[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 20 (Tuesday, January 30, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 2891-2898]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-1816]



 ========================================================================
 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. 
 Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each 
 week.
 
 ========================================================================
 

  Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 30, 1996 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 2891]]


DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Marketing Service

7 CFR Parts 53 and 54

[No. LS-94-009]


Standards for Grades of Slaughter Cattle and Standards for Grades 
of Carcass Beef

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule revises the official U.S. standards for grades 
of carcass beef and the related standards for grades of slaughter 
cattle. The changes eliminate ``B'' maturity (approximately 30-42 
months of age) carcasses with small or slight marbling degrees from the 
Choice and Select grades and include them in the Standard grade. This 
action is being taken because carcasses with these characteristics have 
been shown to be both quite variable and often unacceptable in 
palatability, which contributes significantly to inconsistent 
palatability of Choice and Select grade beef. The standards for grades 
of slaughter cattle, which are based on the beef carcass grades, are 
revised to parallel the changes in the beef carcass grade standards. 
This change should serve to strengthen the competitive position of beef 
products through increased quality and consistency, and thus be in the 
best interests of the beef industry. Also, it should provide the 
consumer with an improved product through greater consistency and 
predictability in the eating quality of Choice and Select grade beef. 
The changes should provide the industry with long-term benefits because 
pricing systems will be improved, quality inconsistencies will be 
reduced, demand for beef will be improved, and the market share beef 
commands should increase. These revisions are the same as those 
proposed in the January 19, 1995, Federal Register (60 FR 3982).

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 1, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Herbert C. Abraham, Chief, Livestock 
and Meat Standardization Branch, Livestock and Seed Division, 
Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, P.O. 
Box 96456, Washington, D.C. 20090-6456, 202/720-4486.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Order 12866

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

Executive Order 12778

    This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12778, Civil 
Justice Reform. This action is not intended to have retroactive effect. 
This rule would not preempt any State or local laws, regulations, or 
policies, unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this 
rule. There are no administrative procedures which must be exhausted 
prior to any judicial challenge to the provisions of this rule.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), has 
certified that this action will not have a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities, as defined in the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act, P.L. 96-345 (5 U.S.C. 601). The use of the beef 
carcass and slaughter cattle grade standards is voluntary, and they are 
applied equally to all size entities covered by these regulations. 
Further, this action does not impose any new requirements or costs, it 
only modifies the grade requirements to reflect modern production 
practices. All entities can make needed management changes in response 
to market signals. The action is expected to benefit the industry by 
improving consumer satisfaction with beef products, and there should be 
a positive impact on overall industry returns.

Background

    Federal beef grading is a voluntary fee for service program, 
provided under the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, as amended (7 
U.S.C. 1621 et seq.). A primary purpose of the grades is to divide the 
population of cattle and beef into uniform groups (of similar quality, 
yield, value, etc.), in order to facilitate marketing. Grades provide a 
simple, effective means of describing a product that is easily 
understood by both buyers and sellers. By identifying separate and 
distinct segments of a commodity, grades enable buyers to obtain that 
particular portion of the entire range of a commodity which meets their 
individual needs. At the same time, grades are important in 
transmitting information to cattle producers so that more informed 
production decisions can be made. For example, the market preference 
for a particular grade of beef can be communicated to cattle producers 
so they can adjust their production accordingly.
    When beef is voluntarily graded, the official grade consists of a 
quality grade and/or a yield grade. The quality grades are intended to 
identify differences in the palatability (eating satisfaction) of 
cooked beef primarily through the combined characteristics of marbling 
and maturity. The principal official USDA quality grades for young 
(maturity groups A and B) cattle and carcasses are Prime, Choice, 
Select, and Standard.
    In developing the grades, the Department has followed the 
philosophy that, to be effective, beef grades should sort the supply of 
beef carcasses into homogeneous groups having a sufficiently narrow 
range of grade-determining factors so that carcasses within a given 
grade are essentially interchangeable. Another major objective is to 
provide as uniform and consistent product as possible within a given 
grade.

National Cattlemen's Association Petition

    In June 1994, the National Cattlemen's Association (NCA) petitioned 
USDA to modify the beef quality grade standards by removing B-maturity 
carcasses with small and slight marbling scores from the Choice and 
Select grades and include such carcasses in the Standard grade. This 
action was recommended by a NCA Carcass Quality Task Force which worked 
for approximately 1\1/2\ years to develop specific recommendations for 
the beef industry to win the ``war on fat,'' while enhancing beef 
quality and consistency. The task force had broad representation 

[[Page 2892]]
from the cattle production and feeding sectors, as well as packers, 
purveyors, and retailers. Several actions were recommended, but only 
this particular recommendation related directly to the beef grade 
standards.
    The NCA petition stated the modern beef animal today is typically 
marketed at 12 to 15 months of age when fed as calves and 18 to 24 
months of age when fed as yearlings. These modern animals are the 
result of progressive breeders and feeders who produce faster growing, 
more efficient cattle. If these animals receive proper care and 
nutrition, they should have no difficulty producing carcasses in the A-
maturity group. Carcasses of B-maturity are typically from cattle which 
are 30 to 42 months of age when marketed.
    Research conducted for the Department by Texas A&M University 
(Smith et al., 1984, Journal of Food Quality), using trained taste 
panels, indicates that nearly 50 percent of the loin steaks from B-
maturity carcasses with slight marbling, and over 30 percent of the 
loin steaks from B-maturity carcasses with small marbling, are less 
than satisfactory. These B-maturity carcasses significantly contribute 
to the variability of palatability within the Select and Choice grades 
and they do not epitomize the ``modern beef carcass.'' Permitting B-
maturity carcasses with a small and slight degree of marbling to be 
graded Choice and Select when they have been proven to be considerably 
more variable in palatability than A-maturity carcasses with slight and 
small marbling provides no incentives for the beef industry to decrease 
production and marketing of cattle which do not conform to consumer 
demand for quality and consistency.
    Although these cattle make up only a small percentage of the U.S. 
fed beef supply, their variability in palatability can significantly 
affect overall consumer satisfaction with beef. According to a national 
beef quality audit conducted in 1991, B-maturity carcasses with slight 
and small marbling made up about 4.8 percent of the fed-beef supply. 
The beef industry processes approximately 26 million fed beef carcasses 
annually. The estimated 4.8 percent of fed-beef affected by the 
proposed grade change would represent approximately 1.3 million 
carcasses. It is estimated that 42 percent of these carcasses would 
have less than desirable palatability. This means over 500,000 
carcasses with less than desirable palatability could be removed from 
the Choice and Select grades, which should have a very positive effect 
on consumer satisfaction with beef. The NCA believes producers can and 
will respond quickly to the market signals that these ``older'' cattle 
should be marketed at an age at which they can produce A-maturity 
carcasses and thus produce beef that is more acceptable to consumers. 
Such a shift in management could effectively eliminate most B-maturity 
carcasses from the beef supply without negatively affecting overall 
economic returns to the industry.
    The proposed change was seen as having a positive effect on the 
marketing of Select grade beef. It would not only make the palatability 
more consistent, but it would also make the nutritional profile more 
consistent by removing from the Select grade, B-maturity carcasses 
which have higher amounts of fat due to the higher marbling level 
(small in B-maturity compared to slight in A-maturity) required for 
these carcasses to qualify for Select. This makes the Select grade more 
uniform in both fat content and consistency of palatability and enhance 
its acceptance by consumers who desire leaner beef. Since the U.S. Good 
name was changed to U.S. Select in 1987 (52 FR 35679), the percentage 
of Select graded beef has steadily increased, and in FY 93, 33.6 
percent of graded steer and heifer beef was Select.
    The NCA recommendation stated it was submitted to aid the beef 
industry in producing a higher quality, more consistent beef product 
under the Choice and Select grades. Eliminating B-maturity carcasses 
will allow market forces to further discourage the production of cattle 
which do not conform to consumers desire for tender, tasty beef 
products. The modern beef animal raised using modern breeding and 
feeding technology should have no trouble producing a carcass of A-
maturity. The small proposed modification to the standards will 
strengthen consumer confidence in using grades to identify quality and 
consistency when purchasing beef.

Proposed Standards

    The Department carefully evaluated the recommendation and concurred 
that the suggested changes should improve consumer satisfaction with 
the Choice and Select grades and thus strengthen the competitive 
position of beef in the marketplace while aiding the beef industry in 
its objective of providing more palatable, consistent beef to 
consumers.
    Therefore, it was proposed that the beef carcass standards be 
revised to eliminate B-maturity (approximately 30-42 months of age) 
carcasses with small or slight marbling degrees from the Choice and 
Select grades and reduce their grade to Standard.
    It was also proposed that the standards for grades of slaughter 
cattle, which are based on the beef carcass grade standards, be revised 
to reflect the changes proposed for the beef carcass grade standards. 
Grades of slaughter cattle are intended to be directly related to the 
grades of the carcasses they produce.

Comments

    A 90-day comment period, which closed on April 19, 1995, was 
provided for submission of comments. The official number of comments 
submitted prior to the close of the comment period was 403. In 
addition, approximately 65 comments were received which were submitted 
after the close of the comment period. These 65 comments expressed 
essentially the same views as the 403 comments submitted in a timely 
manner. All submitted comments are part of the public record on the 
proposed change and are available for public review. The comments were 
divided into several groups (sectors) representing segments of the 
production and consumption chain with similar interests. The comments 
were also classified as being submitted by an individual or an 
organization. The distribution of comments by these categories is shown 
in Table 1.
    The percentage support/opposition for the proposed change by source 
and classification (i.e., individual or organization) is shown in Table 
2. Over 70 percent of the comments from both individuals and 
organizations supported the proposed change. The proposed change was 
strongly supported by the purveyor and processor, retail and 
restaurant, consumer, government, and academia sectors. Of the comments 
from these sectors, only two individual comments were opposed to the 
proposed changes. The strongest opposition to the proposed changes was 
from the cattle feeding, cattle marketing, and the packer sectors. All 
comments from packers, all but one comment from the cattle marketing 
sector, and a majority of cattle feeders were opposed to the proposed 
changes. While the majority of cattle feeding and marketing sector 
comments were opposed, if they are combined with the comments from the 
cattle production sector, a large majority of comments from both 
organizations (71.4%) and individuals (63.0%) representing cattle 
interests (production, feeding, and marketing) supported the proposed 
change.

[[Page 2893]]


                    Table 1--Distribution of Comments                   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Source              Organizations\1\  Individuals\2\   Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cattle production.............            27              171        198
Cattle Feeding................             4               96        100
Cattle Marketing..............             3                8         11
Packer........................             2                4          6
Purveyor and processor........             2               17         19
Retail and Restaurant.........             1                6          7
Consumer......................             0               34         34
Government....................             0                5          5
Academia......................             0               15         15
Other.........................             0                8          8
                               -----------------------------------------
      Total...................            39              364       403 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Includes comments of state, regional, and national organizations.    
\2\Includes comments of individuals, comments with multiple signers, and
  businesses.                                                           


               Table 2.--Comments in Favor of or Opposed To Adoption of USDA Proposed Changes.\1\               
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Favor                  Oppose                  
                         Source                         ----------------------------------------------   Total  
                                                           Number     Percent     Number     Percent            
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cattle Production:                                                                                              
  Individuals\2\.......................................        131        77.1         39        22.9        170
  Organizations........................................         25        92.6          2         7.4         27
Cattle Feeding:                                                                                                 
  Individuals\2\.......................................         40        42.1         55        57.9         95
  Organizations........................................          0         0            4       100.0          4
Cattle Marketing:                                                                                               
  Individuals..........................................          1        12.5          7        87.5          8
  Organizations........................................          0         0            3       100.0          3
Packer:                                                                                                         
  Individuals..........................................          0         0            4       100.0          4
  Organizations........................................          0         0            2       100.0          2
Purveyor and Processor:                                                                                         
  Individuals..........................................         16        94.1          1         5.9         17
  Organizations........................................          2       100.0          0         0            2
Retail and Restaurant:                                                                                          
  Individuals..........................................          6       100.0          0         0            6
  Organizations........................................          1       100.0          0         0            1
Consumer:                                                                                                       
  Individuals\2\.......................................         32        97.0          1         3.0         33
  Organizations........................................          0        --            0        --            0
Government:                                                                                                     
  Individuals..........................................          5       100.0          0         0            5
  Organizations........................................          0        --            0        --            0
Academia:                                                                                                       
  Individuals\2\.......................................         14       100.0          0         0           14
  Organizations........................................          0        --            0        --            0
Other:                                                                                                          
  Individuals..........................................          7       100.0          0         0            7
  Organizations........................................          0        --            0        --            0
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
      Total............................................        280        70.2        119        29.8        399
        Individuals....................................        252        70.0        108        30.0        360
        Organizations..................................         28        71.2         11        28.2        39 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Includes all written comments except 4 which were nonresponsive or noncommittal regarding the proposed       
  changes.                                                                                                      
\2\One comment from this source was nonresponsive or noncommittal regarding the proposed changes.               

    Comments in favor of the change strongly supported the removal of 
B-maturity carcasses with small and slight marbling from the Choice and 
Select grades. The proposed change was seen by many commenters as an 
opportunity to improve the overall quality of beef from these grades by 
removing a group of carcasses which only comprise a small percentage of 
the fed-beef supply, but contribute significantly to beef with less 
than desirable eating satisfaction for consumers. These commenters 
indicated that removal of a group of carcasses of which up to 
approximately 50 percent may produce an inconsistent, variable product 
which provides consumers with a less than desirable eating experience 
was a first step toward restoring consumer confidence and market share 
which has been eroding over the last several years. These comments 
expressed the view that any group of carcasses with this degree of 
variability should not be allowed in the Choice and Select grades if 
the industry is serious in its desire to be consumer driven.
    Many supporters of the proposed change, including several from the 
academic sector, stated the scientific evidence strongly supports the 
proposed changes. These comments supported the conclusions of the NCA 
task force which concluded the scientific evidence supported the 
proposed changes. These studies indicated variability and inconsistency 
of palatability of beef with small and slight marbling in B-maturity 
was much greater than comparable levels of marbling in A-maturity, even 
though some data did not indicate significant differences in overall 
palatability. The high degree of inconsistency was cited by many 

[[Page 2894]]
comments from the cattle production and feeding sectors as a situation 
which must be corrected. Consumption sectors (consumer, purveyor and 
processor, retail and restaurant) were also very concerned over product 
which failed to meet consumer desires. Supporters of the proposed 
changes postulated that few successful businesses would choose to do 
nothing if they found a product line with up to 50 percent customer 
dissatisfaction.
    Many comments from cattle sectors and academia expressed the belief 
that a large majority of B-maturity carcasses are the result of 
management decisions that can be modified by the industry. Further, 
these comments stated that by sending a strong market signal that these 
cattle will not be included in the Choice and Select grades, management 
decisions can be made that will eliminate a large number of them from 
the fed-beef supply. Many supporters as well as opponents of the 
proposed changes indicated many B-maturity carcasses are from older 
``Mexican feeders'' or first or second-calf heifers. Supporters 
strongly believed these management practices could be modified and were 
against allowing these types of cattle to be included in the same 
grades as properly managed, A-maturity cattle. Several cattle producers 
and/or feeders indicated they had taken advantage of the system that 
allowed these types of cattle to be included in the Choice and Select 
grades, but feel it is now time to take a positive step with long-term 
benefits in mind to improve the quality and consistency of beef.
    Comments from cattle feeders, producers, and marketers which 
opposed the changes often stated the belief that there would be a 
significant negative economic impact. Estimates of over $100 million 
annually in lost revenue were predicted by some of these commenters. 
Similarly, comments from the packer sector indicated a projected 
reductions of $20 million to $78 million in revenue annually. These 
estimates were generally based solely on projected losses in value due 
to decreasing the grade of the affected B-maturity carcasses from 
Choice and Select to Standard. Some feeders and producers were 
concerned that the changes would simply be used by packers as an 
opportunity to further discount cattle, who would then pass the beef 
through the system as ``no-roll'' product that would not be discounted 
appropriately, thus providing an economic windfall for packers. These 
commenters also believed the beef targeted by the change would not be 
eliminated from the beef supply, but would simply be marketed in a 
different manner.
    Several of the comments opposed to the changes expressed the 
concern that the changes ``unfairly penalized'' the approximately 50 
percent of the affected B-maturity carcasses which are considered to 
produce ``desirable'' product. As discussed previously, supporters of 
the proposal believed any dissatisfaction level of this magnitude was 
extremely detrimental to consumer acceptance of beef. Several of the 
comments from cattle producers and feeders also expressed concern that 
the proposed changes would unfairly penalize operations that grazed 
older yearling cattle or fed ``older Mexican'' cattle or 1st or 2nd-
calf heifers. These comments suggested that these cattle would be 
severely discounted in the market and would severely affect their 
production and marketing.
    Some comments from the packing and cattle feeding sectors 
questioned the interpretation of the research considered in developing 
the proposal which indicated higher variability in palatability of B-
maturity carcasses. A few of these comments indicated some studies 
showed beef of B-maturity to be similar to A-maturity beef in overall 
palatability. Two studies (National Consumer Retail Beef Study-1986 and 
Beef Customer Satisfaction-1994) were cited by a few commenters as 
showing consumers do not regard fed-beef as having palatability 
problems.

Evaluation of Comments

    Supporters of the changes indicated the approximately 50 percent of 
B-maturity carcasses with less than desirable palatability have a 
significant negative impact on consumer satisfaction with beef. Many 
opponents of the changes did not disagree with the evidence of 
palatability problems in up to 50 percent of B-maturity carcasses. 
However, these commenters believed the remaining 50 percent of B-
maturity carcasses would be ``unfairly discounted'' under the proposal. 
Even though it would be preferable to not exclude the approximately 50 
percent of carcasses in B-maturity which have desirable eating 
satisfaction from the Choice and Select grades, no method for 
distinguishing these carcasses from those with undesirable eating 
satisfaction is currently available. Although these B-maturity 
carcasses with less than desirable palatability represent a relatively 
small portion of the fed-beef supply, AMS recognizes that the negative 
impact they can have on consumer satisfaction with Choice and Select 
beef supports their exclusion from these grades. AMS also has carefully 
reevaluated the supporting scientific evidence which compares the 
palatability of A and B-maturity beef and concludes there is strong 
evidence of greater variability of eating quality in B-maturity beef 
than in A-maturity beef. While some opponents of the proposed changes 
questioned some of the evidence, most of the comments (including 
several from opponents of the changes) supported the evidence. The two 
studies (National Consumer Retail Beef Study-1986 and Beef Customer 
Satisfaction-1994) cited by some opponents as evidence that the changes 
should not be made evaluated only A-maturity carcasses, B-maturity 
carcasses were not included in these studies. In addition to the 
scientific evidence, the very strong support for the proposed changes 
from the consumption sectors (purveyor, processor, retail, restaurant, 
and consumer) indicates that consumers desire a more consistent, less 
variable eating experience from beef products. The need for improved 
consumer satisfaction is evident, and this action should provide the 
industry with an opportunity to eliminate a source of beef from the 
Choice and Select grades that has been shown to be much more variable 
in palatability than A-maturity beef.
    Commenters who both supported and opposed the proposed changes 
indicated several management practices which contribute to the 
production of B-maturity carcasses. These include feeding of ``older 
Mexican'' cattle and 1st and 2nd-calf heifers. While these types of 
cattle are not the only source of B-maturity carcasses, they 
potentially are a significant source. AMS believes these comments 
support the ability of the industry to identify many sources of B-
maturity carcasses and either alter management practices to prevent 
their production as fed-beef or to merchandize them according to their 
value in the marketing system. Beef produced from such management 
systems cannot be properly marketed with beef produced from young, fed-
cattle under 30 months of age because of the variability they introduce 
into the Choice and Select grades.
    A few comments from ``stocker'' operators were concerned the 
changes would cause their cattle which are grazed up until about 20 
months of age and leave the feedlot at about 23-24 months to be 
discounted because they would produce B-maturity carcasses. There is no 
evidence to indicate these cattle when properly managed and marketed 
would not produce A-maturity carcasses (approximately 30 months of 
age). 

[[Page 2895]]

    Supporters of the grade change generally indicated a belief that 
the proposed changes would have a beneficial long-term impact on the 
industry, but provided no monetary figures. Much of the opposition to 
the proposed changes was due to potential negative economic impact. 
Some opponents of the changes provided estimates of negative economic 
impact on the industry from $20 million to over $100 million annually. 
Because of the wide variation in the type and magnitude of the 
predicted impacts expressed by commenters, AMS concluded an independent 
economic study would better enable AMS to most effectively evaluate the 
proposed changes. AMS contracted with Dr. Wayne Purcell, Director, 
Research Institute on Livestock Pricing, Virginia Tech University, to 
conduct an independent economic analysis. Dr. Purcell is widely 
accepted by the industry as an authority on livestock marketing. His 
analysis has been made part of the public record on the proposed 
changes.
    The economic impact study found if management strategies are not 
changed and the same number of B-maturity carcasses continue to be 
produced, a short-run negative impact on the industry of -$21 million 
could be projected. These immediate costs come from the reduced prices 
of B-maturity carcasses that are in the pipeline and from the price 
depressing influence of an increase in ungraded and processing beef as 
these carcasses are marketed. However, if management strategies are 
improved to eliminate even 25 percent of these B-maturity carcasses, a 
positive impact of $86 million would occur, and if 50 percent are 
eliminated due to management, a positive impact of $194 million would 
occur over an adjustment period of about 18 months. If credit is given 
to longer term benefits coming from improved demand as some of the 
quality inconsistency is eliminated, the benefits to the industry could 
easily exceed $1.0 billion across the next 10 years. This study 
concluded the benefits to the whole industry far outweigh short-run 
adjustments. Longer term, it concluded the entire industry would 
benefit because of improved pricing systems, reduction of quality 
inconsistencies, improved demand for beef, and a larger market share 
for beef.
    AMS concludes that the industry can utilize improved management 
strategies to eliminate a portion of B-maturity carcasses from the fed-
beef supply. AMS also concludes the economic impact study provides the 
most reliable indication of potential economic impacts from the 
changes. The projected negative impacts provided by some commentors 
generally only accounted for the decrease in value of the B-maturity 
carcasses which would not grade Choice or Select after the grade 
change. The commentors did not account for price-related benefits, 
improved consumer demand, or changes in the supply/demand price 
relationship for Choice and Select beef after removal of B-maturity 
carcasses. Many comments indicated producers and feeders have the 
ability to identify and manage differently cattle types which 
contribute significantly to production of B-maturity carcasses. What 
percentage of B-maturity carcasses will be eliminated and over what 
time period is difficult to predict. However, based on the comments and 
other information, it is reasonable to assume that improved management 
strategies will enable the industry to achieve a 25 percent reduction 
in the number of B-maturity carcasses in the first or second year of 
the change, if an adjustment period is provided prior to implementation 
of the change. A 25 percent reduction would enable the industry to 
realize the net benefits projected by the economic study of $86 million 
over the eighteen months following implementation of the change by 
removing an identifiable source of inconsistent quality from the Choice 
and Select grades and the fed-beef supply.
    In consideration of the public comments submitted in response to 
the proposed rule of January 19, 1995 (60 FR 3982-3986), and all other 
available information, USDA adopts the proposed rule to revise the 
official U.S. standards for grades of carcass beef and the related 
standards for grades of slaughter cattle by eliminating ``B'' maturity 
(approximately 30-42 months of age) carcasses with small or slight 
marbling degrees from the Choice and Select grades and including them 
in the Standard grade. However, in order to allow the industry time to 
adjust its production and marketing practices and to market beef 
currently in the pipeline, implementation will be delayed until July 1, 
1996.

List of Subjects

7 CFR Part 53

    Cattle, Hogs, Livestock, Sheep.

7 CFR Part 54

    Food grades and standards, Food labeling, Meat and meat products.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR Part 53 and 7 CFR 
Part 54 are amended as follows:

PART 53--LIVESTOCK (GRADING, CERTIFICATION, AND STANDARDS)

    1. The authority citation for Parts 53 and 54 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1621-1627.

    2. In Sec. 53.203, paragraph (b) (3) is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 53.203  Application of standards for grades of slaughter cattle.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) The approximate maximum age limitation for the Prime, Choice, 
and Standard grades of steers, heifers, and cows is 42 months. The 
maximum age limitation for the Select grade for steers, heifers, and 
cows is approximately 30 months. The Commercial grade for steers, 
heifers, and cows includes only cattle over approximately 42 months. 
There are no age limitations for the Utility, Cutter, and Canner grades 
of steers, heifers, and cows. The maximum age limitation for all grades 
of bullocks is approximately 24 months.\1\

    \1\Maximum maturity limits for bullock carcasses are the same as 
those described in the beef carcass grade standards for steers, 
heifers, and cows at about 30 months of age. However, bullocks 
develop carcass indicators of maturity at younger chronological ages 
than steers. Therefore, the approximate age at which bullocks 
develop carcass indicators of maximum maturity is shown herein as 24 
months rather than 30 months.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    3. In Sec. 53.204, paragraph (c) (1) is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 53.204  Specifications for official U.S. standards for grades of 
slaughter steers, heifers, and cows (quality).

* * * * *
    (c) Select. (1) The Select grade is limited to steers, heifers, and 
cows with a maximum age limitation of approximately 30 months. 
Slaughter cattle possessing the minimum qualifications for Select have 
a thin fat covering which is largely restricted to the back and loin. 
The brisket, flanks, twist, and cod or udder are slightly full and the 
muscling is slightly firm.
* * * * *

PART 54--MEATS, PREPARED MEATS, AND MEAT PRODUCTS (GRADING, 
CERTIFICATION, AND STANDARDS)

    4. Section 54.104 is revised by removing the word ``Select'' in 
paragraph (n), revising the third and fifth sentences in paragraph (o) 
and revising Figure 1 in paragraph (o) to read as follows:


Sec. 54.104  Application of standards for grades of carcass beef.

* * * * * 

[[Page 2896]]

    (o) * * * The Prime, Choice, Select, and Standard grades are 
restricted to beef from young cattle; the Commercial grade is 
restricted to beef from cattle too mature for Prime, Choice, and 
Standard; and the Utility, Cutter, and Canner grades may include beef 
from animals of all ages. * * * Except for the youngest maturity group 
and the Choice grade in the second maturity group, within any specified 
grade, the requirements for marbling increase progressively with 
evidences of advancing maturity. * * *

BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
      

[[Page 2897]]
    [GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TR30JA96.006
    


BILLING CODE 3410-02-C

[[Page 2898]]

* * * * *
    5. Section 54.106 is amended by revising the third sentence in 
paragraph (b) (3), revising paragraphs (c) (1) and (c) (2) and removing 
paragraph (c) (3) as follows:


Sec. 54.106  Specifications for official United States standards for 
grades of carcass beef (quality-steer, heifer, cow).

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) * * * In carcasses throughout the range of maturity included in 
this group, a minimum modest amount of marbling is required (see Figure 
1) and the ribeye muscle is slightly firm.
    (c) Select (1) For carcasses throughout the range of maturity 
permitted in the Select grade, the minimum degree of marbling required 
is a minimum slight amount (see Figure 1) and the ribeye may be 
moderately soft.
    (2) Carcasses in the maturity group permitted range from the 
youngest that are eligible for the beef class to those at the juncture 
of the two youngest maturity groups, which have slightly red and 
slightly soft chine bones and cartilages on the ends of the thoracic 
vertebrae that have some evidence of ossification. In addition, the 
sacral vertebrae are completely fused and the cartilages on the ends of 
the lumbar vertebrae are nearly completely ossified. The rib bones are 
slightly wide and slightly flat and the ribeye muscle is slightly light 
red in color and is fine in texture.
* * * * *
    Dated: January 25, 1996.
Kenneth C. Clayton,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-1816 Filed 1-26-96; 11:27 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P