Beef Promotion and Research Order; Reapportionment and Technical Amendment, 76097-76102 [2023-24395]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
76097
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
Vol. 88, No. 213
Monday, November 6, 2023
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains regulatory documents having general
applicability and legal effect, most of which
are keyed to and codified in the Code of
Federal Regulations, which is published under
50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by
the Superintendent of Documents.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Part 1260
[Doc. No. AMS–LP–22–0002]
Beef Promotion and Research Order;
Reapportionment and Technical
Amendment
Agricultural Marketing Service,
USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
This rule adjusts
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 as well as changes in levels
of imported cattle, beef, and beef
products that have occurred since the
Board was last reapportioned in July
2020. These adjustments are required by
the Beef Promotion and Research Order
(Order) and will result in a decrease in
Board membership from 101 to 99,
effective with the Secretary of
Agriculture’s (Secretary) appointments
from nominees requested in Spring of
2023. This final rule also updates the
list of Qualified State Beef Councils
(QSBCs) in the Order by removing the
Maryland Beef Industry Council which
voted to dissolve their State beef
council.
SUMMARY:
DATES:
This rule is effective December 6,
2023.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Lacey Heddlesten, Agricultural
Marketing Specialist, Research and
Promotion Division, Telephone: (620)
717–3834; or Email: Lacey.Heddlesten@
usda.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Orders 12866, 14094 and
13563
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
direct agencies to assess all costs and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:25 Nov 03, 2023
Jkt 262001
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. Executive Order
14094 reaffirms, supplements, and
updates Executive Order 12866 and
further directs agencies to solicit and
consider input from a wide range of
affected and interested parties through a
variety of means. This rule is not a
significant regulatory action within the
meaning of Executive Order 12866.
Accordingly, this action has not been
reviewed by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) under section 6 of
the Executive Order.
Executive Order 12988
This rule has been reviewed under
E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform and it
is not intended to have retroactive
effect.
Section 11 of the Act (7 U.S.C. 2910)
provides that nothing in the Act may be
construed to preempt or supersede any
other program relating to beef
promotion organized and operated
under the laws of the U.S. or any State.
There are no administrative proceedings
that must be exhausted prior to any
judicial challenge to the provisions of
this rule.
Executive Order 13175
This rule has been reviewed under
Executive Order 13175, Consultation
and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, which requires agencies
to consider whether their rulemaking
actions would have Tribal implications.
AMS has determined this proposed rule
is unlikely to have substantial direct
effects on one or more Indian Tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian Tribes, or on
the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian Tribes.
Congressional Review Act
Pursuant to the Congressional Review
Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs
designated this rule as not a major rule,
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with OMB regulations
(5 CFR part 1320) that implement the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 35), the information collection
and recordkeeping requirements
contained in the Order and
accompanying Rules and Regulations
have previously been approved by OMB
and were assigned OMB control number
0581–0093.
Background
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
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
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. Further, § 1260.141(d) allows the
board to recommend to the Secretary a
modification in the number of cattle per
unit necessary for representation of
Board seats.
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
E:\FR\FM\06NOR1.SGM
06NOR1
76098
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 213 / Monday, November 6, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
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.
Section 1260.141(f) of the Order states
in determining the volume of cattle
within the units, the Board and the
Secretary shall utilize the information
received by the Board pursuant to
§§ 1260.201 and 1260.202 industry data
and data published by USDA. The
producer representation is based on an
average of the inventory of cattle in the
various States on January 1 in 2020,
2021, and 2022 as reported by USDA’s
National Agricultural Statistics Service
(NASS). The importer representation is
based on a combined total average of the
2019, 2020, and 2021 live cattle imports
as published by USDA’s Economic
Research Service (ERS) and the average
of the 2019, 2020, and 2021 live animal
equivalents for imported beef and beef
products.
In considering reapportionment, the
Board reviewed cattle inventories as of
January 1 in 2020, 2021, and 2022, as
well as cattle, beef, and beef product
import data for the period of January 1,
2019, to December 31, 2021. The Board
determined that an average of the
inventory of cattle on January 1 in 2020,
2021, and 2022 best reflect the number
of cattle in each State or unit since
publication of the last reapportionment
rule in 2020 (85 FR 39461). The Board
reviewed data published by ERS to
determine proper importer
representation. The Board
recommended the use of the average of
State/unit
Increase/decrease
Idaho ..........................................................................................................................
Montana .....................................................................................................................
Pennsylvania ..............................................................................................................
Wisconsin ...................................................................................................................
Net Change ................................................................................................................
The Board reapportionment takes
effect in the 2023 nomination process
and the number of board members the
Secretary appointments to fill positions
early in the year 2024 will reduce from
101 to 99.
Technical Amendment
The final rule updates the list of
QSBCs in the Order by removing the
Maryland Beef Industry Council which
unanimously voted to dissolve their
State beef council during the September
14, 2022, board meeting.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Summary of Comments
AMS published the proposed rule for
public comment on May 1, 2023 (88 FR
27415). The comment period ended on
June 1, 2023. AMS received 12 timely
comments. AMS conducted a review of
the comments and determined that three
of the twelve comments were outside
the scope of the rulemaking. Of the
remaining nine comments, AMS
analyzed the comments and grouped
them into the below categories.
Unforeseen Events
Several of the comments mentioned
the COVID–19 pandemic and the
drought’s impact on the beef industry.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:25 Nov 03, 2023
Jkt 262001
a combined total of the 2019, 2020, and
2021 cattle import data and the average
of the 2019, 2020, and 2021 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).
As discussed in the proposed rule, the
Board’s recommended reapportionment
plan would decrease the number of
representatives on the Board from 101 to
100. Based on the Board’s
recommendation, Idaho would gain one
seat, Montana would lose one seat,
Pennsylvania would lose one seat, and
Wisconsin would maintain their four
seats. This final rule, however, results in
Wisconsin losing one seat. The States
and units affected by the
reapportionment plan and the current
and revised representation per unit are
as follows:
+1
¥1
¥1
¥1
¥2
The majority of the comments
received were a form letter opposing
Wisconsin losing a seat and arguing
several factors including that the
pandemic caused record low milk
prices. During the early part of the
pandemic, dairy producers in
Wisconsin faced a surplus of milk
because of the rapid decrease in price.
In addition, three producers and seven
cattle, dairy, and farm associations in
Wisconsin, stated that the average milk
prices paid to Wisconsin farmers in
2020 were $18.90, in 2021 it was $17.10,
and by May of 2022 the price of milk
was up to $25.21. Further the
commenters stated that due to increases
in milk price, dairy cow numbers are
expected to continue to grow;
potentially, by January 31—putting
Wisconsin herd size back over 3.5
million.
In response, USDA acknowledges that
a pandemic was in place from
approximately from March 2020 to May
2023, which caused unforeseen
industry-wide supply chain issues. The
pandemic not only impacted the state of
Wisconsin but has had a significant
impact on a large portion of the U.S. and
the U.S. farming and cattle industry.
Thus, to only consider the impact of the
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Current
representation
Revised
representation
2
3
2
4
..............................
3
2
1
3
..............................
pandemic on one state and not the
entire cattle industry nationwide would
create an inequity. Accordingly, USDA
takes the position that as an industry the
impact is widespread and thus the
numbers as presented for cattle
inventories as of January 1 in 2020,
2021, and 2022, are the fairest and most
accurate representation of the current
industry numbers.
Another commenter argued that the
drought negatively impacted herd
numbers in the state because it changed
Wisconsin’s place in the cattle
production cycle.
USDA acknowledges that for the
reapportionment that took place on
August 12, 2014 (79 FR 46961) for
appointments that were seated in 2015,
at that time the drought that had taken
place in Texas was taken into
consideration. Texas was slated to lose
two board seats due to cattle inventory
decease related to a three-year loss of
cattle inventory due to severe drought.
Due to the turnaround in environmental
and economic conditions along with
reports indicating that cattle were
moving back into Texas from other
states and the total herd inventory
would be back up prior to
reapportionment taking place, the
E:\FR\FM\06NOR1.SGM
06NOR1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 213 / Monday, November 6, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
USDA issued only a loss of one seat
rather than two as was outlined in the
proposed rule.
However, it is important to note that
in the 2015 reapportionment the
environmental factors, in that case the
drought, significantly impacted one
state in particular, Texas and lasted
several years spanning from 2011 to
2013, with 2011 being one of the worst
droughts in the State’s history. In
contrast, under the current
circumstances, a large portion of the
United States was impacted by drought
over the past 3 years which affected the
entire cattle inventory. According to the
USDA, Economic Research Service
(ERS), the Western States experienced
extreme or exceptional drought and, in
some cases, severe drought conditions
the past few years, with the most severe
conditions being reported in Nebraska,
Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico,
and Oregon. Based on this data, it is
clear that the current drought conditions
have not only impacted the state of
Wisconsin but has had a significant
impact on a large portion of the U.S. and
the U.S. farming and cattle industry.
Thus, to only consider the impact of the
drought on one state and not the entire
cattle industry nationwide would create
an inequity. Accordingly, USDA takes
the position that as an industry the
impact is widespread and thus the
numbers as presented for cattle
inventories as of January 1 in 2020,
2021, and 2022, are the fairest and most
accurate representation of the current
industry numbers.
One comment opposed Montana
losing a seat similarly arguing that the
drought impacted the number of herds
in the state. They claimed, prior to the
drought, herd numbers had been
consistent since the 1980’s. The drought
caused a dip in 2021 and 2022;
however, 2023 spring moisture has been
promising for pastures. Further,
according to the commentor, there is
indication that Montana producers are
starting to rebuild their herd and it is
possible that Montana will be above 2.5
million again before the final rule goes
into effect.
Again, USDA acknowledges that a
large portion of the United States was
impacted by drought over the past 3
years which impacted cattle inventory
and again points out that in the previous
reapportionment the environmental
factors, in that case the drought,
significantly impacted one state in
particular, Texas and lasted several
years spanning from 2011 to 2013, with
2011 being one of the worst droughts in
the State’s history. Once more, based on
data provided by the USDA ERS, it is
clear that the current drought conditions
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:25 Nov 03, 2023
Jkt 262001
have not only impacted the state of
Montana but has had a significant
impact on a large portion of the U.S. and
the U.S. farming and cattle industry and
thus, to only consider the impact of the
drought on one state and not the entire
cattle industry nationwide would create
an inequity. Accordingly, USDA takes
the position that as an industry the
impact is widespread and thus the
numbers as presented for cattle
inventories as of January 1 in 2020,
2021, and 2022, are the fairest and most
accurate representation of the current
industry numbers.
Lastly, although it is important to
acknowledge these events play a role in
the cattle inventory numbers, it is also
important to note that the Order is silent
on how Board seats would be impacted
by natural events. The Order does
specify the formula for determining the
number of Board seats and USDA uses
a 3-year average to attain a
representative number within a State.
Any change would need to be applied
to the entirety of the assessment-paying
population as the Act and Order govern
all cattle producers and importers and
all geographical units.
Cattle Inventory Margin of Error and
Survey Response Rate
Eight of the nine comments stated
opposition to Wisconsin losing a seat
due to the margin of error associated
with the statistical methodology used
for determining cattle inventory
numbers per state for the 3-year period
reviewed. As mentioned in one of the
comments, Wisconsin was 33,000 head
short of maintaining their fourth seat on
the Board. The average coefficient of
variation for Wisconsin’s total cattle
inventory in 2020, 2021, and 2022 cattle
inventory reports is 3.4 percent (+34,000
head). Since the coefficient of variation
is greater than the amount by which the
inventory is under the 3.5 million
threshold, then Wisconsin should be
allowed to retain their fourth seat.
According to the January 1, 2023, cattle
inventory numbers published, the State
of Wisconsin was at 3.4 million.
However, it was reported by the
Wisconsin Ag Statistician that only 60
percent of surveys were returned, which
questions whether the 3.4 million head
is an accurate reflection of current cattle
inventory.
In response, the Order is silent on
whether other factors such as cattle
inventory margin of error and survey
response rate should be taken into
consideration when determining the
total cattle inventory. Section
1260.141(e)(1) of the Order states that
each geographic unit or State that
includes a total cattle inventory equal to
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
76099
or greater than 500,000 head of cattle
shall be entitled to one representative
on the Board. Section 1260.141(e)(4)
specifically states that each unit is
entitled to an additional Board member
for each additional 1 million head of
cattle within the unit.
USDA acknowledges the Board’s
recommendation as provided by
§ 1260.141(d) which states that the
Board may recommend to the Secretary
a modification in the number of cattle
per unit necessary for representation on
the Board. However, § 1260.141(d)
applies only to a recommended change
based on cattle inventory 1 and not the
other factors used in the Board’s current
recommendation for this rule.
Further, the point estimates published
by NASS are the official USDA
estimates of inventory. In preparing
these estimates, NASS takes into
account all available and relevant data
and makes the necessary adjustments
based on factors such as response rate.
NASS publishes the measures of
uncertainty to provide transparency and
context around the estimates, however
making further adjustments for these
purposes would introduce
inconsistencies to the process and
departure from the official USDA
inventory estimates.
Thus, to consider other factors such as
the margin of error and the survey
response rate to the reapportionment of
the Board, regulatory changes which
require notice-and-comment
rulemaking, would be necessary to make
those clarifications to the Order. Any
change contemplated by additional
rulemaking would need to be applied to
the entirety of the assessment-paying
population as the Act and Order govern
all cattle producers and importers and
all geographical units.
Diversity
One commenter mentioned that
Wisconsin is a State that includes beef
and dairy producers, and allowing
Wisconsin to maintain their fourth seat
will ensure the Board has a strong and
diverse representation from all sectors.
One additional commentor opposed to
Montana losing a seat because the State
is home to 12 tribal nations that are
already underrepresented on the Board.
It is USDA’s policy concerning
nominations to the Board that the
Board’s membership should be open to
all individuals without regard based on
race, color, religion, national origin, age,
sex, sexual orientation, disability,
marital or familial status, political
1 Sections 1260.141.(c) and (e) use cattle
inventories in calculating reapportionment
numbers.
E:\FR\FM\06NOR1.SGM
06NOR1
76100
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 213 / Monday, November 6, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
beliefs, parental status, receipt of public
assistance, or protected genetic
information. Board membership should
also reflect the diversity of the
industries in experience of members,
methods of production and distribution,
marketing strategies, and other
distinguishing factors that will bring
different perspectives and ideas to the
tables. Emphasis should also be placed
on the knowledge, skills, and abilities of
the Board to serve and represent the
diverse interests of assessment paying
producers.
Thus, the number of members on the
Board should not dictate the level of
diversity on the Board.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the requirements set forth
in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), AMS has
considered the economic effect of this
action on small entities and has
determined that this rule will 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 2022, the Small Business
Administration (SBA) (13 CFR part
121.201) published a final rule (84 FR
64013) that updated its size standards
based on income or employee numbers
for various small business falling under
the North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS). Within
that rule, the SBA threshold for ‘‘Beef
Cattle Ranching and Farming’’ (NAICS
code 112111) operations to qualify small
businesses was raised from annual sales
of $1 million or less to annual sales of
$2.5 million or less.
According to the NASS 2017 Census
of Agriculture, the number of U.S.
operations with beef cattle totaled
729,046 and with cattle of any type
totaled 882,692.2 The same Census of
Agriculture data shows that roughly 4
percent of operations with cattle, or
31,476 operations, have annual sales
receipts of $1,000,000 or more, the small
business standard prior to the 2022
revision.3 No further breakout in the
Census of Agriculture data is made to
account for the new, higher SBA
standard. However, the vast majority of
cattle producers, 96 percent, would be
considered small businesses under the
new SBA standards. It should be noted
that producers are only indirectly
impacted by the rule.
Cattle, beef, and veal importers are
also impacted by the rule. Based on data
available on membership in the Meat
Import Council of America, AMS
estimates that approximately 190 firms
import beef or beef products. AMS is
not aware of any data that reports the
number of beef-importing entities that
meet the SBA definition of small
businesses.
In addition to cattle producers,
affected entities under this rule change
include meat and meat-product
merchant wholesalers (wholesalers),
classified under NAICS code 424470,
and meat processors from carcass
(processors), classified under NAICS
code 311612. The SBA thresholds for
both these businesses to qualify as small
are that they have fewer than 1,000
employees. The most current data from
the Census of Manufacturing states that
all 2,376 wholesalers were small
businesses (in 2017) 4 and that all 1,423
processors were small business (in
2020).5
Recent import trade data was also
considered for understanding the
overall dynamics of this industry
segment. The Foreign Agricultural
Service reports monthly trade data for
traded agricultural products by product
type. Based on analysis of that trade
data and consumption data collected in
the USDA’s World Agricultural Demand
and Supply Estimates, over the 2017 to
2022 period, cattle imports ranged
between 1.8 percent and 2.3 percent of
the total cattle inventory and that beef
imports ranged from 9.8 percent to 10.7
percent of total supply. Veal imports
during that time were negligible as a
share of domestic production.
The rule imposes no new burden on
the industry, as it only adjusts
representation on the Board to reflect
changes in domestic cattle inventory, as
well as in cattle and beef imports.
Additionally, the Order § 1260.141 does
not take into consideration the margin
of error when analysis is conducted.
Therefore, the Secretary is applying the
Order guidance without using the NASS
margin of error to adjust Board
membership from 101 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.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1260
Administrative practice and
procedure, Advertising, Agricultural
research, Imports, Marketing
agreements, Meat and meat products,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, the Agricultural Marketing
Service amends 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 2023 Board
nominations and the associated
appointments effective early in the year
2024, the United States shall be divided
into 38 geographical units and 1 unit
representing importers, for a total of 39
units. The number of Board members
from each unit shall be as follows:
TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (a)—CATTLE AND CALVES 1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
State/unit
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
(1,000 head)
Alabama ...............................................................................................................................................................
Arizona .................................................................................................................................................................
Arkansas ..............................................................................................................................................................
Colorado ..............................................................................................................................................................
Florida ..................................................................................................................................................................
2 https://www.nass.usda.gov/AgCensus/
index.php.
3 https://quickstats.nass.usda.gov/results/
758A0A38-2BF4-39CE-90EF-A581BFEA3E81.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:25 Nov 03, 2023
Jkt 262001
4 https://data.census.gov/profile/424470__Meat_
and_meat_product_merchant_wholesalers?g=
0100000US&n=424470.
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Directors
1,285
967
1,733
2,700
1,670
5 https://data.census.gov/profile/311612_-Meat_
and_meat_product_merchant_wholesalers?g=
0100000US&n=311612.
E:\FR\FM\06NOR1.SGM
06NOR1
1
1
2
3
2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 213 / Monday, November 6, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
76101
TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (a)—CATTLE AND CALVES 1—Continued
State/unit
Directors
6. Georgia ................................................................................................................................................................
7. Idaho ....................................................................................................................................................................
8. Illinois ...................................................................................................................................................................
9. Indiana .................................................................................................................................................................
10. Iowa ...................................................................................................................................................................
11. Kansas ...............................................................................................................................................................
12. Kentucky ............................................................................................................................................................
13. Louisiana ...........................................................................................................................................................
14. Michigan ............................................................................................................................................................
15. Minnesota ..........................................................................................................................................................
16. Mississippi .........................................................................................................................................................
17. Missouri .............................................................................................................................................................
18. Montana .............................................................................................................................................................
19. Nebraska ...........................................................................................................................................................
20. New Mexico .......................................................................................................................................................
21. New York ...........................................................................................................................................................
22. North Carolina ...................................................................................................................................................
23. North Dakota .....................................................................................................................................................
24. Ohio ...................................................................................................................................................................
25. Oklahoma ..........................................................................................................................................................
26. Oregon ...............................................................................................................................................................
27. Pennsylvania .....................................................................................................................................................
28. South Dakota .....................................................................................................................................................
29. Tennessee .........................................................................................................................................................
30. Texas .................................................................................................................................................................
31. Utah ...................................................................................................................................................................
32. Virginia ...............................................................................................................................................................
33. Wisconsin ..........................................................................................................................................................
34. Wyoming ............................................................................................................................................................
35. Northwest Unit:
Alaska ...............................................................................................................................................................
Hawaii ...............................................................................................................................................................
Washington .......................................................................................................................................................
1,077
2,507
1,047
833
3,800
6,483
2,073
777
1,137
2,203
917
4,217
2,383
6,800
1,373
1,433
798
1,893
1,283
5,217
1,260
1,430
3,900
1,783
12,900
803
1,410
3,467
1,290
1
3
1
1
4
6
2
1
1
2
1
4
2
7
1
1
1
2
1
5
1
1
4
2
13
1
1
3
1
17
142
1,157
........................
........................
........................
Total ...........................................................................................................................................................
36. Northeast Unit:
Connecticut .......................................................................................................................................................
Delaware ...........................................................................................................................................................
Maine ................................................................................................................................................................
Maryland ...........................................................................................................................................................
Massachusetts ..................................................................................................................................................
New Hampshire ................................................................................................................................................
New Jersey .......................................................................................................................................................
Rhode Island ....................................................................................................................................................
Vermont ............................................................................................................................................................
1,316
48
13
77
174
36
32
26
4
248
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
Total ...........................................................................................................................................................
37. Mid-Atlantic Unit:
South Carolina ..................................................................................................................................................
West Virginia ....................................................................................................................................................
658
1
327
380
........................
........................
Total ...........................................................................................................................................................
38. Southwest Unit:
California ...........................................................................................................................................................
Nevada .............................................................................................................................................................
707
1
5,167
465
........................
........................
Total ...........................................................................................................................................................
39. Importers Unit 2 ..................................................................................................................................................
5,632
7,466
6
7
1 2020,
2 2019,
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
(1,000 head)
2021, and 2022 average of January 1 cattle inventory data.
2020, and 2021 average of annual import data.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:25 Nov 03, 2023
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\06NOR1.SGM
06NOR1
76102
§ 1260.315
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 213 / Monday, November 6, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
[Amended]
3. Amend § 1260.315 by:
a. Removing paragraph (q); and
b. Redesignating paragraphs (r)
through (rr) as paragraphs (q) through
(qq), respectively.
■
■
■
Melissa Bailey,
Associate Administrator, Agricultural
Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 2023–24395 Filed 11–3–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2023–1410; Project
Identifier MCAI–2022–01517–E; Amendment
39–22575; AD 2023–21–03]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce
Deutschland Ltd & Co KG Engines
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The FAA is superseding
Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2013–26–
10 for certain Rolls-Royce Deutschland
Ltd & Co KG (RRD) Model RB211–
524G2–19, RB211–524G3–19, RB211–
524H–36, and RB211–524H2–19
engines. AD 2013–26–10 required a onetime reduction in the cyclic life of
certain high-pressure compressor (HPC)
rotor stage 1 and stage 2 disks, and
removal of disks that exceed the
reduced cycle life. Since the FAA issued
AD 2013–26–10, the manufacturer has
revised the engine time limits manual
(TLM), introducing new and more
restrictive instructions. This AD is
prompted by the manufacturer revising
the engine time limits manual,
introducing new and more restrictive
instructions. This AD requires revisions
to the airworthiness limitations section
(ALS) of the operator’s existing
approved engine maintenance or
inspection program, as applicable, as
specified in a European Union Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which is
incorporated by reference. The FAA is
issuing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products.
DATES: This AD is effective December
11, 2023.
The Director of the Federal Register
approved the incorporation by reference
of a certain publication listed in this AD
as of December 11, 2023.
ADDRESSES:
AD Docket: You may examine the AD
docket at regulations.gov under Docket
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:25 Nov 03, 2023
Jkt 262001
No. FAA–2023–1410; or in person at
Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this final rule, the mandatory
continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI), any comments received, and
other information. The address for
Docket Operations is U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M–
30, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590.
Material Incorporated by Reference:
• For service information identified
in this final rule, contact EASA, KonradAdenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne,
Germany; phone: +49 221 8999 000;
email: ADs@easa.europa.eu; website:
easa.europa.eu. You may find this
material on the EASA website at
ad.easa.europa.eu. It is also available at
regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA–
2023–1410.
• You may view this service
information at the FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety
Branch, 1200 District Avenue,
Burlington, MA 01803. For information
on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call (817) 222–5110.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sungmo Cho, Aviation Safety Engineer,
FAA, 2200 South 216th Street, Des
Moines, WA 98198; phone: (781) 238–
7241; email: sungmo.d.cho@faa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The FAA issued a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to supersede AD 2013–26–10,
Amendment 39–17719 (79 FR 1315,
January 8, 2014), (AD 2013–26–10). AD
2013–26–10 applied to certain RRD
Model RB211–524G2–19, RB211–
524G3–19, RB211–524H–36, and
RB211–524H2–19 engines. AD 2013–
26–10 required a one-time reduction in
the cyclic life of certain HPC rotor stage
1 and stage 2 disks, and removal of
disks that exceed the reduced cycle life.
The FAA issued AD 2013–26–10 to
prevent the failure of certain life-limited
parts, which could result in
uncontained engine damage and damage
to the airplane.
The NPRM published in the Federal
Register on July 11, 2023 (88 FR 44075).
The NPRM was prompted by AD 2022–
0232, dated November 28, 2022 (EASA
AD 2022–0232) (referred to after this as
the MCAI), issued by EASA which is the
Technical Agent for the Member States
of the European Union. The MCAI states
that the ALS for RB211–524G/H
engines, which is approved by EASA, is
defined and published in TLM T–
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
211(524)–7RR, and that these
airworthiness limitations have been
identified as mandatory for continued
airworthiness. The MCAI also states that
since the original issue of TLM T–
211(524)–7RR, updated thresholds and
intervals were introduced for newly
designed parts. EASA AD 2013–0246
was issued to require implementation of
the reduced cyclic life limit and
replacement of HPC stage 1 and 2 disks
before exceeding their life limit. The
MCAI also states that the manufacturer
published a revised engine TLM since
EASA AD 2013–0246 was issued,
introducing new and more restrictive
instructions. The ALS defined in the
revised engine TLM also adds RRD
Model RB211–524G2–T–19, RB211–
524G3–T–19, RB211–524H–T–36, and
RB211–524H2–T–19 engines to the list
of affected engines.
You may examine the MCAI in the
AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA–2023–1410.
In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to
require revising the existing approved
engine maintenance or inspection
program, as applicable, to incorporate
new and more restrictive airworthiness
limitations, which are specified in
EASA AD 2022–0232 described
previously, except for any differences
identified as exceptions in the
regulatory text of this AD and as
discussed under ‘‘Differences Between
this AD and the MCAI.’’
Discussion of Final Airworthiness
Directive
Comments
The FAA received a comment from
Air Line Pilots Association,
International (ALPA). ALPA supported
the NPRM without change.
Conclusion
These products have been approved
by the aviation authority of another
country and are approved for operation
in the United States. Pursuant to the
FAA’s bilateral agreement with this
State of Design Authority, it has notified
the FAA of the unsafe condition
described in the MCAI referenced
above. The FAA reviewed the relevant
data, considered the comment received,
and determined that air safety requires
adopting the AD as proposed.
Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD
to address the unsafe condition on these
products. Except for minor editorial
changes, this AD is adopted as proposed
in the NPRM.
Related Service Information Under 1
CFR Part 51
The FAA reviewed EASA AD 2022–
0232, which specifies instructions for
E:\FR\FM\06NOR1.SGM
06NOR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 213 (Monday, November 6, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 76097-76102]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-24395]
========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 213 / Monday, November 6, 2023 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 76097]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Part 1260
[Doc. No. AMS-LP-22-0002]
Beef Promotion and Research Order; Reapportionment and Technical
Amendment
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule adjusts 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 as well as changes in levels of imported
cattle, beef, and beef products that have occurred since the Board was
last reapportioned in July 2020. These adjustments are required by the
Beef Promotion and Research Order (Order) and will result in a decrease
in Board membership from 101 to 99, effective with the Secretary of
Agriculture's (Secretary) appointments from nominees requested in
Spring of 2023. This final rule also updates the list of Qualified
State Beef Councils (QSBCs) in the Order by removing the Maryland Beef
Industry Council which voted to dissolve their State beef council.
DATES: This rule is effective December 6, 2023.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lacey Heddlesten, Agricultural
Marketing Specialist, Research and Promotion Division, Telephone: (620)
717-3834; or Email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Orders 12866, 14094 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.
Executive Order 14094 reaffirms, supplements, and updates Executive
Order 12866 and further directs agencies to solicit and consider input
from a wide range of affected and interested parties through a variety
of means. This rule is not a significant regulatory action within the
meaning of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this action has not been
reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under section 6
of the Executive Order.
Executive Order 12988
This rule has been reviewed under E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform
and it is not intended to have retroactive effect.
Section 11 of the Act (7 U.S.C. 2910) provides that nothing in the
Act may be construed to preempt or supersede any other program relating
to beef promotion organized and operated under the laws of the U.S. or
any State. There are no administrative proceedings that must be
exhausted prior to any judicial challenge to the provisions of this
rule.
Executive Order 13175
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 13175,
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, which
requires agencies to consider whether their rulemaking actions would
have Tribal implications. AMS has determined this proposed rule is
unlikely to have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian
Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian
Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between
the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.
Congressional Review Act
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs designated this rule as
not a major rule, as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with OMB regulations (5 CFR part 1320) that implement
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 35), the information
collection and recordkeeping requirements contained in the Order and
accompanying Rules and Regulations have previously been approved by OMB
and were assigned OMB control number 0581-0093.
Background
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 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
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. Further, Sec.
1260.141(d) allows the board to recommend to the Secretary a
modification in the number of cattle per unit necessary for
representation of Board seats.
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
[[Page 76098]]
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.
Section 1260.141(f) of the Order states in determining the volume
of cattle within the units, the Board and the Secretary shall utilize
the information received by the Board pursuant to Sec. Sec. 1260.201
and 1260.202 industry data and data published by USDA. The producer
representation is based on an average of the inventory of cattle in the
various States on January 1 in 2020, 2021, and 2022 as reported by
USDA's National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). The importer
representation is based on a combined total average of the 2019, 2020,
and 2021 live cattle imports as published by USDA's Economic Research
Service (ERS) and the average of the 2019, 2020, and 2021 live animal
equivalents for imported beef and beef products.
In considering reapportionment, the Board reviewed cattle
inventories as of January 1 in 2020, 2021, and 2022, as well as cattle,
beef, and beef product import data for the period of January 1, 2019,
to December 31, 2021. The Board determined that an average of the
inventory of cattle on January 1 in 2020, 2021, and 2022 best reflect
the number of cattle in each State or unit since publication of the
last reapportionment rule in 2020 (85 FR 39461). The Board reviewed
data published by ERS to determine proper importer representation. The
Board recommended the use of the average of a combined total of the
2019, 2020, and 2021 cattle import data and the average of the 2019,
2020, and 2021 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).
As discussed in the proposed rule, the Board's recommended
reapportionment plan would decrease the number of representatives on
the Board from 101 to 100. Based on the Board's recommendation, Idaho
would gain one seat, Montana would lose one seat, Pennsylvania would
lose one seat, and Wisconsin would maintain their four seats. This
final rule, however, results in Wisconsin losing one seat. The States
and units affected by the reapportionment plan and the current and
revised representation per unit are as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Revised
State/unit Increase/decrease representation representation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Idaho.................................................. +1 2 3
Montana................................................ -1 3 2
Pennsylvania........................................... -1 2 1
Wisconsin.............................................. -1 4 3
Net Change............................................. -2 ................. .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Board reapportionment takes effect in the 2023 nomination
process and the number of board members the Secretary appointments to
fill positions early in the year 2024 will reduce from 101 to 99.
Technical Amendment
The final rule updates the list of QSBCs in the Order by removing
the Maryland Beef Industry Council which unanimously voted to dissolve
their State beef council during the September 14, 2022, board meeting.
Summary of Comments
AMS published the proposed rule for public comment on May 1, 2023
(88 FR 27415). The comment period ended on June 1, 2023. AMS received
12 timely comments. AMS conducted a review of the comments and
determined that three of the twelve comments were outside the scope of
the rulemaking. Of the remaining nine comments, AMS analyzed the
comments and grouped them into the below categories.
Unforeseen Events
Several of the comments mentioned the COVID-19 pandemic and the
drought's impact on the beef industry.
The majority of the comments received were a form letter opposing
Wisconsin losing a seat and arguing several factors including that the
pandemic caused record low milk prices. During the early part of the
pandemic, dairy producers in Wisconsin faced a surplus of milk because
of the rapid decrease in price. In addition, three producers and seven
cattle, dairy, and farm associations in Wisconsin, stated that the
average milk prices paid to Wisconsin farmers in 2020 were $18.90, in
2021 it was $17.10, and by May of 2022 the price of milk was up to
$25.21. Further the commenters stated that due to increases in milk
price, dairy cow numbers are expected to continue to grow; potentially,
by January 31--putting Wisconsin herd size back over 3.5 million.
In response, USDA acknowledges that a pandemic was in place from
approximately from March 2020 to May 2023, which caused unforeseen
industry-wide supply chain issues. The pandemic not only impacted the
state of Wisconsin but has had a significant impact on a large portion
of the U.S. and the U.S. farming and cattle industry. Thus, to only
consider the impact of the pandemic on one state and not the entire
cattle industry nationwide would create an inequity. Accordingly, USDA
takes the position that as an industry the impact is widespread and
thus the numbers as presented for cattle inventories as of January 1 in
2020, 2021, and 2022, are the fairest and most accurate representation
of the current industry numbers.
Another commenter argued that the drought negatively impacted herd
numbers in the state because it changed Wisconsin's place in the cattle
production cycle.
USDA acknowledges that for the reapportionment that took place on
August 12, 2014 (79 FR 46961) for appointments that were seated in
2015, at that time the drought that had taken place in Texas was taken
into consideration. Texas was slated to lose two board seats due to
cattle inventory decease related to a three-year loss of cattle
inventory due to severe drought. Due to the turnaround in environmental
and economic conditions along with reports indicating that cattle were
moving back into Texas from other states and the total herd inventory
would be back up prior to reapportionment taking place, the
[[Page 76099]]
USDA issued only a loss of one seat rather than two as was outlined in
the proposed rule.
However, it is important to note that in the 2015 reapportionment
the environmental factors, in that case the drought, significantly
impacted one state in particular, Texas and lasted several years
spanning from 2011 to 2013, with 2011 being one of the worst droughts
in the State's history. In contrast, under the current circumstances, a
large portion of the United States was impacted by drought over the
past 3 years which affected the entire cattle inventory. According to
the USDA, Economic Research Service (ERS), the Western States
experienced extreme or exceptional drought and, in some cases, severe
drought conditions the past few years, with the most severe conditions
being reported in Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, and
Oregon. Based on this data, it is clear that the current drought
conditions have not only impacted the state of Wisconsin but has had a
significant impact on a large portion of the U.S. and the U.S. farming
and cattle industry. Thus, to only consider the impact of the drought
on one state and not the entire cattle industry nationwide would create
an inequity. Accordingly, USDA takes the position that as an industry
the impact is widespread and thus the numbers as presented for cattle
inventories as of January 1 in 2020, 2021, and 2022, are the fairest
and most accurate representation of the current industry numbers.
One comment opposed Montana losing a seat similarly arguing that
the drought impacted the number of herds in the state. They claimed,
prior to the drought, herd numbers had been consistent since the
1980's. The drought caused a dip in 2021 and 2022; however, 2023 spring
moisture has been promising for pastures. Further, according to the
commentor, there is indication that Montana producers are starting to
rebuild their herd and it is possible that Montana will be above 2.5
million again before the final rule goes into effect.
Again, USDA acknowledges that a large portion of the United States
was impacted by drought over the past 3 years which impacted cattle
inventory and again points out that in the previous reapportionment the
environmental factors, in that case the drought, significantly impacted
one state in particular, Texas and lasted several years spanning from
2011 to 2013, with 2011 being one of the worst droughts in the State's
history. Once more, based on data provided by the USDA ERS, it is clear
that the current drought conditions have not only impacted the state of
Montana but has had a significant impact on a large portion of the U.S.
and the U.S. farming and cattle industry and thus, to only consider the
impact of the drought on one state and not the entire cattle industry
nationwide would create an inequity. Accordingly, USDA takes the
position that as an industry the impact is widespread and thus the
numbers as presented for cattle inventories as of January 1 in 2020,
2021, and 2022, are the fairest and most accurate representation of the
current industry numbers.
Lastly, although it is important to acknowledge these events play a
role in the cattle inventory numbers, it is also important to note that
the Order is silent on how Board seats would be impacted by natural
events. The Order does specify the formula for determining the number
of Board seats and USDA uses a 3-year average to attain a
representative number within a State. Any change would need to be
applied to the entirety of the assessment-paying population as the Act
and Order govern all cattle producers and importers and all
geographical units.
Cattle Inventory Margin of Error and Survey Response Rate
Eight of the nine comments stated opposition to Wisconsin losing a
seat due to the margin of error associated with the statistical
methodology used for determining cattle inventory numbers per state for
the 3-year period reviewed. As mentioned in one of the comments,
Wisconsin was 33,000 head short of maintaining their fourth seat on the
Board. The average coefficient of variation for Wisconsin's total
cattle inventory in 2020, 2021, and 2022 cattle inventory reports is
3.4 percent (+34,000 head). Since the coefficient of variation is
greater than the amount by which the inventory is under the 3.5 million
threshold, then Wisconsin should be allowed to retain their fourth
seat. According to the January 1, 2023, cattle inventory numbers
published, the State of Wisconsin was at 3.4 million. However, it was
reported by the Wisconsin Ag Statistician that only 60 percent of
surveys were returned, which questions whether the 3.4 million head is
an accurate reflection of current cattle inventory.
In response, the Order is silent on whether other factors such as
cattle inventory margin of error and survey response rate should be
taken into consideration when determining the total cattle inventory.
Section 1260.141(e)(1) of the Order states 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)(4) specifically states that each unit is
entitled to an additional Board member for each additional 1 million
head of cattle within the unit.
USDA acknowledges the Board's recommendation as provided by Sec.
1260.141(d) which states that the Board may recommend to the Secretary
a modification in the number of cattle per unit necessary for
representation on the Board. However, Sec. 1260.141(d) applies only to
a recommended change based on cattle inventory \1\ and not the other
factors used in the Board's current recommendation for this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Sections 1260.141.(c) and (e) use cattle inventories in
calculating reapportionment numbers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, the point estimates published by NASS are the official
USDA estimates of inventory. In preparing these estimates, NASS takes
into account all available and relevant data and makes the necessary
adjustments based on factors such as response rate. NASS publishes the
measures of uncertainty to provide transparency and context around the
estimates, however making further adjustments for these purposes would
introduce inconsistencies to the process and departure from the
official USDA inventory estimates.
Thus, to consider other factors such as the margin of error and the
survey response rate to the reapportionment of the Board, regulatory
changes which require notice-and-comment rulemaking, would be necessary
to make those clarifications to the Order. Any change contemplated by
additional rulemaking would need to be applied to the entirety of the
assessment-paying population as the Act and Order govern all cattle
producers and importers and all geographical units.
Diversity
One commenter mentioned that Wisconsin is a State that includes
beef and dairy producers, and allowing Wisconsin to maintain their
fourth seat will ensure the Board has a strong and diverse
representation from all sectors. One additional commentor opposed to
Montana losing a seat because the State is home to 12 tribal nations
that are already underrepresented on the Board.
It is USDA's policy concerning nominations to the Board that the
Board's membership should be open to all individuals without regard
based on race, color, religion, national origin, age, sex, sexual
orientation, disability, marital or familial status, political
[[Page 76100]]
beliefs, parental status, receipt of public assistance, or protected
genetic information. Board membership should also reflect the diversity
of the industries in experience of members, methods of production and
distribution, marketing strategies, and other distinguishing factors
that will bring different perspectives and ideas to the tables.
Emphasis should also be placed on the knowledge, skills, and abilities
of the Board to serve and represent the diverse interests of assessment
paying producers.
Thus, the number of members on the Board should not dictate the
level of diversity on the Board.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the requirements set forth in the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), AMS has considered the
economic effect of this action on small entities and has determined
that this rule will 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 2022, the Small Business Administration (SBA) (13 CFR part
121.201) published a final rule (84 FR 64013) that updated its size
standards based on income or employee numbers for various small
business falling under the North American Industry Classification
System (NAICS). Within that rule, the SBA threshold for ``Beef Cattle
Ranching and Farming'' (NAICS code 112111) operations to qualify small
businesses was raised from annual sales of $1 million or less to annual
sales of $2.5 million or less.
According to the NASS 2017 Census of Agriculture, the number of
U.S. operations with beef cattle totaled 729,046 and with cattle of any
type totaled 882,692.\2\ The same Census of Agriculture data shows that
roughly 4 percent of operations with cattle, or 31,476 operations, have
annual sales receipts of $1,000,000 or more, the small business
standard prior to the 2022 revision.\3\ No further breakout in the
Census of Agriculture data is made to account for the new, higher SBA
standard. However, the vast majority of cattle producers, 96 percent,
would be considered small businesses under the new SBA standards. It
should be noted that producers are only indirectly impacted by the
rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ https://www.nass.usda.gov/AgCensus/index.php.
\3\ https://quickstats.nass.usda.gov/results/758A0A38-2BF4-39CE-90EF-A581BFEA3E81.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cattle, beef, and veal importers are also impacted by the rule.
Based on data available on membership in the Meat Import Council of
America, AMS estimates that approximately 190 firms import beef or beef
products. AMS is not aware of any data that reports the number of beef-
importing entities that meet the SBA definition of small businesses.
In addition to cattle producers, affected entities under this rule
change include meat and meat-product merchant wholesalers
(wholesalers), classified under NAICS code 424470, and meat processors
from carcass (processors), classified under NAICS code 311612. The SBA
thresholds for both these businesses to qualify as small are that they
have fewer than 1,000 employees. The most current data from the Census
of Manufacturing states that all 2,376 wholesalers were small
businesses (in 2017) \4\ and that all 1,423 processors were small
business (in 2020).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ https://data.census.gov/profile/424470__Meat_and_meat_product_merchant_wholesalers?g=0100000US&n=424470.
\5\ https://data.census.gov/profile/311612_-Meat_and_meat_product_merchant_wholesalers?g=0100000US&n=311612.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recent import trade data was also considered for understanding the
overall dynamics of this industry segment. The Foreign Agricultural
Service reports monthly trade data for traded agricultural products by
product type. Based on analysis of that trade data and consumption data
collected in the USDA's World Agricultural Demand and Supply Estimates,
over the 2017 to 2022 period, cattle imports ranged between 1.8 percent
and 2.3 percent of the total cattle inventory and that beef imports
ranged from 9.8 percent to 10.7 percent of total supply. Veal imports
during that time were negligible as a share of domestic production.
The rule imposes no new burden on the industry, as it only adjusts
representation on the Board to reflect changes in domestic cattle
inventory, as well as in cattle and beef imports. Additionally, the
Order Sec. 1260.141 does not take into consideration the margin of
error when analysis is conducted. Therefore, the Secretary is applying
the Order guidance without using the NASS margin of error to adjust
Board membership from 101 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.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1260
Administrative practice and procedure, Advertising, Agricultural
research, Imports, Marketing agreements, Meat and meat products,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Agricultural
Marketing Service amends 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 2023 Board nominations and the associated
appointments effective early in the year 2024, the United States shall
be divided into 38 geographical units and 1 unit representing
importers, for a total of 39 units. The number of Board members from
each unit shall be as follows:
Table 1 to Paragraph (a)--Cattle and Calves \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State/unit (1,000 head) Directors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Alabama.............................. 1,285 1
2. Arizona.............................. 967 1
3. Arkansas............................. 1,733 2
4. Colorado............................. 2,700 3
5. Florida.............................. 1,670 2
[[Page 76101]]
6. Georgia.............................. 1,077 1
7. Idaho................................ 2,507 3
8. Illinois............................. 1,047 1
9. Indiana.............................. 833 1
10. Iowa................................ 3,800 4
11. Kansas.............................. 6,483 6
12. Kentucky............................ 2,073 2
13. Louisiana........................... 777 1
14. Michigan............................ 1,137 1
15. Minnesota........................... 2,203 2
16. Mississippi......................... 917 1
17. Missouri............................ 4,217 4
18. Montana............................. 2,383 2
19. Nebraska............................ 6,800 7
20. New Mexico.......................... 1,373 1
21. New York............................ 1,433 1
22. North Carolina...................... 798 1
23. North Dakota........................ 1,893 2
24. Ohio................................ 1,283 1
25. Oklahoma............................ 5,217 5
26. Oregon.............................. 1,260 1
27. Pennsylvania........................ 1,430 1
28. South Dakota........................ 3,900 4
29. Tennessee........................... 1,783 2
30. Texas............................... 12,900 13
31. Utah................................ 803 1
32. Virginia............................ 1,410 1
33. Wisconsin........................... 3,467 3
34. Wyoming............................. 1,290 1
35. Northwest Unit:
Alaska.............................. 17 ..............
Hawaii.............................. 142 ..............
Washington.......................... 1,157 ..............
-------------------------------
Total........................... 1,316
36. Northeast Unit:
Connecticut......................... 48 ..............
Delaware............................ 13 ..............
Maine............................... 77 ..............
Maryland............................ 174 ..............
Massachusetts....................... 36 ..............
New Hampshire....................... 32 ..............
New Jersey.......................... 26 ..............
Rhode Island........................ 4 ..............
Vermont............................. 248 ..............
-------------------------------
Total........................... 658 1
37. Mid-Atlantic Unit:
South Carolina...................... 327 ..............
West Virginia....................... 380 ..............
-------------------------------
Total........................... 707 1
38. Southwest Unit:
California.......................... 5,167 ..............
Nevada.............................. 465 ..............
-------------------------------
Total........................... 5,632 6
39. Importers Unit \2\.................. 7,466 7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 2020, 2021, and 2022 average of January 1 cattle inventory data.
\2\ 2019, 2020, and 2021 average of annual import data.
[[Page 76102]]
Sec. 1260.315 [Amended]
0
3. Amend Sec. 1260.315 by:
0
a. Removing paragraph (q); and
0
b. Redesignating paragraphs (r) through (rr) as paragraphs (q) through
(qq), respectively.
Melissa Bailey,
Associate Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-24395 Filed 11-3-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
