[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 84 (Tuesday, May 2, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27415-27418]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-08956]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 88 , No. 84 / Tuesday, May 2, 2023 / Proposed
Rules
[[Page 27415]]
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: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This proposed rule would adjust representation on the
Cattlemen's Beef Promotion and Research Board (Board), established
under the Beef Promotion and Research Act of 1985 (Act), to reflect
changes in domestic cattle inventories 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, if
adopted, would 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. The proposed rule would also
update the list of Qualified State Beef Councils (QSBCs) in the Order
by removing the Maryland Industry Beef Council which voted to dissolve
their State beef council.
DATES: Submit comments on or before June 1, 2023.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be posted online at https://www.regulations.gov. Comments received will be posted without change,
including any personal information provided. All comments should
reference the document number AMS-LP-22-0002, the date of submission,
and the page number of this issue of the Federal Register. Comments may
also be sent to Lacey Heddlesten, Agricultural Marketing Specialist;
Research and Promotion Division; Livestock and Poultry Program, AMS,
USDA; STOP 0251, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250.
Comments will be made available for public inspection at the above
address during regular business hours or via the internet at https://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lacey Heddlesten, Agricultural
Marketing Specialist, Research and Promotion Division, at (620) 717-
3834; or by email at [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Orders 12866, and 13563
Executive Orders (E.O.) 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). E.O.
13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits,
reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. This rule
does not meet the definition of a significant regulatory action
contained in section 3(f) of E.O. 12866 and therefore, the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has waived review of this action.
Executive Order 12988
This proposed rule has been reviewed under E.O. 12988, Civil
Justice Reform. This rule 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 proposed rule has been reviewed under E.O. 13175--Consultation
and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments. E.O. 13175 requires
Federal agencies to consult and coordinate with tribes on a government-
to-government basis on: (1) policies that have tribal implication,
including regulation, legislative comments, or proposed legislation;
and (2) other policy statements or actions that 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.
The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has assessed the impact of
this proposed rule on Indian tribes and determined that this rule would
not have tribal implications that require consultation under E.O.
13175. AMS regularly meets with tribal leaders and discuss matters of
mutual interest regarding the marketing of agricultural products. AMS
will work with the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Office of
Tribal Relations to ensure meaningful consultation is provided as
needed with regards to the regulations.
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. part 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 and Proposed Action
The Board was initially appointed on August 4, 1986, pursuant to
the provisions of the Act (7 U.S.C. 2901-2911), and the Order issued
thereunder. Domestic representation on the Board is 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.
[[Page 27416]]
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,
section 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
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 section 1260.141(e)(4). Further, as provided in
section 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 sections 1260.201 and
1260.202 industry data and data published by USDA. The proposed
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
proposed 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 reflects
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).
Based on their 3-year analysis, the Board is recommending to the
Secretary the following changes:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Revised
State/unit Increase/decrease representation representation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Idaho................................................ +1 2 3
Montana.............................................. -1 3 2
Pennsylvania......................................... -1 2 1
Net Change........................................... -1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, Wisconsin's 3-year average cattle inventory is less than 1
percent (33,000 head) below the threshold of 3.5 million head of cattle
needed to maintain 4 Board seats. The cattle inventory report estimates
each state's inventory through a producer survey which is conducted
each January by NASS.\1\ The survey is subject to a margin of error due
to sampling size, response rates, etc. The average coefficient of
variation for Wisconsin's total cattle inventory in the 2020, 2021,
2022 cattle inventory reports is 3.4 percent (34,000 head).
As the coefficient of variation is greater than the amount by which the
inventory is under the 3.5 million head threshold, the Board voted on
July 27, 2022, to allow Wisconsin to maintain 4 Board seats instead of
losing 1, for a total of 3 seats.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://usda.library.cornell.edu/concern/publications/h702q636h.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Order section 1260.141, however, does not take into
consideration the margin of error when analysis is conducted.
Therefore, AMS is proposing the Order be applied without using the NASS
margin of error. Thus, the Secretary proposes to adjust Board
membership from 101 to 99 with Wisconsin losing 1 seat.
If the recommendation of the Board is adopted by the Secretary, the
reapportionment would take effect in the 2023 nomination process and
effect the number of board members the Secretary appointments to fill
positions early in the year 2024.
Technical Amendment
The proposed rule would also update the list of QSBCs in the Order
by removing the Maryland Industry Beef Council which unanimously voted
to dissolve their State beef council during the September 14, 2022,
board meeting.
Initial 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 proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities. The purpose of RFA is to fit
regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions
in order that small businesses will not be unduly burdened.
In 2022, the Small Business Administration (SBA) (13 CFR 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
[[Page 27417]]
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 proposed 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 proposed
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 and 2.3
percent of the total cattle inventory and that beef imports ranged from
9.8 to 10.7 percent of total supply. Veal imports during that time were
negligible as a share of domestic production.
The proposed 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 section 1260.141 does not take into consideration the margin
of error when analysis is conducted. Therefore, AMS is proposing the
Order guidance to be applied without using the NASS margin of error and
thus the Secretary proposes to adjust Board membership from 101 to 99.
Following the proposed rule, a 30-day comment period is provided to
allow interested industry persons to respond to this proposal.
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, AMS proposes to amend 7
CFR part 1260 as follows:
PART 1260--BEEF PROMOTION AND RESEARCH
0
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 1260 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 2901-2911 and 7 U.S.C. 7401.
0
2. Revise Sec. 1260.141 paragraph (a) and the table to paragraph (a)
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\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1,000
State/unit 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
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 1
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................................... 657 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 27418]]
0
3. Revise Sec. 1260.315 to read as follows:
Sec. 1260.315 Qualified State Beef Councils.
The following State beef promotion entities have been certified by
the Board as Qualified State Beef Councils:
(a) Alabama Cattleman's Association.
(b) Arizona Beef Council.
(c) Arkansas Beef Council.
(d) California Beef Council.
(e) Colorado Beef Council Authority.
(f) Delaware Beef Advisory Board.
(g) Florida Beef Council, Inc.
(h) Georgia Beef Board, Inc.
(i) Hawaii Beef Industry Council.
(j) Idaho Beef Council.
(k) Illinois Beef Association, Inc.
(l) Indiana Beef Council, Inc.
(m) Iowa Beef Cattle Producers Association/dba/Iowa Beef Industry
Council.
(n) Kansas Beef Council.
(o) Kentucky Cattleman's Association, Inc.
(p) Louisiana Beef Industry Council.
(q) Michigan Beef Industry Commission.
(r) Minnesota Beef Council.
(s) Mississippi Beef Council.
(t) Missouri Beef Industry Council, Inc.
(u) Montana Beef Council.
(v) Nebraska Beef Council.
(w) Nevada Beef Council.
(x) New Jersey Beef Industry Council.
(y) New Mexico Beef Council.
(z) New York Beef Industry Council.
(aa) North Carolina Cattlemen's Beef Council.
(bb) North Dakota Beef Commission.
(cc) Ohio Beef Council.
(dd) Oklahoma Beef Council.
(ee) Oregon Beef Council.
(ff) Pennsylvania Beef Council.
(gg) South Carolina Beef Council.
(hh) South Dakota Beef Industry Council.
(ii) Tennessee Beef Industry Council.
(jj) Texas Beef Council.
(kk) Utah Beef Council.
(ll) Vermont Beef Industry Council.
(mm) Virginia Beef Industry Council.
(nn) Washington State Beef Commission.
(oo) West Virginia Beef Council, Inc.
(pp) Wisconsin Beef Council, Inc.
(qq) Wyoming Beef Council.
Melissa Bailey,
Associate Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-08956 Filed 5-1-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P