866 and therefore has not been reviewed
by OMB.
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 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 final 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
David R. Galliart, Acting Administrator, FGIS, has determined that
this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities because those persons who apply
the standards and most users of the inspection service do not meet the
requirements for small entities as defined in the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Further, the standards are
applied equally to all entities.
Information Collection and Recordkeeping Requirements
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C.
chapter 35), the information collection and recordkeeping requirements
contained in this rule have been approved by OMB and assigned OMB No.
0580-0013.
Background
On July 2, 1991, FGIS proposed in the Federal Register (56 FR
30342) to revise the U.S. Standards for Soybeans by (1) changing
minimum test weight per bushel from a grade determining factor to a
nongrade determining factor; (2) reducing the foreign material limits
for grades U.S. Nos. 1 and 2 to 0.5 and 1.0 percent, respectively; (3)
reducing the grade limits for splits to 5.0, 10.0, 15.0, and 20.0
percent for U.S. Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 soybeans, respectively; (4)
reporting the percentage of splits in tenths percent; (5) reducing the
tolerance for stones from eight to four and eliminating the aggregate
weight option; (6) reducing the tolerance for pieces of glass from two
to zero; (7) eliminating the grade limitation on purple mottled or
stained soybeans and establishing a special grade, Purple Mottled or
Stained, in the standards; (8) eliminating the grade limitation on
soybeans that are materially weathered; (9) creating a new grade and
associated grade limits for U.S. Choice soybeans; (10) clarifying the
reference to Mixed soybeans in the standards; (11) establishing a
cumulative total for factors which may cause a sample to grade U.S.
Sample grade; and (12) reporting the oil and protein content on all
official lot inspection certificates for export soybean shipments. FGIS
further proposed to revise inspection plan tolerances for soybeans
based on the proposed changes.
Comment Review
FGIS received 1,770 comments during the 60-day comment period:
1,418 from soybean producers, 236 from grain handlers, 35 from foreign
firms and associations, 5 from university researchers, 1 from Congress,
and 75 from miscellaneous sources.
FGIS also received 99 comments after the close of the comment
period: 69 from soybean producers, 20 from grain handlers, 1 from a
foreign association, 4 from Congress, and 5 from miscellaneous sources.
On the basis of comments received during the comment period and
other available information, FGIS is implementing seven of the proposed
changes in the soybean standards. The following paragraphs address
comments received regarding the proposed changes.
Minimum Test Weight Per Bushel (TW)
FGIS received 84 comments (64 supporting and 20 opposing) on the
proposal to change TW from a grade determining factor to a nongrade
determining factor.
Those supporting the proposal commented that TW is not a good
indicator of the oil and meal yield of processed soybeans. They
contended that other factors adequately reflect the quality of soybeans
for grade purposes. Those opposing the proposal, however, indicated
that they rely upon TW in making volume determinations and as a rough
indicator of overall soybean quality. One commentor representing an
association of grain handlers opposing the proposal stated that:
Grade determining factors should not be limited only to end-use
values. Grain handlers depend on soybean grades to reflect other
issues including storability. We believe that test weight is an
important overall quality factor to both handlers and processors.
Deleting test weight as a grade factor would be inappropriate and
misleading.
Furthermore, those opposed contended that a change in the status of
TW will create confusion among soybean importers given present trading
and marketing practices.
While, as stated in the proposal, some question the value of TW as
a grade determining factor (Refs. 1 and 2), it is evident from the
comments that many in the industry do rely upon its grade determining
status, especially in view of present trading and marketing practices.
Considering its important use within the soybean industry, FGIS has
determined that TW should be retained as a grade determining factor to
facilitate trade. Since the status of TW will remain unchanged, it will
be unnecessary to move TW from table 17 to table 18 of Sec. 800.86 of
the regulations as proposed. If, at a later date, more information is
presented and/or the importance of TW as a grade determining factor
diminishes, FGIS will reconsider the status of TW.
Foreign Material (FM)
The majority of commentors chose only to comment on the proposal to
reduce the FM limits for grades U.S. Nos. 1 and 2 to 0.5 and 1.0
percent, respectively. Of the total 1,770 comments received, 1,763 or
99.6 percent commented on the FM proposal. Of these comments, 1,654 or
93.8 percent opposed the proposal with 1,312 or nearly 80 percent of
the opposition coming from the State of Illinois. The vast majority of
comments in opposition came in a form letter which claimed that:
(1) Under the proposed standards 88 percent of the 1988 soybean
crop and 80 percent of the 1989 soybean crop would have been graded
lower than U.S. No. 1;
(2) The proposed FM change will reduce the amount of money
soybean growers will receive for their soybeans;
(3) Foreign buyers should use contract specifications to
communicate their need for FM levels other than those specified in
the standards;
(4) Domestic processors have not complained about FM levels; and
(5) It would be ``wise'' to await the results of the grain
cleaning study before the FM levels are changed.
Individual producer comments from other States did not reflect
similar opposition. In fact, producer comments from other States
totaled 103 with 66 supporting and 37 opposing the proposal.
Furthermore, individual views of some Illinois farmers appeared to
contradict the claims of the form letter. Several farmers commented
that increased FM levels occur during handling after the farmer
delivers the soybeans to market.
The American Farm Bureau Federation, the nation's largest general
farm organization, and the American Soybean Association, representing
approximately 31,000 soybean farmers in 29 States, supported the
reduced foreign material limits proposed for grades 1 and 2. In
general, they contend lower FM limits will (1) make U.S. soybeans more
competitive in the export market and (2) promote incentives to improve
quality.
Two hundred thirty-three of the two hundred thirty-six comments
received from grain handlers, individuals, and large trade associations
opposed the proposal regarding FM. Three grain handlers did not address
the FM proposal. Grain handlers contended that the United States'
declining share of the world soybean market is directly related to U.S.
farm and trade policies which have discouraged domestic soybean
production and encouraged foreign buyers to diversify their soybean
sources. They further contend that if the price is competitive and the
intrinsic quality meets the customer's specifications, then the soybean
FM level can be negotiated as part of the contract terms. These
commenters contend that revising the FM limits in the soybean standards
will not necessarily result in cleaner exported soybeans. Rather, they
believe economic market forces will determine whether lower FM limits
are shipped. Thus, grain handlers conclude that lowering FM limits will
increase handling costs resulting in lower bids to farmers while doing
nothing to increase the U.S. share of the soybean export market.
In contrast to grain handlers, all 35 comments received from
foreign buyers of U.S. soybeans supported the proposed FM grade limits.
These foreign buyers represent more than 60 percent of the U.S. export
soybean market. The Japan Oilseed Processors Association (JOPA) and the
EC Seed Crushers' and Oil Processors' Federation (FEDIOL), which
represent the major foreign users of U.S. soybeans, stated that a FM
reduction in U.S. soybeans is necessary to prevent further weakening of
the U.S. export soybean market share. As stated in the proposal, when
asked what guarantees would be given to increase exports if the FM
limits were lowered, a FEDIOL representative responded: ``The only
guarantee is that the EEC will buy fewer soybeans from the U.S. if FM
content remains at current levels.'' This opinion was reaffirmed in the
written FEDIOL comment on the proposal and during the testimony of a
FEDIOL representative at an October 29, 1991, Senate hearing on
``Reducing Foreign Material Limits in Official Soybean Standards:
Economic and Competitive Impacts.'' The concerns of the foreign buyers
have also been expressed through foreign complaints filed with FGIS.
Over the past decade, foreign material has been a steady source of
complaints by foreign buyers of U.S. soybeans.
In summary, producers have expressed differing opinions regarding
the FM proposal; elevator operators and others merchandizing and
handling soybeans have voiced strong opposition to the proposal; and
foreign buyers of U.S. soybeans have just as strongly supported the
proposal. A similar mixed opinion was expressed by the FGIS Advisory
Committee which voted eight to six to support the proposed FM change
during a September 1991 meeting.
Due to the mixed opinions expressed both in the comments received
and by the FGIS Advisory Committee, FGIS has decided not to finalize
the FM limits.
Further, in June 1990, FGIS funded a 3-year study through the USDA
Economic Research Service to determine the costs and benefits of
marketing cleaner wheat, corn, barley, sorghum, and soybeans. In
addition to identifying and quantifying the benefits and costs of
cleaning grain, the study will assess the need to establish new or
revise current factors, including FM, as related to grain cleanliness.
After the study is completed, FGIS will review this matter to determine
whether further changes to the standards should be proposed.
Splits
FGIS received 97 comments (16 supporting and 81 opposing) on the
proposal to reduce the grade limits for splits. Those supporting the
proposal indicated that the current limits for splits are rarely met,
and, therefore, the grade limits are of little value. Those opposed
stated that:
(1) Research/data is lacking to justify a reduction of the
magnitude proposed;
(2) Splits are not a discount factor in the domestic soybean
market;
(3) The level of split soybeans has never been a major cause for
complaints about U.S. soybean exports; and
(4) The inverse relationship of moisture and splits could give
incentive to increase moisture in order to reduce breakage.
As originally stated in the proposed rule, FGIS believes that
storability and oil quality may be enhanced by a reduction in the
amount of splits in a lot of soybeans. FGIS, however, does not want to
encourage an increase in moisture of soybeans to inhibit splitting.
Accordingly, FGIS will not change the grade limits for splits.
Finally, the percentage of splits in soybeans has traditionally
been reported in whole percents with fractions of a percent being
disregarded. Consequently, a soybean sample with 10.9 percent splits
would be reported as 10.0 percent. FGIS proposed that the percentage of
splits in soybeans be reported to the nearest tenth percent in
accordance with procedures set forth in section 810.104 of the
standards to better reflect normal rounding procedures. Those opposed
(12 comments) offered no reason for their opposition. Those in favor
(35 comments) of the proposal generally agreed with FGIS' reasoning.
Therefore, in accordance with the rationale set forth in the proposal,
FGIS will revise the soybean standards to report the percentage of
splits in soybeans to the nearest tenth percent.
Stones
FGIS received 45 comments (29 supporting and 16 opposing) on the
proposal to reduce the U.S. Sample grade criteria for stones from eight
or more to four or more and to eliminate the U.S. Sample grade
aggregate weight criteria. Those opposing the proposal offered no
justification for their opposition. Of the 29 commenters who supported
the proposal, 16 supported the proposal as stated and 13 supported the
proposal in part. Those who partially supported the proposal suggested
that the number of stones be reduced and that the aggregate weight
criteria be maintained and reduced. They indicated that aggregate
weight must be maintained so that size is qualified. One commenter
summarized this position by stating:
* * * We request that an aggregate weight limit for stones (0.1
percent) be retained to prevent minuscule, inconsequential stone
particles from adversely affecting grade determinations.
The following definition for stones is given in Sec. 810.102(c) of
the Official United States Standards for Grain.
Concreted earthy or mineral matter and other substances of
similar hardness that do not disintegrate in water.
The definition of stones prevents the potential for sand or other
similar particles from being classified as stones. Based on the
comments received, however, FGIS believes that sufficient concern
exists that a soybean lot could be downgraded due to the presence of a
few minuscule stones. At processing facilities, minuscule stones are
typically removed prior to crushing. FGIS believes, therefore, that the
presence of a few minuscule stones should not function as a downgrading
factor. A reduced weight limitation in combination with a count
limitation will serve to prevent a few small stones from affecting the
grade. FGIS, therefore, is revising the soybean standards to reduce the
U.S. Sample grade criteria for stones from eight or more to four or
more and reduce the aggregate weight option from more than 0.2 percent
by weight to more than 0.1 percent by weight.
Glass
FGIS received 69 comments (53 supporting and 16 opposing) on the
proposal to reduce the U.S. Sample grade criteria for pieces of glass
from 2 to 0. One commentor effectively summarized the views of those
who opposed the proposal to reduce the tolerance for pieces of glass
from 2 to 0. He stated that he had:
* * * A philosophical problem specifying a zero tolerance for
factors not considered dangerous to human health and safety.
Glass has a harmful effect on a soybean quality and processing. One
commentor supporting the proposal contended that:
There is no reason for glass to be in soybeans, and if it is
there, it should be identified at any level.
FGIS agrees that glass may adversely affect soybean quality and
processing. Furthermore, pieces of glass are rarely found in soybeans
and rarely cause a sample to grade U.S. Sample grade. FGIS believes
that this change will create an incentive to maintain the current
quality of soybeans in the future while having minimal economic impact
on the current market. Accordingly, FGIS is revising the soybeans
standards to reduce the U.S. Sample grade criteria for pieces of glass
from 2 to 0.
Purple Mottled or Stained Soybeans
FGIS received 75 comments (52 supporting and 23 opposing) on the
proposal to eliminate the grade limitation on purple mottled or stained
soybeans and establish a special grade, Purple Mottled or Stained. Most
of the opposing commentors offered no rationale for their opposition.
One commentor suggested that purple mottled or stained soybeans affect
both the free fatty acid content of the oil and the dehulling process.
FGIS has found no data or any other source supporting this statement.
Rather, those who supported FGIS' proposal generally agreed with the
justification as presented in the proposed rule. FGIS stated therein
that the fungus that causes purple mottling or staining colonizes only
the seed coat of the soybean. Neither the fungus nor the resultant
discoloration reduces kernel, oil, or feed quality. As a result of this
information and the comments received, FGIS will revise the soybean
standards to eliminate the grade limitation for purple mottled or
stained soybeans.
Those who supported the FGIS proposal to eliminate the grade
limitation also supported the proposal to establish a special grade,
Purple Mottled or Stained, in the soybean standards. FGIS and these
commenters are in agreement that aesthetic factors, such as purple
mottled or stained, are important to some customers and, therefore,
have an associated economic value. Therefore, to satisfy the needs of
these specific customers, FGIS will revised the soybean standards to
include a special grade, Purple Mottled or Stained.
Materially Weathered Soybeans
FGIS received 70 comments (53 supporting and 17 opposing) on the
proposal to eliminate the grade limitation on soybeans that are
materially weathered. Most of those opposed to the proposal offered no
rationale for their opposition. One commentor, however, stated the
following:
We feel you are sending out the wrong message here. What you
appear to be saying is that FGIS is not concerned about the
appearance of our beans. Granted it doesn't come into play very
often but when it does it is a very descriptive and meaningful term.
FGIS disagrees with the above statement for two reasons: (1) FGIS
is concerned about both the quality and appearance of U.S. soybeans,
and (2) since the last soybean standards review in 1985, FGIS has
rarely found the need to limit the grade due to the amount of
materially weathered soybeans. The limitation on damaged kernels
appears to be an adequate control on overall damage so as to nullify
the use for the materially weathered grade limitation. Therefore, FGIS
does not view ``materially weathered'' as a meaningful and descriptive
term. As stated in the proposed rule and by many of the supporting
commentors, the factor limits for the other damages adequately convey
quality. FGIS is therefore revising the standards to eliminate the
grade limitation on soybeans that are materially weathered.
Edible Grade Soybeans
FGIS received 69 comments (33 supporting and 36 opposing) on the
proposal to create a new grade and associated grade limits for U.S.
Choice soybeans. Those supporting the proposal either generally
supported all changes or stated that they were not opposed to the
proposed change. One commenter stated that a new grade for edible
soybeans may satisfy a specific niche within the market. Those opposed
generally stated that the edible soybean market is small and that each
purchaser has very specific needs. One commenter who opposed the
proposal specifically stated the following:
* * * I do not believe that consensus exists on what factors or
factor limits best describe ``edible-grade'' soybeans. Variability
of current contract specifications for food-grade soybeans suggests
that reaching consensus on a single grade is unlikely or even
impossible. Because food-grade soybean buyers and processors are
currently able to purchase soybeans meeting their specific needs
through their contract specifications, we suggest that a separate
grade is unnecessary and perhaps even misleading and confusing.
FGIS agrees that the edible soybean market is very specialized.
Since specific needs vary, not only from country to country, but from
buyer to buyer within a country, FGIS agrees that the market can be
best served through contractual specifications. FGIS, therefore, will
not revise the standards to offer a new grade for edible soybeans.
Mixed Soybeans
FGIS received 64 comments (49 supporting and 15 opposing) on the
proposal to clarify the reference to Mixed soybeans in the standards.
Those opposing the proposal were generally opposed to many or all of
the proposed changes without offering specific reasons. Those who were
in favor of the proposed change agreed with FGIS that the reference to
Mixed soybeans is simply to clarify the soybean standards. As a result,
FGIS will amend Sec. 810.1604, Grades and grade requirements for
soybeans, to include a reference to Mixed soybeans. ``Soybeans of other
colors'' have been and will continue to be disregarded as a factor in
Mixed soybeans.
Cumulative Sample Grade Factors
FGIS received 71 comments (56 supporting and 15 opposing) on the
proposal to establish a cumulative total for factors which may cause a
sample to grade U.S. Sample grade. Those opposing the proposal did not
offer any specific rationale for their position. Many of the supporters
simply stated that they did not oppose the proposal. As stated in the
proposal, FGIS believes that a cumulative total limit will better
identify quality by designating a combination of deleterious material,
animal filth, and toxic substances as U.S. Sample grade. Accordingly,
FGIS is revising the soybean standards to establish the cumulative
total Sample grade criteria as proposed.
FGIS will also revise the third footnote of the grade chart in
Sec. 810.1604, Grades and grade requirements for soybeans, as proposed
for clarity. The revision states that only the number of stones, and
not the weight of stones, will be considered in calculating the
cumulative total for factors which may cause a sample to grade U.S.
Sample grade. The third footnote is revised to read as follows:
Includes any combination of animal filth, castor beans,
crotalaria seeds, glass, stones, and unknown foreign substances. The
weight of stones is not applicable for total other material.
Oil and Protein
FGIS received 86 comments (58 supporting and 28 opposing) on the
proposal to report the oil and protein content on all official lot
inspection certificates for export soybean shipments. Those opposing
the proposal generally commented that any cost associated with
mandatory oil and protein testing should be borne by those who request
the service. The commenters further stated that mandatory testing would
result in an unwarranted cost for all in the marketing system. One
commenter opposing the proposal stated that:
Buyers and sellers should have the marketing flexibility to
determine through contract, if, which and how soybean oil and
protein determinations should be made.
Another commenter stated that in the first quarter of the 1990/91
marketing year, 37 percent of foreign buyers had not requested oil and
protein testing by FGIS. ``Thus, the market is responding to the
availability of the service, which FGIS appropriately provides.'' Yet
another commenter suggested that mandating tests for oil and protein at
export would create dual standards for domestic and export sales of
soybeans.
Those who supported the proposal, however, contended that the
current method of reporting oil and protein only upon request puts the
burden upon the buyer. One commenter supporting the proposal stated
that:
I believe we can increase our competitive advantage in world
markets by providing this information automatically.
Another commenter stated that not only could the U.S. improve its
competitive position, but mandatory reporting will generate market
signals that will help improve the composition of U.S. soybeans and
thus make them more competitive.
While, as stated in the proposal, FGIS recognizes that oil and
protein tests provide important information regarding soybean quality,
it is evident that many in the industry are satisfied with the upon-
request status of the tests. For the first half of the 1992/93
marketing year, FGIS inspected 66 percent of export soybeans for oil
and protein content. The number of requests indicates that foreign
purchasers and/or exporters are effectively requesting oil and protein
tests, as needed, within the framework of the current inspection
system. Therefore, at this time, FGIS believes that mandatory testing
would place an unnecessary burden on the inspection system and would
provide some foreign purchasers with unnecessary information. If, at a
later date, more information is presented which indicates that
mandatory oil and protein testing at export would facilitate marketing,
FGIS will reconsider the status of oil and protein testing.
The proposed revisions of Sec. 810.102, Definition of other terms
to add sections (c) oil and (d) protein and redesignate sections (c),
(d), and (e) as (e), (f), and (g) will be unnecessary because FGIS will
not report oil and protein content on all official lot inspection
certificates for export soybean shipments.
Miscellaneous Changes
FGIS proposed to revise the format of the grade chart in
Sec. 810.1604, Grades and grade requirements for soybeans, to improve
the readability of the grade chart. FGIS also proposed to revise the
authority citation for part 810. No comments were received on these
proposals and, as a result FGIS will revise the soybean standards in
this regard as proposed.
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. No changes in the breakpoints as proposed
will be necessary because FGIS will not revise the FM grade limits for
U.S. Nos. 1 and 2 soybeans, establish a new grade for U.S. Choice
soybeans, nor revise the grade limits for splits.
Final Action
On the basis of these comments and other available information,
FGIS has decided to revise the soybean standards as proposed with the
exception of the reduction in the FM grade limits for U.S. Nos. 1 and
2, the change in TW from a grade determining factor to a nongrade
determining factor, the reduction in the grade limits for splits, the
elimination of the aggregate weight option for stones, the creation of
a new grade for U.S. Choice soybeans, and the reporting of oil and
protein content on all official lot inspection certificates for export
soybean shipments.
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
September 1, 1994. This effective date will coincide with the beginning
of the 1994 crop year and facilitate domestic and export marketing of
soybeans.
References
(1) Hill, L.D., ``Changes in the Grain Standards Act,'' Grain
Grades and Standards, 113-184.
(2) West, V.I., ``How Good Are Soybean Grades?,'' Illinois Farm
Economics, No. 192, Extension Service in Agriculture and Home
Economics, College of Agriculture, University of Illinois, May 1951,
p. 1166.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 810
Exports, Grain.
For reasons set out in the preamble, 7 CFR part 810 is amended as
follows:
PART 810--OFFICIAL UNITED STATES STANDARDS FOR GRAIN
1. 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.)
Subpart I--United States Standards for Soybeans
2. In Sec. 810.104 the first sentence of paragraph (b) is revised
to read as follows:
Sec. 810.104 Percentages.
* * * * *
(b) Recording. The percentage of dockage in barley, flaxseed, rye,
and sorghum are reported in whole percents with fractions of a percent
being disregarded. * * *
* * * * *
3. Section 810.1604 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 810.1604 Grades and grade requirements for soybeans.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grades U.S. Nos.
Grading factors ---------------------------------------------------
1 2 3 4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum pound limits of:
---------------------------------------------------
Minimum test weight
per bushel......... 56.0 54.0 52.0 49.0
---------------------------------------------------
Maximum percent limits of:
---------------------------------------------------
Damaged kernels:
Heat (part of
total)......... 0.2 0.5 1.0 3.0
Total........... 2.0 3.0 5.0 8.0
Foreign material 1.0 2.0 3.0 5.0
Splits.......... 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0
Soybeans of
other colors\1\ 1.0 2.0 5.0 10.0
---------------------------------------------------
Maximum count limits of:
---------------------------------------------------
Other material:
Animal filth.... 9 9 9 9
Castor beans.... 1 1 1 1
Crotalaria seeds 2 2 2 2
Glass........... 0 0 0 0
Stones\2\....... 3 3 3 3
Unknown foreign
substance...... 3 3 3 3
Total\3\........ 10 10 10 10
------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Sample grade Soybeans that:
(a) Do not meet the requirements for U.S. Nos. 1, 2, 3, or 4; or
(b) Have a musty, sour, or commercially objectionable foreign odor
(except garlic odor); or
(c) Are heating or of distinctly low quality.
\1\Disregard for Mixed soybeans.
\2\In addition to the maximum count limit, stones must exceed 0.1
percent of the sample weight.
\3\Includes any combination of animal filth, castor beans, crotalaria
seeds, glass, stones, and unknown foreign substances. The weight of
stones is not applicable for total other material.
4. Section 810.1605 is amended by designating the text as paragraph
(a) and by adding paragraph (b).
Sec. 810.1605 Special grades and special grade requirements.
(a) Garlicky soybeans. * * *
(b) Purple mottled or stained soybeans. Soybeans with pink or
purple seed coats as determined on a portion of approximately 400 grams
with the use of an FGIS Interpretive Line Photograph.
Dated: February 28, 1994.
David R. Galliart,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 94-5067 Filed 3-4-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-EN-M