Beef Promotion and Research; Reapportionment, 4203-4206 [2017-00587]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 9 / Friday, January 13, 2017 / Proposed Rules
the master shipping container, or in a
document that accompanies the product
through retail sale. In addition, the
supplier of a covered commodity that is
responsible for initiating a country(ies)
of origin claim, which in the case of
lamb, chicken, goat, and venison is the
slaughter facility, must possess records
that are necessary to substantiate that
claim for a period of 1 year from the
date of the transaction. For that purpose,
packers that slaughter animals that are
tagged with an 840 Animal
Identification Number device without
the presence of any additional
accompanying marking (i.e., ‘‘CAN’’ or
‘‘M’’) may use that information as a
basis for a U.S. origin claim. Packers
that slaughter animals that are part of
another country’s recognized official
system (e.g. Canadian official system,
Mexico official system) may also rely on
the presence of an official ear tag or
other approved device on which to base
their origin claims. In the case of
cervidae, producer affidavits shall also
be considered acceptable records that
suppliers may utilize to initiate origin
claims, provided it is made by someone
having first-hand knowledge of the
origin of the covered commodity and
identifies the covered commodity
unique to the transaction.
*
*
*
*
*
Dated: January 9, 2017.
Bruce Summners,
Associate Administrator, Agricultural
Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 2017–00588 Filed 1–12–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–02–P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Part 1260
[No. AMS–LPS–16–0071]
Beef Promotion and Research;
Reapportionment
Agricultural Marketing Service,
USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
This proposed rule would
adjust representation on the Cattlemen’s
Beef Promotion and Research Board
(Board), established under the Beef
Promotion and Research Act of 1985
(Act), to reflect changes in domestic
cattle inventories since January 1, 2013,
as well as changes in levels of imported
cattle, beef, and beef products that have
occurred since December 31, 2012,
which were the cut-off dates for data
used by the Agricultural Marketing
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:35 Jan 12, 2017
Jkt 241001
Service (AMS) when the Board was last
reapportioned in July 2014. These
adjustments are required by the Beef
Promotion and Research Order (Order)
and, if adopted, would result in a
decrease in Board membership from 100
to 99, effective with the U.S.
Department of Agriculture’s (USDA)
appointments for terms beginning early
in the year 2018.
DATES: Submit comments on or before
March 14, 2017.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be posted
online at www.regulations.gov.
Comments received will be posted
without change, including any personal
information provided. All comments
should reference the docket number
AMS–LPS–16–0071, the date of
submission, and the page number of this
issue of the Federal Register. Comments
may also be sent to Mike Dinkel,
Agricultural Marketing Specialist;
Research and Promotion Division;
Livestock, Poultry, and Seed Program,
AMS, USDA; Room 2610–S, STOP 0249,
1400 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20250–0249; or via fax
to (202) 720–1125. Comments will be
made available for public inspection at
the above address during regular
business hours or via the Internet at
www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mike Dinkel, Research and Promotion
Division, at (301) 352–7497; fax (202)
720–1125; or by email at
Michael.Dinkel@ams.usda.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
direct agencies to assess all costs and
benefits of available regulatory
alternatives and, if regulation is
necessary, to select regulatory
approaches that maximize net benefits
(including potential economic,
environmental, public health and safety
effects, distributive impacts, and
equity). Executive Order 13563
emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits,
reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and
promoting flexibility. This rule has been
determined not to be significant for
purposes of Executive Order 12866 or
Executive Order 13563. Accordingly,
the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) has waived the review process.
Executive Order 12988
This proposed rule has been reviewed
under Executive Order 12988, Civil
Justice Reform. It is not intended to
have retroactive effect. The Act
prohibits states or political subdivisions
of a state to impose any requirement
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
4203
that is in addition to, or inconsistent
with, any requirement of the Act. There
are no civil justice implications
associated with this proposed rule.
Regulatory Flexibility Act and
Paperwork Reduction Act
Pursuant to the requirements set forth
in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
[5 U.S.C. 601–612], the Administrator of
AMS has considered the economic
effect of this action on small entities and
has determined that this proposed rule
would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The purpose of RFA is to fit
regulatory actions to the scale of
businesses subject to such actions in
order that small businesses will not be
unduly burdened.
In the February 2013 publication of
‘‘Farms, Land in Farms, and Livestock
Operations,’’ USDA’s National
Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS)
estimated that the number of operations
in the United States with cattle in 2012
totaled approximately 915,000, down
from 950,000 in 2009. There are
approximately 270 importers who
import beef or edible beef products into
the United States and 198 importers
who import live cattle into the United
States. It is estimated that the majority
of those operations subject to the Order
are considered small businesses under
the criteria established by the Small
Business Administration (SBA) [13 CFR
121.201]. SBA generally defines small
agricultural service firms as those
having annual receipts of $7.5 million
or less, and small agricultural producers
are generally defined as those having
annual receipts of less than $750,000.
The proposed rule imposes no new
burden on the industry. It only adjusts
representation on the Board to reflect
changes in domestic cattle inventory, as
well as in cattle and beef imports. The
adjustments are required by the Order
and would result in a decrease in Board
membership from 100 to 99.
AMS is committed to complying with
the E-Government Act of 2002 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.
USDA has not identified any relevant
federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or
conflict with this rule.
Background and Proposed Action
The Board was initially appointed on
August 4, 1986, pursuant to the
provisions of the Act [7 U.S.C. 2901–
2911] and the Order issued thereunder.
Domestic representation on the Board is
E:\FR\FM\13JAP1.SGM
13JAP1
4204
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 9 / Friday, January 13, 2017 / Proposed Rules
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
based on cattle inventory numbers,
while importer representation is based
on the conversion of the volume of
imported cattle, beef, and beef products
into live animal equivalencies.
Reapportionment
Section 1260.141(b) of the Order
provides that the Board shall be
composed of cattle producers and
importers appointed by the Secretary of
Agriculture from nominations submitted
by certified producer and importer
organizations. A producer may only be
nominated to represent the State or unit
in which that producer is a resident.
Section 1260.141(c) of the Order
provides that at least every 3 years, but
not more than every 2 years, the Board
shall review the geographic distribution
of cattle inventories throughout the
United States and the volume of
imported cattle, beef, and beef products
and, if warranted, shall reapportion
units and/or modify the number of
Board members from units in order to
reflect the geographic distribution of
cattle production volume in the United
States and the volume of cattle, beef, or
beef products imported into the United
States.
Section 1260.141(d) of the Order
authorizes the Board to recommend to
the Secretary modifications to the
number of cattle per unit necessary for
representation on the Board.
Section 1260.141(e)(1) provides that
each geographic unit or State that
includes a total cattle inventory equal to
or greater than 500,000 head of cattle
shall be entitled to one representative
on the Board. Section 1260.141(e)(2)
provides that States that do not have
total cattle inventories equal to or
greater than 500,000 head shall be
grouped, to the extent practicable, into
geographically-contiguous units, each of
which have a combined total inventory
of not less than 500,000 head. Such
grouped units are entitled to at least one
representative on the Board. Each unit
is entitled to an additional Board
member for each additional 1 million
head of cattle within the unit, as
provided in § 1260.141(e)(4). Further, as
provided in § 1260.141(e)(3), importers
are represented by a single unit, with
their number of Board members based
on a conversion of the total volume of
imported cattle, beef, or beef products
into live animal equivalencies.
The initial Board appointed in 1986
was composed of 113 members.
Reapportionment, based on a 3-year
average of cattle inventory numbers and
import data, reduced the Board to 111
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:35 Jan 12, 2017
Jkt 241001
members in 1990 and to 107 members
in 1993 before the Board was increased
back to 111 members in 1996. The
Board decreased to 110 members in
1999, 108 members in 2001, and 104
members in 2005; increased to 106
members in 2009; decreased to 103
members in 2011; and decreased to 100
members in 2013. This proposal would
amend § 1260.141(a) by increasing the
importers from 6 to 7 members,
decreasing the State of Virginia from 2
members to 1 member and decreasing
the State of Texas from 13 to 12
members. Overall, if adopted, it would
decrease the number of Board members
from 100 to 99, with appointments for
terms effective early in 2018.
The currently proposed, updated
Board representation by States or
geographic units is based on an average
of the January 1, 2011, 2012, and 2013
inventory of cattle in the various States
as reported by NASS. The proposed
importer representation would be based
on a combined total average of the 2011,
2012, and 2013 live cattle imports as
published by USDA’s Foreign
Agricultural Service and the average of
the 2011, 2012, and 2013 live animal
equivalents for imported beef and beef
products.
In considering reapportionment, the
Board reviewed cattle inventories on the
date January 1 in 2014, 2015, and 2016,
as well as cattle, beef, and beef product
import data for the period of January 1,
2013, to December 31, 2015. The Board
recommended that a 3-year average of
cattle inventories and import numbers
should be continued. The Board
determined that an average of the
January 1, 2014, 2015, and 2016 cattle
inventory numbers would best reflect
the number of cattle in each state or unit
since publication of the last
reapportionment rule published in 2014
[79 FR 46961]. The Board reviewed data
published by the USDA’s Economic
Research Service to determine proper
importer representation. The Board
recommended the use of the average of
a combined total of the 2013, 2014, and
2015 cattle import data and the average
of the 2013, 2014, and 2015 live animal
equivalents for imported beef products.
The method used to calculate the total
number of live animal equivalents was
the same as that used in the previous
reapportionment of the Board. The live
animal equivalent weight was changed
in 2006 from 509 pounds to 592 pounds
[71 FR 47074].
The Board’s recommended
reapportionment plan, if adopted,
would decrease the number of
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
representatives on the Board from 100 to
99. From the Board’s analysis of USDA
cattle inventories and import
equivalencies, Virginia would lose one
Board seat and Texas would lose one
Board seat. The importers would gain
one Board seat.
The States and units affected by the
reapportionment plan and the current
and proposed member representation
per unit are as follows:
State/unit
Virginia ..............
Texas ................
Importers ...........
Current
representation
Revised
representation
2
13
6
1
12
7
The Board reapportionment as
proposed by this rulemaking would take
effect, if adopted, with appointments to
fill positions early in the year 2018.
A 60-day comment period is provided
to allow interested persons to respond
to this proposal. Thirty days is deemed
appropriate to facilitate the adjustment
of the representation on the Board,
which is required by the Order at least
every 3 years but not more than every
2 years, and to allow for the annual
nomination and appointment process
for Board appointments that will be
effective early in 2018.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1260
Administrative practice and
procedure, Advertising, Agricultural
research, Imports, Meat and meat
products, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, AMS proposes to amend 7
CFR part 1260 as follows:
PART 1260—BEEF PROMOTION AND
RESEARCH
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR
part 1260 continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 2901–2911 and 7
U.S.C. 7401.
2. Revise § 1260.141 paragraph (a) and
the table immediately following to read
as follows:
■
§ 1260.141
Membership of Board.
(a) Beginning with the 2017 Board
nominations and the associated
appointments effective early in the year
2018, the United States shall be divided
into 37 geographical units and 1 unit
representing importers, for a total of 38
units. The number of Board members
from each unit shall be as follows:
E:\FR\FM\13JAP1.SGM
13JAP1
4205
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 9 / Friday, January 13, 2017 / Proposed Rules
CATTLE AND CALVES 1
(1,000 head)
Directors
1. Arizona .................................................................................................................................................................
2. Arkansas ..............................................................................................................................................................
3. Colorado ..............................................................................................................................................................
4. Florida ..................................................................................................................................................................
5. Idaho ....................................................................................................................................................................
6. Illinois ...................................................................................................................................................................
7. Indiana .................................................................................................................................................................
8. Iowa .....................................................................................................................................................................
9. Kansas .................................................................................................................................................................
10. Kentucky ............................................................................................................................................................
11. Louisiana ...........................................................................................................................................................
12. Michigan ............................................................................................................................................................
13. Minnesota ..........................................................................................................................................................
14. Mississippi .........................................................................................................................................................
15. Missouri .............................................................................................................................................................
16. Montana .............................................................................................................................................................
17. Nebraska ...........................................................................................................................................................
18. New Mexico .......................................................................................................................................................
19. New York ...........................................................................................................................................................
20. North Carolina ...................................................................................................................................................
21. North Dakota .....................................................................................................................................................
22. Ohio ...................................................................................................................................................................
23. Oklahoma ..........................................................................................................................................................
24. Oregon ...............................................................................................................................................................
25. Pennsylvania .....................................................................................................................................................
26. South Dakota .....................................................................................................................................................
27. Tennessee .........................................................................................................................................................
28. Texas .................................................................................................................................................................
29. Utah ...................................................................................................................................................................
30. Virginia ...............................................................................................................................................................
31. Wisconsin ..........................................................................................................................................................
32. Wyoming ............................................................................................................................................................
33. Northwest ...........................................................................................................................................................
Alaska ...............................................................................................................................................................
Hawaii ...............................................................................................................................................................
Washington .......................................................................................................................................................
900
1,660
2,600
1,680
2,307
1,143
873
3,867
5,983
2,110
787
1,133
2,347
923
3,983
2,567
6,317
1,340
1,450
803
1,697
1,243
4,567
1,300
1,580
3,783
1,770
11,500
807
1,487
3,467
1,293
........................
10
135
1,137
1
2
3
2
2
1
1
4
6
2
1
1
2
1
4
3
6
1
1
1
2
1
5
1
2
4
2
12
1
1
3
1
1
........................
........................
........................
Total ...........................................................................................................................................................
34. Northeast ...........................................................................................................................................................
Connecticut .......................................................................................................................................................
Delaware ...........................................................................................................................................................
Maine ................................................................................................................................................................
Massachusetts ..................................................................................................................................................
New Hampshire ................................................................................................................................................
New Jersey .......................................................................................................................................................
Rhode Island ....................................................................................................................................................
Vermont ............................................................................................................................................................
1,282
........................
48
16
84
38
32
28
5
260
........................
1
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
Total ...........................................................................................................................................................
35. Mid-Atlantic ........................................................................................................................................................
Maryland ...........................................................................................................................................................
West Virginia ....................................................................................................................................................
511
........................
186
382
........................
1
........................
........................
Total ...........................................................................................................................................................
36. Southeast ...........................................................................................................................................................
Alabama ............................................................................................................................................................
Georgia .............................................................................................................................................................
South Carolina ..................................................................................................................................................
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
State/unit
567
........................
1,240
1,057
337
........................
3
........................
........................
........................
Total ...........................................................................................................................................................
37. Southwest ..........................................................................................................................................................
California ...........................................................................................................................................................
Nevada .............................................................................................................................................................
2,633
........................
5,183
442
........................
6
........................
........................
Total ...........................................................................................................................................................
38. Importers 2 .........................................................................................................................................................
5,625
6,949
........................
7
1 2014,
2 2013,
2015, and 2016 average of January 1 cattle inventory data.
2014, and 2015 average of annual import data.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:35 Jan 12, 2017
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\13JAP1.SGM
13JAP1
4206
*
*
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 9 / Friday, January 13, 2017 / Proposed Rules
*
*
*
Dated: January 9, 2017.
Elanor Starmer,
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing
Service.
[FR Doc. 2017–00587 Filed 1–12–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–02–P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Office of Procurement and Property
Management
7 CFR Part 3201
RIN 0599–AA24
Designation of Product Categories for
Federal Procurement
Office of Procurement and
Property Management, USDA.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) is proposing to
amend the Guidelines for Designating
Biobased Products for Federal
Procurement (Guidelines) to add 12
sections that will designate 12 product
categories composed of intermediate
ingredient and feedstock materials
within which biobased products would
be afforded procurement preference by
Federal agencies and their contractors.
USDA is also proposing minimum
biobased contents for each of these
product categories.
DATES: USDA will accept public
comments on this proposed rule until
March 14, 2017.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by any of the following methods. All
submissions received must include the
agency name and Regulatory
Information Number (RIN). The RIN for
this rulemaking is 0599–AA24. Also,
please identify submittals as pertaining
to the ‘‘Proposed Designation of Product
Categories.’’
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Email: biopreferred_support@
amecfw.com. Include RIN number
0599–AA24 and ‘‘Proposed Designation
of Product Categories’’ on the subject
line. Please include your name and
address in your message.
• Mail/commercial/hand delivery:
Mail or deliver your comments to: Marie
Wheat, USDA, Office of Procurement
and Property Management, Room 361,
Reporters Building, 300 7th St. SW.,
Washington, DC 20024.
• Persons with disabilities who
require alternative means for
communication for regulatory
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:35 Jan 12, 2017
Jkt 241001
information (Braille, large print,
audiotape, etc.) should contact the
USDA TARGET Center at (202) 720–
2600 (voice) and (202) 690–0942 (TTY).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Marie Wheat, USDA, Office of
Procurement and Property Management,
Room 361, Reporters Building, 300 7th
St. SW., Washington, DC 20024; email:
biopreferred_support@amecfw.com;
phone (202) 239–4502. Information
regarding the Federal preferred
procurement program (one initiative of
the BioPreferred Program) is available
on the Internet at https://
www.biopreferred.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
information presented in this preamble
is organized as follows:
I. Authority
II. Background
III. Summary of Today’s Proposed Rule
IV. Designation of Product Categories,
Minimum Biobased Contents, and Time
Frame
A. Background
B. Product Categories and Minimum
Biobased Contents Proposed for
Designation
C. Compliance Date for Procurement
Preference and Incorporation Into
Specifications
V. Where can agencies get more information
on these USDA-designated product
categories?
VI. Regulatory Information
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
C. Executive Order 12630: Governmental
Actions and Interference With
Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights
D. Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice
Reform
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
G. Executive Order 12372:
Intergovernmental Review of Federal
Programs
H. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
I. Paperwork Reduction Act
J. E-Government Act
I. Authority
The designation of these product
categories is proposed under the
authority of section 9002 of the Farm
Security and Rural Investment Act of
2002 (the 2002 Farm Bill), as amended
by the Food, Conservation, and Energy
Act of 2008 (the 2008 Farm Bill), and
further amended by the Agricultural Act
of 2014 (the 2014 Farm Bill), 7 U.S.C.
8102. (Section 9002 of the 2002 Farm
Bill, as amended by the 2008 and the
2014 Farm Bills, is referred to in this
document as ‘‘section 9002’’.)
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
II. Background
Section 9002 provides for the
preferred procurement of biobased
products by Federal procuring agencies
and is referred to hereafter in this
Federal Register notice as the ‘‘Federal
preferred procurement program.’’ Under
the provisions specified in the
‘‘Guidelines for Designating Biobased
Products for Federal Procurement’’ (7
CFR part 3201) (Guidelines), the USDA
BioPreferred Program ‘‘designates’’
product categories to which the
preferred procurement requirements
apply by listing them in subpart B of 7
CFR part 3201.
The term ‘‘product category’’ is used
as a generic term in the designation
process to mean a grouping of specific
products that perform a similar
function. As originally finalized, the
Guidelines included provisions for the
designation of product categories that
were composed of finished, consumer
products such as mobile equipment
hydraulic fluids, penetrating lubricants,
or hand cleaners and sanitizers.
The 2008 and 2014 Farm Bills
directed USDA to expand the scope of
the Guidelines to include the
designation of product categories
composed of intermediate ingredients
and feedstock materials. Specifically,
the 2008 Farm Bill stated that USDA
shall ‘‘designate those intermediate
ingredients and feedstocks that are or
can be used to produce items that will
be subject’’ to the Federal preferred
procurement program. The term
‘‘intermediate ingredient and feedstock’’
is defined in the Farm Bill as ‘‘a
material or compound made in whole or
in significant part from biological
products, including renewable
agricultural materials (including plant,
animal, and marine materials) or
forestry materials, that are subsequently
used to make a more complex
compound or product.’’ The term
‘‘intermediates’’ is used in the titles of
the product categories being proposed
for designation today to distinguish
these proposed categories from the
finished, consumer products previously
designated by USDA. Additionally, in
section 9001 of the 2014 Farm Bill, the
term ‘‘renewable chemical’’ is defined
as ‘‘a monomer, polymer, plastic,
formulated product, or chemical
substance produced from renewable
biomass.’’ Thus, most products that are
described as ‘‘renewable chemicals’’
will be eligible for the Federal preferred
procurement program because they meet
the definition of one or more of the
intermediate product categories
included in today’s proposed rule.
E:\FR\FM\13JAP1.SGM
13JAP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 9 (Friday, January 13, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 4203-4206]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-00587]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Part 1260
[No. AMS-LPS-16-0071]
Beef Promotion and Research; Reapportionment
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This proposed rule would adjust representation on the
Cattlemen's Beef Promotion and Research Board (Board), established
under the Beef Promotion and Research Act of 1985 (Act), to reflect
changes in domestic cattle inventories since January 1, 2013, as well
as changes in levels of imported cattle, beef, and beef products that
have occurred since December 31, 2012, which were the cut-off dates for
data used by the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) when the Board
was last reapportioned in July 2014. These adjustments are required by
the Beef Promotion and Research Order (Order) and, if adopted, would
result in a decrease in Board membership from 100 to 99, effective with
the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) appointments for terms
beginning early in the year 2018.
DATES: Submit comments on or before March 14, 2017.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be posted online at www.regulations.gov.
Comments received will be posted without change, including any personal
information provided. All comments should reference the docket number
AMS-LPS-16-0071, the date of submission, and the page number of this
issue of the Federal Register. Comments may also be sent to Mike
Dinkel, Agricultural Marketing Specialist; Research and Promotion
Division; Livestock, Poultry, and Seed Program, AMS, USDA; Room 2610-S,
STOP 0249, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-0249; or
via fax to (202) 720-1125. Comments will be made available for public
inspection at the above address during regular business hours or via
the Internet at www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mike Dinkel, Research and Promotion
Division, at (301) 352-7497; fax (202) 720-1125; or by email at
Michael.Dinkel@ams.usda.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public
health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive
Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and
benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility.
This rule has been determined not to be significant for purposes of
Executive Order 12866 or Executive Order 13563. Accordingly, the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) has waived the review process.
Executive Order 12988
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988,
Civil Justice Reform. It is not intended to have retroactive effect.
The Act prohibits states or political subdivisions of a state to impose
any requirement that is in addition to, or inconsistent with, any
requirement of the Act. There are no civil justice implications
associated with this proposed rule.
Regulatory Flexibility Act and Paperwork Reduction Act
Pursuant to the requirements set forth in the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA) [5 U.S.C. 601-612], the Administrator of AMS has
considered the economic effect of this action on small entities and has
determined that this proposed rule would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The purpose
of RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject
to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly
burdened.
In the February 2013 publication of ``Farms, Land in Farms, and
Livestock Operations,'' USDA's National Agricultural Statistics Service
(NASS) estimated that the number of operations in the United States
with cattle in 2012 totaled approximately 915,000, down from 950,000 in
2009. There are approximately 270 importers who import beef or edible
beef products into the United States and 198 importers who import live
cattle into the United States. It is estimated that the majority of
those operations subject to the Order are considered small businesses
under the criteria established by the Small Business Administration
(SBA) [13 CFR 121.201]. SBA generally defines small agricultural
service firms as those having annual receipts of $7.5 million or less,
and small agricultural producers are generally defined as those having
annual receipts of less than $750,000.
The proposed rule imposes no new burden on the industry. It only
adjusts representation on the Board to reflect changes in domestic
cattle inventory, as well as in cattle and beef imports. The
adjustments are required by the Order and would result in a decrease in
Board membership from 100 to 99.
AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act of 2002 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.
USDA has not identified any relevant federal rules that duplicate,
overlap, or conflict with this rule.
Background and Proposed Action
The Board was initially appointed on August 4, 1986, pursuant to
the provisions of the Act [7 U.S.C. 2901-2911] and the Order issued
thereunder. Domestic representation on the Board is
[[Page 4204]]
based on cattle inventory numbers, while importer representation is
based on the conversion of the volume of imported cattle, beef, and
beef products into live animal equivalencies.
Reapportionment
Section 1260.141(b) of the Order provides that the Board shall be
composed of cattle producers and importers appointed by the Secretary
of Agriculture from nominations submitted by certified producer and
importer organizations. A producer may only be nominated to represent
the State or unit in which that producer is a resident.
Section 1260.141(c) of the Order provides that at least every 3
years, but not more than every 2 years, the Board shall review the
geographic distribution of cattle inventories throughout the United
States and the volume of imported cattle, beef, and beef products and,
if warranted, shall reapportion units and/or modify the number of Board
members from units in order to reflect the geographic distribution of
cattle production volume in the United States and the volume of cattle,
beef, or beef products imported into the United States.
Section 1260.141(d) of the Order authorizes the Board to recommend
to the Secretary modifications to the number of cattle per unit
necessary for representation on the Board.
Section 1260.141(e)(1) provides that each geographic unit or State
that includes a total cattle inventory equal to or greater than 500,000
head of cattle shall be entitled to one representative on the Board.
Section 1260.141(e)(2) provides that States that do not have total
cattle inventories equal to or greater than 500,000 head shall be
grouped, to the extent practicable, into geographically-contiguous
units, each of which have a combined total inventory of not less than
500,000 head. Such grouped units are entitled to at least one
representative on the Board. Each unit is entitled to an additional
Board member for each additional 1 million head of cattle within the
unit, as provided in Sec. 1260.141(e)(4). Further, as provided in
Sec. 1260.141(e)(3), importers are represented by a single unit, with
their number of Board members based on a conversion of the total volume
of imported cattle, beef, or beef products into live animal
equivalencies.
The initial Board appointed in 1986 was composed of 113 members.
Reapportionment, based on a 3-year average of cattle inventory numbers
and import data, reduced the Board to 111 members in 1990 and to 107
members in 1993 before the Board was increased back to 111 members in
1996. The Board decreased to 110 members in 1999, 108 members in 2001,
and 104 members in 2005; increased to 106 members in 2009; decreased to
103 members in 2011; and decreased to 100 members in 2013. This
proposal would amend Sec. 1260.141(a) by increasing the importers from
6 to 7 members, decreasing the State of Virginia from 2 members to 1
member and decreasing the State of Texas from 13 to 12 members.
Overall, if adopted, it would decrease the number of Board members from
100 to 99, with appointments for terms effective early in 2018.
The currently proposed, updated Board representation by States or
geographic units is based on an average of the January 1, 2011, 2012,
and 2013 inventory of cattle in the various States as reported by NASS.
The proposed importer representation would be based on a combined total
average of the 2011, 2012, and 2013 live cattle imports as published by
USDA's Foreign Agricultural Service and the average of the 2011, 2012,
and 2013 live animal equivalents for imported beef and beef products.
In considering reapportionment, the Board reviewed cattle
inventories on the date January 1 in 2014, 2015, and 2016, as well as
cattle, beef, and beef product import data for the period of January 1,
2013, to December 31, 2015. The Board recommended that a 3-year average
of cattle inventories and import numbers should be continued. The Board
determined that an average of the January 1, 2014, 2015, and 2016
cattle inventory numbers would best reflect the number of cattle in
each state or unit since publication of the last reapportionment rule
published in 2014 [79 FR 46961]. The Board reviewed data published by
the USDA's Economic Research Service to determine proper importer
representation. The Board recommended the use of the average of a
combined total of the 2013, 2014, and 2015 cattle import data and the
average of the 2013, 2014, and 2015 live animal equivalents for
imported beef products. The method used to calculate the total number
of live animal equivalents was the same as that used in the previous
reapportionment of the Board. The live animal equivalent weight was
changed in 2006 from 509 pounds to 592 pounds [71 FR 47074].
The Board's recommended reapportionment plan, if adopted, would
decrease the number of representatives on the Board from 100 to 99.
From the Board's analysis of USDA cattle inventories and import
equivalencies, Virginia would lose one Board seat and Texas would lose
one Board seat. The importers would gain one Board seat.
The States and units affected by the reapportionment plan and the
current and proposed member representation per unit are as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Revised
State/unit representation representation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Virginia................................ 2 1
Texas................................... 13 12
Importers............................... 6 7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Board reapportionment as proposed by this rulemaking would take
effect, if adopted, with appointments to fill positions early in the
year 2018.
A 60-day comment period is provided to allow interested persons to
respond to this proposal. Thirty days is deemed appropriate to
facilitate the adjustment of the representation on the Board, which is
required by the Order at least every 3 years but not more than every 2
years, and to allow for the annual nomination and appointment process
for Board appointments that will be effective early in 2018.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1260
Administrative practice and procedure, Advertising, Agricultural
research, Imports, Meat and meat products, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, AMS proposes to amend 7
CFR part 1260 as follows:
PART 1260--BEEF PROMOTION AND RESEARCH
0
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 1260 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 2901-2911 and 7 U.S.C. 7401.
0
2. Revise Sec. 1260.141 paragraph (a) and the table immediately
following to read as follows:
Sec. 1260.141 Membership of Board.
(a) Beginning with the 2017 Board nominations and the associated
appointments effective early in the year 2018, the United States shall
be divided into 37 geographical units and 1 unit representing
importers, for a total of 38 units. The number of Board members from
each unit shall be as follows:
[[Page 4205]]
Cattle and Calves \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State/unit (1,000 head) Directors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Arizona.............................. 900 1
2. Arkansas............................. 1,660 2
3. Colorado............................. 2,600 3
4. Florida.............................. 1,680 2
5. Idaho................................ 2,307 2
6. Illinois............................. 1,143 1
7. Indiana.............................. 873 1
8. Iowa................................. 3,867 4
9. Kansas............................... 5,983 6
10. Kentucky............................ 2,110 2
11. Louisiana........................... 787 1
12. Michigan............................ 1,133 1
13. Minnesota........................... 2,347 2
14. Mississippi......................... 923 1
15. Missouri............................ 3,983 4
16. Montana............................. 2,567 3
17. Nebraska............................ 6,317 6
18. New Mexico.......................... 1,340 1
19. New York............................ 1,450 1
20. North Carolina...................... 803 1
21. North Dakota........................ 1,697 2
22. Ohio................................ 1,243 1
23. Oklahoma............................ 4,567 5
24. Oregon.............................. 1,300 1
25. Pennsylvania........................ 1,580 2
26. South Dakota........................ 3,783 4
27. Tennessee........................... 1,770 2
28. Texas............................... 11,500 12
29. Utah................................ 807 1
30. Virginia............................ 1,487 1
31. Wisconsin........................... 3,467 3
32. Wyoming............................. 1,293 1
33. Northwest........................... .............. 1
Alaska.............................. 10 ..............
Hawaii.............................. 135 ..............
Washington.......................... 1,137 ..............
----------------
Total........................... 1,282 ..............
34. Northeast........................... .............. 1
Connecticut......................... 48 ..............
Delaware............................ 16 ..............
Maine............................... 84 ..............
Massachusetts....................... 38 ..............
New Hampshire....................... 32 ..............
New Jersey.......................... 28 ..............
Rhode Island........................ 5 ..............
Vermont............................. 260 ..............
----------------
Total........................... 511 ..............
35. Mid-Atlantic........................ .............. 1
Maryland............................ 186 ..............
West Virginia....................... 382 ..............
----------------
Total........................... 567 ..............
36. Southeast........................... .............. 3
Alabama............................. 1,240 ..............
Georgia............................. 1,057 ..............
South Carolina...................... 337 ..............
----------------
Total........................... 2,633 ..............
37. Southwest........................... .............. 6
California.......................... 5,183 ..............
Nevada.............................. 442 ..............
----------------
Total........................... 5,625 ..............
38. Importers \2\....................... 6,949 7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 2014, 2015, and 2016 average of January 1 cattle inventory data.
\2\ 2013, 2014, and 2015 average of annual import data.
[[Page 4206]]
* * * * *
Dated: January 9, 2017.
Elanor Starmer,
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-00587 Filed 1-12-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
