[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 70 (Wednesday, April 11, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 21685-21690]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing 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 http://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 [email protected].

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