[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