United States Standards for Soybeans

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