Federal Register, Volume 61 Issue 82 (Friday, April 26, 1996)

[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 82 (Friday, April 26, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18486-18493]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10305]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration

7 CFR Parts 800 and 810

RIN 0580-AA14

United States Standards for Barley

AGENCY: Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration
(GIPSA) is revising the United States Standards for Barley to: modify
the classification system of barley to better reflect current marketing
practices by establishing two classes, Malting barley and Barley;
revise procedures to permit applicants the option of requesting either
the malting standards or barley standards for malting types; revise the
standards for Two-rowed Malting barley by removing the ``U.S. No 1
Choice'' grade designation; amend the definition for suitable malting
type to include other malting varieties used by private malting and
brewing companies; revise the dockage certification procedure by
reporting results in half and whole percent with a fraction less than
one-half percent being disregarded; amend the definition of thins to
require the use of a single sieve (5/64 x 3/4 slotted-hole) only in
the class Barley; and eliminate the numerical grade restriction for
badly stained and materially weathered from the standards. In addition,
GIPSA is amending the breakpoint for dockage and establishing new
breakpoints for malting barley to conform with standard changes.
The objective of these revisions is to ensure that the barley
standards are serving their intended purpose to facilitate the
marketing of barley.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 1, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George Wollam, USDA, GIPSA, Room 0623,
South Building, P. O. Box 96454, Washington, D.C. 20090-6454; telephone
(202) 720-0292; FAX (202) 720-4628.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Order 12866

The Department is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive
Order 12866.

Executive Order 12778

This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12778,
Civil Justice Reform. This action is not intended to have retroactive
effect. The United States Grain Standards Act (Act) provides in section
87g that no State or subdivision may require or impose any requirements
or restrictions concerning the inspection, weighing, or description of
grain under the Act. Otherwise, this proposed rule will not preempt any
State or local laws, regulations, or policies unless they present an
irreconcilable conflict with this rule. There are no administrative
procedures which must be exhausted prior to any judicial challenge to
the provisions of this rule.

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

James R. Baker, Administrator, GIPSA, has determined that this
proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities as defined in the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) because most users of the
official inspection and weighing services and those entities that
perform these services do not meet the requirements for small entities.
Further, the regulations are applied equally to all entities.

Information Collection Requirements

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35), the information collection requirements contained in the
rule to be amended have been previously approved by the Office of
Management and Budget under control number 0580-0013.

Background

During December 1991, the Federal Grain Inspection Service (FGIS),
which is now part of GIPSA, distributed a discussion paper concerning
the U.S. Standards for Barley. This paper addressed several issues
relating to the standards and served as a starting point for
discussions with producers, processors, trade associations, maltsters,
handlers, and merchandisers to better understand their views on changes
needed to improve existing standards. FGIS received positive feedback.
In addition, FGIS reviewed the barley discussion paper with the FGIS
Advisory Committee and the Grain Quality Workshops and considered ideas
received during the normal course of business, recommendations from
internal management and program review, and various other sources.
In the March 22, 1995, Federal Register (60 FR 15075), GIPSA
published a proposal to revise the U.S. Standards for Barley by: (1)
Modifying the classification system of barley to better reflect current
marketing practices by establishing two classes, Malting barley and
Barley; (2) revising procedures to permit applicants the option of
requesting either the malting standards or barley standards for malting
types; (3) revising the standards for Two-rowed Malting barley by
removing the ``U.S. No 1 Choice'' grade designation and combining the
grading factors and limits for two- and six-rowed malting types onto a
single grade chart; (4) amending the definition for suitable malting
type to include other proprietary malting varieties used by private
malting and brewing companies; (5) revising the dockage certification
procedure by reporting results in half and whole percent with a
fraction less than one-half percent being disregarded; (6) amending the
definition of thins to require the use of a single sieve (\5/64\ x \3/
4\ slotted-hole) only in the proposed class Barley and remove the
grading limits from the standards; however, the level of thins will
continue to be reported on the inspection certificate; (7) revising the
standards by removing the grading limits for damaged kernels, heat-
damaged kernels, and foreign material in the proposed class Barley; and
(8) eliminating the numerical grade restriction for badly stained and
materially weathered from the standards. GIPSA further proposed to

[[Page 18487]]

amend the inspection plan tolerances based on these changes.

Comment Review

During the 60-day comment period, GIPSA received ten comments: two
from grain handling associations, five from barley producer
organizations, one from a malting barley trade association, one from a
cattle feeding company, and one from a State Department of Agriculture.
On the basis of these comments and other available information,
GIPSA has decided to revise the barley standards as proposed, with the
following exceptions: (1) Combining the grading factors and limits for
two- and six- rowed malting types into one grading chart; (2) removing
the grading limits for thins in the class Barley; (3) removing the
grading limits for damaged kernels, heat-damaged kernels, and foreign
material in the class Barley; (4) applying the current damaged kernels
grade limits in Six-rowed Malting barley to Two-rowed Malting barley;
(5) applying the present limits for injured-by-mold and mold damage in
Two-rowed Malting barley to Six-rowed Malting barley; and (6) applying
the current grade limits for other grains and wild oats to both Six-
and Two-rowed Malting barley.
Rather than combining the grading factors and limits for two- and
six-rowed malting types into one grading chart, GIPSA decided to
maintain a separate grading chart for the two-rowed malting type and
the six-rowed malting type because of their different grade limits and
grading factors. Also, GIPSA decided to retain the grading limits for
thins, damaged kernels, heat-damaged kernels, and foreign material in
the class Barley. In addition, GIPSA will continue to apply the current
grade limits in Six- rowed Malting barley for damaged kernels and other
grains only to Six-rowed Malting barley and continue to apply the
present grade limits in Two-rowed Malting barley for injured-by-mold,
mold damage, and wild oats only to Two-rowed Malting barley.

Barley Classification

GIPSA proposed to amend the barley classification system in section
7 CFR 810.202, paragraph (c), to better reflect current marketing
practices by establishing two classes of barley, specifically, Malting
barley and Barley. The class Malting barley is divided into three
subclasses: Six-rowed Malting barley, Six-rowed Blue Malting barley,
and Two-rowed Malting barley. The class Barley is divided into three
subclasses: Six-rowed barley, Two-rowed barley, and Barley. GIPSA
believes this new classification system will assist in simplifying the
barley standards and facilitate the domestic and export marketing of
barley.
The present barley classification system is based on kernel
physical characteristics. Barley is divided into three classes: Six-
rowed barley, Two-rowed barley, and Barley. The class Six-rowed barley
is divided into three subclasses: Six-rowed Malting barley, Six-rowed
Blue Malting barley, and Six-rowed barley. The class Two-rowed barley
is divided into two subclasses: Two-rowed Malting barley and Two-rowed
barley. The class Barley has no subclasses.
This classification system does not reflect current marketing
practices. That is, barley produced in the United States is used
primarily as livestock feed or for malting. Consequently, the barley
classing system should be structured in a manner consistent with
current trading practices.
All comments received were supportive of the new classification
system.
Based on this information, comments received, and other available
information, GIPSA is amending the barley classification system in
current section 7 CFR 810.202, paragraph (c), by establishing two
classes of barley, Malting barley and Barley. The class Malting barley
is divided into three subclasses: Six-rowed Malting barley, Six-rowed
Blue Malting barley, and Two-rowed Malting barley. The class Barley is
divided into three subclasses: Six-rowed barley, Two-rowed barley, and
Barley.

Applying the Malting Standards

GIPSA proposed to amend the subclass definitions for Six- and Two-
rowed barley in current section 7 CFR 810.202, paragraphs (c)(1)(iii)
and (c)(2)(ii), by deleting the reference to Malting barley. This
change is needed to provide applicants the option of requesting either
the malting standards or the barley standards for malting types.
The present standards require official personnel initially to apply
the Malting barley requirements and assign grades covered in section 7
CFR 810.206 only if the sample fails to meet the malting criteria. This
requirement is based on the subclass definitions for Six- and Two-rowed
barley. The subclass definitions for Six- and Two-rowed barley state,
in part, that barley not meeting the applicable subclass requirement
for malting shall be graded using the 7 CFR 810.206 grade chart.
Initially applying the malting standard requirements hampers
inspection efficiency and may create market disruptions for malting
varieties used for other purposes. Labeling barley as malting when it
is being marketed for another use causes confusion and could lead to
unnecessary marketing complications.
All comments received were supportive of this revision.
Based on this information, comments received and other available
information, GIPSA is amending the subclass definitions for Six- and
Two-rowed barley in section 7 CFR 810.202, paragraphs (c)(1)(iii) and
(c)(2)(ii), by deleting the reference to Malting barley to provide the
inspection system greater flexibility in meeting the market needs. This
change will also bring existing standards more in line with today's
marketing practices for Malting barley.

U.S. No 1 Choice Grade Designation

GIPSA proposed to revise section 7 CFR 810.205 by removing the
``U.S. No 1 Choice'' grade designation from the grading chart and
retain the factors and limits concerning the Choice grade as U.S. No 1
and redesignating the factors and limits for U.S. Nos. 1, 2, and 3 as
U.S. Nos. 2, 3, and 4, respectively. This revision was sought to bring
more consistency between the standards for Two- and Six-rowed Malting
barley.
The current Two-rowed Malting barley standard includes a ``U.S. No
1 Choice'' grade designation. The Six-rowed Malting barley standard
does not include a similar grade. The differences between ``U.S. No 1
Choice'' Two-rowed Malting barley and U.S. No. 1 Two-rowed Malting
barley are reflected in the test weight, skinned and broken kernels,
and the thin barley grade limits. GIPSA believes that the factors and
limits for the ``U.S. No 1 Choice'' grade designation are important to
producers, maltsters, and brewers. Furthermore, GIPSA believes that the
quality requirements in the standards for Six- and Two-rowed Malting
barley should be more consistent to eliminate confusion in the
marketplace and to provide more meaningful information to our
customers.
All commentors agreed with GIPSA's proposal.
Based on this information, comments received and other available
information, GIPSA is removing the ``U.S. No 1 Choice'' grade
designation from section 800.86(c)(2) Table-2 and section 7 CFR 810.205
for Two-rowed Malting barley. Furthermore, GIPSA is retaining the
factors and limits for the ``U.S. No 1 Choice'' grade as the U.S. No. 1
grade and redesignating the factors and limits for U.S. Nos. 1, 2, and
3 as U.S. Nos. 2, 3, and 4 for the Two- rowed Malting barley,
respectively.

[[Page 18488]]

Malting Barley Grading Charts

GIPSA proposed to revise the grade requirements in section 7 CFR
810.204 and 810.205 by: (1) Combining the factors and limits for Two-
and Six-rowed Malting barley into a single grade chart; (2)
establishing four numerical grades for all Malting barley; (3)
establishing common foreign material grade limits for all Malting
barley; (4) establishing separate grade limits for test weight,
suitable malting types, sound barley, skinned and broken kernels, and
thin barley for two- and six-rowed malting types; (5) applying the
current damaged kernels grade limits in Six-rowed Malting barley to
Two-rowed Malting barley and establishing a new 5.0 percent damaged
kernels limit to correspond with the proposed four grade categories;
(6) applying the present limits for mold damage and injured-by-mold in
Two-rowed Malting barley to Six-rowed Malting barley; and (7) applying
the current grade limits for other grains and wild oats to both Six-
and Two-rowed Malting barley.
In the present standards, separate grade charts exist for two- and
six-rowed malting types. Additionally, the factor requirements differ
based on the barley subclass. For example, the current standards impose
limits for other grains, wild oats, mold damage, and injured-by-mold,
but not consistently for all malting types. These differences reflect
the traditional variances between the production areas and markets
dealing with Six- and Two-rowed Malting barley. In proposing changes to
the standards, GIPSA believed that the malting standards should be
revised to more consistently apply factor requirements between Two- and
Six-rowed barley. GIPSA also believed that the proposed revisions to
combine sections 7 CFR 810.204 and 810.205 simplify the malting
standards and make them more user friendly.
Supporters stated that combining the factors and grade limits for
Six- and Two-rowed Malting barley into one chart will make the malting
barley standards more user friendly, make the standards more compatible
between the Two-rowed and Six-rowed Malting types, and reduce potential
confusion of foreign purchasers.
Several organizations representing producers, handlers, and
maltsters opposed applying the present limits for mold damage and
damaged-by-mold in Two-rowed Malting barley to Six-rowed malting types
and applying the current grade limits for other grains and wild oats to
both Six- and Two-rowed Malting types.
With regard to applying the present limits for mold damage and
injured-by-mold in Two-rowed Malting barley to Six-rowed Malting
barley, the North Dakota Barley Council (NDBC) stated that applying the
present limits for mold damage and damaged-by-mold in Two-rowed Malting
barley to Six-rowed Malting barley is restrictive and causes market
disruption because weather conditions frequently cause mold damage and
damaged-by-mold injury. They also stated that under this proposal a
significant portion of Midwestern crop would not receive malting barley
grades. Furthermore, the NDBC stated that Midwestern Six-rowed Malting
barley is frequently purchased in excess of the proposed limits.
Further, other comments received shared similar views.
Upon review of this issue and because of the expressed concern of
potential market disruption, GIPSA has decided not to adopt this
revision. Consequently, GIPSA will maintain the current limits for
injured-by-mold and mold damage for Two- and Six-rowed Malting barley.
In regard to applying current grade limits for other grains and
wild oats to both Six- and Two-rowed malting types, the current malting
standards impose grade limits for other grains and wild oats but not
consistently for Two- and Six-rowed Malting barley. These differences
reflect the traditional variances between the production areas and
markets dealing with Six- and Two-rowed Malting barley. In proposing to
apply current grade limits for other grains and wild oats to both Six-
and Two-rowed Malting types, GIPSA believed that the malting standards
should be revised to more consistently apply factor requirements
between Two- and Six-rowed Malting types.
GIPSA received no support for this proposed action. A commentor
opposing this proposal stated that while the proposal adds more
uniformity to the grading standards, it fails to consider the impact on
domestic and export markets.
Applying uniform grade limits for other grains and wild oats to
both six- and two-rowed malting types may impact negatively on domestic
and/or export markets. Therefore, GIPSA has decided not to adopt this
proposal. Consequently, GIPSA will continue to apply the current grade
limits for other grains to six-rowed malting type only and the current
grade limits for wild oats to two-rowed malting type only.
In its comment, the NDBC recommended to aggregate wild oats, other
grains, and foreign materials into one category. They stated foreign
buyers perceive other grains, wild oats, and foreign material as non-
barley material in Malting barley. Furthermore, the NDBC proposed
different grade limits for two- and six-rowed malting types as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Six-rowed Two-rowed
Grade (percent) (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. No. 1........................................ 3.0 1.5
U.S. No. 2........................................ 4.0 2.0
U.S. No. 3........................................ 6.0 3.0
U.S. No. 4........................................ 8.0 5.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

NDBC believes that this change would more accurately describe non-
barley material in Malting barley and facilitate marketing in export
channels.
GIPSA believes that this recommendation warrants further evaluation
and has decided more discussions are needed before proposing such a
change. Meanwhile, GIPSA will continue to use the current factors and
limits as applicable.
In proposing to combine the grade charts for two- and six-rowed
malting types, GIPSA believed that adopting the same grading factors
would simplify the malting standards and promote uniformity between
Two- and Six-rowed Malting barley. However, the proposal to apply the
same grading factors to all malting barley were not adopted. A single
grade chart containing different factors and grade limits for two- and
six-rowed malting types would be hard to read or understand. Therefore,
GIPSA has decided not to combine the grade charts for two- and six-
rowed malting types because common grading factors and limits were not
established. Consequently, GIPSA will maintain a separate grading chart
for the Two-rowed Malting barley and the Six-rowed Malting barley
because of their different grade limits and grading factors.
GIPSA received no opposition to establishing four numerical grades
for malting barley; separate grade limits for test weight; percent
suitable malting types, sound barley, skinned and broken kernels, and
thin barley for two- and six-rowed malting types; or establishing
common foreign material grade limits for all Malting barley.
Based on information and suggestions received from individuals
using these grade charts, comments received, and other available
information, GIPSA will: (1) Maintain separate grading charts for two-
and six-rowed malting types; (2) establish four numerical grades for
all Malting barley; (3) apply the current grade limits for damaged
kernels and other grains to Six-rowed Malting barley only; (4) apply
the present limits for wild oats, injured-by-mold, and mold

[[Page 18489]]

damage to Two-rowed Malting barley only; (5) apply the proposed foreign
material grade limits to two- and six-rowed malting types; and (6) for
six-rowed malting types adopt the proposed grade limits for test
weight, sound barley, damaged kernels, skinned and broken kernels, and
thin barley.

Suitable Malting Type

GIPSA proposed to amend the definition of suitable malting type in
current section 7 CFR 810.202, paragraph (t), to expand the list of
approved malting varieties. The proposed definition will include other
malting types used by various maltsters and brewers.
Current standards require a specified level of suitable malting
type before the Malting barley designation is assigned. The American
Malting Barley Association (AMBA) identifies which malting varieties
are considered suitable. The AMBA revises its list of approved malting
types annually by adding new varieties and deleting outdated ones.
However, many malting varieties removed from the AMBA list continue to
be produced, marketed, and processed. Under the current malting
standards, a variety that meets all quality requirements for malting
but is not included on the AMBA list could not be classified as Malting
barley. Furthermore, several breweries are actively involved in the
development and production of malting barley types to meet various end-
use specifications. Often, these varietal types are not tested and
approved by AMBA, although such varieties meet all quality requirements
of the brewery. This revision will permit official inspection personnel
to apply the malting grade designation to any of these malting
varieties. Also, it will bring existing standards more in line with
today's processing practices of the malting and brewing industries.
All comments received were supportive of the proposal to revise the
definition of suitable malting type to include varieties recommended by
AMBA and other malting types.
Based on this information, comments received, and other available
information, GIPSA is revising the suitable malting type definition in
current section 7 CFR 810.202, paragraph (t), to include varieties
recommended by AMBA and other malting types.

Dockage

GIPSA proposed to revise the dockage certification procedure in
section 7 CFR 810.104, paragraph (b), by reporting results in half and
whole percent with a fraction less than one-half percent being
disregarded.
Dockage in barley consists of dust, chaff, small weed seed, very
small pieces of broken barley, and coarse grains larger than barley.
Present standards certify dockage in whole percents with fractions of a
percent being disregarded. GIPSA believes that this method of reporting
often understates dockage levels. GIPSA also believes that reporting
dockage in half and whole percent provides a more accurate description
of non-barley material, by that, enabling handlers and end-users to
decide quality, storability, and end-product yield. Also, providing
actual dockage percentage in the remarks section of the certificate is
currently available upon request.
One commentor supporting this change stated that much of the
commercial trade is done in tenth of percent increments. However, GIPSA
believes that the proposed change best reflects market needs at this
time. Accordingly, no further changes to this provision are needed.
Applicants interested in receiving dockage information in tenth of
percent increments may receive it upon request.
Based on this information, comments received, and other available
information, GIPSA is revising the dockage certification procedure in
section 7 CFR 810.104, paragraph (b), to report dockage in barley in
half and whole percent with a fraction less than one-half percent being
disregarded.

Thin Barley

GIPSA proposed to revise the sieve requirement for determining thin
barley in current section 7 CFR 810.202, paragraph (u), by requiring
the use of a single sieve (\5/64\ x \3/4\ slotted-hole), in
determining thins in the class Barley. GIPSA also proposed to amend
section 7 CFR 800.162 to delete the factor thins and its corresponding
grade limits for the class Barley and require that the level of thins
be reported on each certificate representing an inspection for grade.
This procedure is similar to the certification procedure for moisture,
which provides the marketplace with the flexibility to establish more
meaningful quality limits for thins based on the specific needs of end-
users.
Present standards define thin barley as Six-rowed barley which
passes through a \5/64\ x \3/4\ slotted-hole sieve or Two-rowed
barley which passes through a 5.\5/64\ x \3/4\ slotted-hole sieve. In
addition, for the class Barley, which consists of a mixture of Six- and
Two-rowed barley, thin barley is barley passing through the \5/64\ x
\3/4\ slotted-hole sieve. Under this requirement, the factor thins in
the standards is a measurement of kernel size more than an indicator of
overall quality in barley.
All commentors were supportive of GIPSA's proposal to use one
standard sieve size (\5/64\ x \3/5\ slotted-hole) to determine thins
for the class Barley.
Several commentors opposed the removal of thins as a grade
determining factor stating: (1) Thins are one of the most important
grading factors, particularly in livestock feed and export markets; (2)
there is correlation between barley quality and the level of thins
because a high level of thins can cause problems in rolling barley and
it will affect the nutritive value of barley; (3) the end-users rely on
the official grading system to determine the level of thins and
corresponding numerical grade; (4) if the end-users contract for a
certain grade of barley, they currently can be assured of a specified
maximum percentage of thin kernels; (5) most of the barley sold into
the feed market is traded on the basis of thins; (6) they feared the
potential for increased blending, which may lower the overall quality;
and (7) they stated that FGIS failed to consider the impacts on export
markets.
GIPSA recognizes that thin barley is a factor used by the industry
to determine market value. Also, that the end-user is in the best
position to determine the appropriate level of thins when arriving at
the market value of the grain. Therefore, GIPSA has decided not to
remove the grade limits for thins in the class barley because there
appears to be a market need to preserve these limits based on comments
received. Consequently, the factor ``thins'' will continue to be a
grade determining factor in the class Barley.
Based on this information, comments received, and other available
information, GIPSA is revising current section 7 CFR 810.202, paragraph
(u), to require the use of the \5/64\ x \3/4\ slotted-whole sieve for
thin barley determination in the class Barley.

Sound Barley

GIPSA proposed to revise section 7 CFR 810.206 by removing the
factors and limits for damaged kernels, heat- damaged kernels, and
foreign material in the class Barley. In proposing this revision, GIPSA
believed that the standards would rely on the factor ``sound barley''
to relate the overall amount of damaged kernels, heat-damaged kernels,
and foreign material. In addition, applicants interested in the
percentage and composition of damaged kernels, heat-damaged kernels,
and foreign material may request this

[[Page 18490]]

information be reported on the inspection certificate.
Supporters of this change stated that relying on the factor ``sound
barley'' to determine quality is favorable, providing other information
concerning non-barley material and damaged kernels is available to
interested parties.
Opponents of this proposed change stated: Eliminating the factors
and grade limits for damaged kernels, heat-damaged kernels, and foreign
material and relying on sound barley to relate the overall amount of
damage and non-barley materials will be an incentive to add non-barley
material to barley shipments; while the domestic market likely would
quickly adapt to this change, the export market will be at a serious
disadvantage; and U.S. competitors have much more stringent quality
parameters, and any retrenchment from the current grading system would
cause further concerns by overseas customers and cause reduction in
U.S. exports.
Upon further review of this issue and in view of the comments and
concerns, GIPSA believes that removing the grade limits for damaged
kernels, heat-damaged kernels, and foreign material in the class Barley
and relying on sound barley to relate the overall amount of damage and
non-barley may not reflect domestic and/or export markets need.
Therefore, GIPSA has decided to retain the factors and limits for
damaged kernels, heat-damaged kernels, and foreign material in the
class Barley as grade determining factors because there appears to be a
market need to maintain these factors and their grade limits as grade
determining factors.
Based on this information, comments received, and other available
information, GIPSA has decided not to revise section 7 CFR 810.206 of
the standards. Consequently, the grade limits for damaged kernels,
heat- damaged kernels, and foreign material in the class Barley will
continue to be grade determining factors.

Badly Stained or Materially Weathered Barley

GIPSA proposed to eliminate the grade limitation for barley that is
badly stained or materially weathered from section 7 CFR 810.206. GIPSA
also proposed to remove the definition for stained barley from 7 CFR
810.202 (s).
The determination of badly stained or materially weathered barley
is seldom made because this condition is generally reflected in other
grading factors including sound barley. Presently, barley that is badly
stained or materially weathered is graded not higher than U.S. No. 4.
Commentors did not oppose GIPSA's proposal to remove the badly
stained or materially weathered criterion from the standards.
Based on this information, comments received, and other available
information, GIPSA has decided to amend section 7 CFR 810-206 by
eliminating the grade limitation for badly stained or materially
weathered.

Miscellaneous Changes

GIPSA proposed to revise the format of the grade charts in the
standards for Malting barley and Barley. These proposed revisions were
intended to improve the readability of the grading tables. Based on
information and suggestions received from individuals using these
grading charts, GIPSA has decided not to adopt the proposed format.
Consequently, the present format of the grading charts in the standards
for Malting barley and Barley will not be changed.

Inspection Plan Tolerances

Shiplots, unit trains, and lash barge lots are inspected by a
statistically based inspection plan (55 FR 24030, June 13, 1990).
Inspection tolerances, commonly referred to as breakpoints, are used to
determine acceptable quality. GIPSA proposed to amend the breakpoint
for dockage from 0.47 to 0.23 percent. GIPSA also proposed to establish
breakpoints conforming to the proposed changes to the barley standards.
GIPSA received no opposition to amending or establishing
breakpoints as included in the proposal.
Based on this information, comments received, and other available
information, GIPSA is revising section 800.86, Table 4, by changing the
dockage breakpoint to 0.23 percent. GIPSA is also adopting breakpoints
for the changes to the malting barley standards.

Final Action

On the basis of these comments and other available information,
GIPSA has decided to revise the barley standards as proposed, with the
following exceptions: (1) Combining the grading factors and limits for
two- and six- rowed malting types into one grade chart; (2) removing
the grading limits for thins in the class Barley; (3) removing the
grading limits for damaged kernels, heat-damaged kernels, and foreign
material in the class Barley; (4) applying the current damaged kernels
grade limits in Six-rowed Malting barley to Two-rowed Malting barley;
(5) applying the present limits for mold damage and injured-by-mold in
Two-rowed Malting barley to Six-rowed Malting barley; and (6) applying
the current grade limits for other grains and wild oats to both Six-
and Two-rowed Malting barley.
Rather than combining the grading factors and limits for two- and
six-rowed malting types into one grading chart, GIPSA decided to
maintain a separate grading chart for the two-rowed malting type and
the six-rowed malting type because of their different grade limits and
grading factors. Also, GIPSA decided to retain the grading limits for
thins, damaged kernels, heat-damaged kernels, and foreign material in
the class Barley. In addition, GIPSA will continue to apply the current
grade limits in Six- rowed Malting barley for damaged kernels and other
grains only to Six-rowed Malting barley and continue to apply the
present limits in Two-rowed Malting barley for injured-by-mold, wild
oats, and mold damage only to Two-rowed Malting barley.
Pursuant to section 4(b)(1) of the United States Grain Standards
Act (7 U.S.C. 76(b)(1)), no standards established or amendments or
revocations of standards are to become effective less than one calendar
year after promulgation unless, in the judgment of the Administrator,
the public health, interest, or safety requires that they become
effective sooner. Pursuant to that section of the Act, it has been
determined that in the public interest the revision becomes effective
June 1, 1996. This effective date will coincide with the beginning of
the 1996 crop year and facilitate domestic and export marketing of
barley.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Parts 800 and 810

Administrative practice and procedure, Export, Grain.
For reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR Part 800 and 7 CFR
Part 810 are amended as follows:

PART 800--GENERAL REGULATIONS

1. The authority citation for Part 800 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Pub. L. 94-582, 90 Stat. 2867, as amended (7 U.S.C.
71 et seq.).

2. Section 800.86 (c)(2) Tables 1, 2, 3, and 4 are revised to read
as follows:

Sec. 800.86 Inspection of shiplot, unit train, and lash barge grain
in single lots.

* * * * *
(2) * * *

[[Page 18491]]

Table 1--Grade Limits (GL) and Breakpoints (BP) for Six-Rowed Malting Barley and Six-Rowed Blue Malting Barley
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum limits of-- Maximum limits of--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Skinned
Grade Test weight Suitable Sound barley Damaged Foreign Other and broken Thin
per bushel malting types (percent) \1\ kernels material grains kernels barley
(pounds) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GL BP GL BP GL BP GL BP GL BP GL BP GL BP GL BP
U.S. No. 1.................................. 47.0 -0.5 95.0 -1.3 97.0 -1.0 2.0 0.8 0.5 0.1 2.0 0.8 4.0 1.1 7.0 0.6
U.S. No. 2.................................. 45.0 -0.5 95.0 -1.3 94.0 -1.4 3.0 0.9 1.0 0.4 3.0 0.9 6.0 1.4 10.0 0.9
U.S. No. 3.................................. 43.0 -0.5 95.0 -1.3 90.0 -1.6 4.0 1.1 2.0 0.5 5.0 1.3 8.0 1.5 15.0 0.9
U.S. No. 4.................................. 43.0 -0.5 95.0 -1.3 87.0 -1.9 5.0 1.3 3.0 0.6 5.0 1.3 10.0 1.6 15.0 0.9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Injured-by-frost kernels and injured-by-mold kernels are not considered damaged kernels or considered against sound barley.

Table 2--Grade Limits (GL) and Breakpoints (BP) for Two-Rowed Malting Barley
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum limits of-- Maximum limits of--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grade Test weight Suitable Sound barley Foreign Skinned and
per bushel malting types \1\ (percent) Wild oats material broken kernels Thin barley
(pounds) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GL BP GL BP GL BP GL BP GL BP GL BP GL BP
U.S. No. 1.............................. 50.0 -0.5 97.0 -1.0 98.0 -0.8 1.0 0.6 0.5 0.1 5.0 1.3 5.0 0.4
U.S. No. 2.............................. 48.0 -0.5 97.0 -1.0 98.0 -0.8 1.0 0.6 1.0 0.4 7.0 1.3 7.0 0.5
U.S. No. 3.............................. 48.0 -0.5 95.0 -1.3 96.0 -1.1 2.0 0.8 2.0 0.5 10.0 1.8 10.0 0.9
U.S. No. 4.............................. 48.0 -0.5 95.0 -1.3 93.0 -1.1 3.0 0.9 3.0 0.6 10.0 1.8 10.0 0.9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Injured-by-frost kernels and injured-by-mold kernels are not considered damaged kernels or considered against sound barley.

Note: Malting barley shall not be infested in accordance with
Sec. 810.107(b) and shall not contain any special grades as defined
in Sec. 810.206. Six- and two-rowed barley varieties not meeting the
above requirements shall be graded in accordance with standards
established for the class Barley.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum limits of-- Maximum limits of--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grade Test weight Damaged Heat damaged Foreign
per bushel Sound barley kernels \1\ kernels material Broken kernels Thin barley
(pounds) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GL BP GL BP GL BP GL BP GL BP GL BP GL BP
U.S. No. 1.............................. 47.0 -0.5 97.0 -1.1 2.0 0.8 0.2 0.1 1.0 0.4 4.0 1.0 10.0 0.9
U.S. No. 2.............................. 45.0 -0.5 94.0 -1.4 4.0 1.0 0.3 0.1 2.0 0.4 8.0 1.5 15.0 0.9
U.S. No. 3.............................. 43.0 -0.5 90.0 -1.6 6.0 1.4 0.5 0.2 3.0 0.5 12.0 1.8 25.0 1.3
U.S. No. 4.............................. 40.0 -0.5 85.0 -2.2 8.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 4.0 0.5 18.0 1.8 35.0 1.9
U.S. No. 5.............................. 36.0 -0.5 75.0 -2.2 10.0 1.8 3.0 0.6 5.0 0.6 28.0 2.4 75.0 2.3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes heat-damaged kernels. Injured-by-frost kernels and injured-by-mold kernels are not considered damaged kernels.

Table 4-Breakpoints for Barley Special Grades and Factors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Special grade or factor Grade or range limit Breakpoint
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dockage.................... As specified by contract or 0.23
load order.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

PART 810--OFFICIAL UNITED STATES STANDARDS FOR GRAIN

3. The authority citation for Part 810 continues to read as
follows:

Authority: Pub. L. 94-582 90 Stat. 2867, as amended (7 U.S.C. 71
et seq.).

4.-5. Subpart A, section 810.104, paragraph (b), is amended by
revising the first and second sentences to read as follows:

Subpart A--General Provisions

* * * * *

Sec. 810.104 Percentages.

* * * * *
(b) Recording. The percentage of dockage in flaxseed, rye, and
sorghum is reported in whole percent with fractions of a percent being
disregarded. Dockage in barley and triticale is reported in whole and
half percent with a fraction less than one-half percent being
disregarded. * * *
* * * * *
6. Subpart B, section 810.202, paragraph (c), is revised and
paragraph (s), Stained barley, is removed. Paragraph (t), Suitable
malting type, is revised and redesignated as (s). Paragraph (u), Thin
barley, is revised and redesignated as (t). Paragraph (v), Wild oats,
is redesignated as (u) to read as follows:

Subpart B--U.S. Standards for Barley

* * * * *

Sec. 810.202 Definition of other terms.

* * * * *
(c) Classes. There are two classes of barley: Malting barley and
Barley.
(1) Malting barley. Barley of a six-rowed or two-rowed malting
type. The class Malting barley is divided into the following three
subclasses:
(i) Six-rowed Malting barley. Barley that has a minimum of 95.0
percent of a six-rowed suitable malting type that has 90.0 percent or
more of kernels with white aleurone layers that contains not more than
1.9 percent injured-by-frost kernels, 0.4 percent frost-damaged
kernels, 0.2 percent injured-by-heat kernels, and 0.1 percent heat-
damaged kernels. Six-rowed Malting barley shall not be infested,
blighted, ergoty, garlicky, or smutty as defined in Sec. 810.107(b) and
Sec. 810.206.
(ii) Six-rowed Blue Malting barley. Barley that has a minimum of
95.0 percent of a six-rowed suitable malting type that has 90.0 percent
or more of kernels with blue aleurone layers that contains not more
than 1.9 percent injured-by-frost kernels, 0.4 percent frost-damaged
kernels, 0.2 percent injured-by-heat kernels, and 0.1 percent heat-
damaged kernels. Six-rowed Blue Malting barley shall not be infested,

[[Page 18492]]

blighted, ergoty, garlicky, or smutty as defined in Sec. 810.107(b) and
Sec. 810.206.
(iii) Two-rowed Malting barley. Barley that has a minimum of 95.0
percent of a two-rowed suitable malting type that contains not more
than 1.9 percent injured-by-frost kernels, 0.4 percent frost-damaged
kernels, 0.2 percent injured-by-heat kernels, 0.1 percent heat-damaged
kernels, 1.9 percent injured-by-mold kernels, and 0.4 percent mold-
damaged kernels. Two-rowed Malting barley shall not be infested,
blighted, ergoty, garlicky, or smutty as defined in Sec. 810.107(b) and
Sec. 810.206.
(2) Barley. Any barley of a six-rowed or two-rowed type. The class
Barley is divided into the following three subclasses:
(i) Six-rowed barley. Any Six-rowed barley that contains not more
than 10.0 percent of two-rowed varieties.
(ii) Two-rowed barley. Any Two-rowed barley with white hulls that
contains not more than 10.0 percent of six-rowed varieties.
(iii) Barley. Any barley that does not meet the requirements for
the subclasses Six-rowed barley or Two-rowed barley.
* * * * *
(s) Suitable malting type. Varieties of malting barley that are
recommended by the American Malting Barley Association and other
malting type(s) used by the malting and brewing industry. The varieties
are listed in GIPSAs instructions.
(t) Thin barley. Thin barley shall be defined for the appropriate
class as follows:
(1) Malting barley. Six-rowed Malting barley that passes through a
\5/64\ x \3/4\ slotted-hole sieve and Two-rowed Malting barley which
passes through a ^{5.5/64 x \3/4\ slotted-hole sieve in
accordance with procedures prescribed in GIPSAs instructions.
(2) Barley. Six-rowed barley, Two-rowed barley, or Barley that
passes through a \5/64\ x \3/4\ slotted-hole sieve in accordance with
procedures prescribed in GIPSAs instructions.
* * * * *
7. Section 810.204 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 810.204 Grades and Grade Requirements for Six-rowed Malting
barley and Six-rowed Blue Malting barley.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum limits of-- Maximum limits of--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Test Skinned
Grade weight Suitable Sound Damaged Foreign Other and Thin
per malting barley kernels material grains broken barley
bushel types \1\ \1\ (percent) (percent) kernels (percent)
(pounds) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. No. 1..................................................... 47.0 95.0 97.0 2.0 0.5 2.0 4.0 7.0
U.S. No. 2..................................................... 45.0 95.0 94.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 6.0 10.0
U.S. No. 3..................................................... 43.0 95.0 90.0 4.0 2.0 5.0 8.0 15.0
U.S. No. 4..................................................... 43.0 95.0 87.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 10.0 15.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Injured-by-frost kernels and injured-by-mold kernels are not considered damaged kernels or considered against sound barley.

Notes: Malting barley shall not be infested in accordance with
Sec. 810.107(b) and shall not contain any special grades as defined
in Sec. 810.206. Six-rowed Malting barley and Six- rowed Blue
Malting barley varieties not meeting the requirements of this
section shall be graded in accordance with standards established for
the class Barley.
8. Section 810.205 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 810.205 Grades and Grade Requirements for Two-rowed Malting
barley.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum limits of-- Maximum limits of--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Suitable Skinned and
Grade Test weight malting Sound Wild oats Foreign broken Thin barley
per bushel types barley \1\ (percent) material kernels (percent)
(pounds) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. No. 1................................................... 50.0 97.0 98.0 1.0 0.5 5.0 5.0
U.S. No. 2................................................... 48.0 97.0 98.0 1.0 1.0 7.0 7.0
U.S. No. 3................................................... 48.0 95.0 96.0 2.0 2.0 10.0 10.0
U.S. No. 4................................................... 48.0 95.0 93.0 3.0 3.0 10.0 10.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Injured-by-frost kernels and injured-by-mold kernels are not considered damaged kernels or considered against sound barley.

Note: Malting barley shall not be infested in accordance with
Sec. 810.107(b) and shall not contain any special grades as defined
in Sec. 810.206. Two-rowed Malting barley varieties not meeting the
requirements of this section shall be graded in accordance with
standards established for the class Barley.

9. Section 810.206 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 810.206 Grades and Grade Requirements for Barley.

[[Page 18493]]

U.S. No. 5................................................... 36.0 75.0 10.0 3.0 5.0 28.0 75.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Sample Grade:
U.S. Sample grade shall be barley that:
(a) Does not meet the requirements for the grades 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5; or
(b) Contains 8 or more stones or any number of stones which have an aggregate weight in excess of 0.2 percent of the sample weight, 2 or more pieces of
glass, 3 or more crotalaria seeds (Crotalaria spp.), 2 or more caster beans (Ricinus communis L.), 4 or more particles of unknown foreign substance(s)
or commonly recognized harmful or toxic substance(s), 8 or more cocklebur (Xanthium spp.) or similar seeds singly or in combination, 10 or more rodent
pellets, bird droppings, or equivalent quantity of other animal filth per 1\1/8\ to 1\1/4\ quarts of barley; or
(c) Has a musty, sour, or commercially objectionable foreign odor (except smut or garlic odor); or
(d) Is heating or otherwise of distinctly low quality.
\1\ Includes heat-damaged kernels. Injured-by-frost kernels and injured-by-mold kernels are not considered damaged kernels.

Dated: April 8, 1996.
James R. Baker,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-10305 Filed 4-25-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-EN-P}