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.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

76097 

Vol. 88, No. 213 

Monday, November 6, 2023 

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: Lacey.Heddlesten@

usda.gov. 

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, § 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
76098 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 213 / Monday, November 6, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

grouped, to the extent practicable, into 

geographically contiguous units, each of 

which have a combined total inventory 

of not less than 500,000 head. Such 

grouped units are entitled to at least one 

representative on the Board. Each unit 

is entitled to an additional Board 

member for each additional 1 million 

head of cattle within the unit, as 

provided in § 1260.141(e)(4). Further, as 

provided in § 1260.141(e)(3), importers 

are represented by a single unit, with 

their number of Board members based 

on a conversion of the total volume of 

imported cattle, beef, or beef products 

into live animal equivalencies. 

Section 1260.141(f) of the Order states 

in determining the volume of cattle 

within the units, the Board and the 

Secretary shall utilize the information 

received by the Board pursuant to 

§§ 1260.201 and 1260.202 industry data 

and data published by USDA. The 

producer representation is based on an 

average of the inventory of cattle in the 

various States on January 1 in 2020, 

2021, and 2022 as reported by USDA’s 

National Agricultural Statistics Service 

(NASS). The importer representation is 

based on a combined total average of the 

2019, 2020, and 2021 live cattle imports 

as published by USDA’s Economic 

Research Service (ERS) and the average 

of the 2019, 2020, and 2021 live animal 

equivalents for imported beef and beef 

products. 

In considering reapportionment, the 

Board reviewed cattle inventories as of 

January 1 in 2020, 2021, and 2022, as 

well as cattle, beef, and beef product 

import data for the period of January 1, 

2019, to December 31, 2021. The Board 

determined that an average of the 

inventory of cattle on January 1 in 2020, 

2021, and 2022 best reflect the number 

of cattle in each State or unit since 

publication of the last reapportionment 

rule in 2020 (85 FR 39461). The Board 

reviewed data published by ERS to 

determine proper importer 

representation. The Board 

recommended the use of the average of 

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: 

State/unit Increase/decrease Current 

representation 

Revised 

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 213 / Monday, November 6, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 76099 

1Sections 1260.141.(c) and (e) use cattle 

inventories in calculating reapportionment 

numbers. 

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 

§ 1260.141(d) which states that the 

Board may recommend to the Secretary 

a modification in the number of cattle 

per unit necessary for representation on 

the Board. However, § 1260.141(d) 

applies only to a recommended change 

based on cattle inventory 1 and not the 

other factors used in the Board’s current 

recommendation for this rule. 

Further, the point estimates published 

by NASS are the official USDA 

estimates of inventory. In preparing 

these estimates, NASS takes into 

account all available and relevant data 

and makes the necessary adjustments 

based on factors such as response rate. 

NASS publishes the measures of 

uncertainty to provide transparency and 

context around the estimates, however 

making further adjustments for these 

purposes would introduce 

inconsistencies to the process and 

departure from the official USDA 

inventory estimates. 

Thus, to consider other factors such as 

the margin of error and the survey 

response rate to the reapportionment of 

the Board, regulatory changes which 

require notice-and-comment 

rulemaking, would be necessary to make 

those clarifications to the Order. Any 

change contemplated by additional 

rulemaking would need to be applied to 

the entirety of the assessment-paying 

population as the Act and Order govern 

all cattle producers and importers and 

all geographical units. 

Diversity 

One commenter mentioned that 

Wisconsin is a State that includes beef 

and dairy producers, and allowing 

Wisconsin to maintain their fourth seat 

will ensure the Board has a strong and 

diverse representation from all sectors. 

One additional commentor opposed to 

Montana losing a seat because the State 

is home to 12 tribal nations that are 

already underrepresented on the Board. 

It is USDA’s policy concerning 

nominations to the Board that the 

Board’s membership should be open to 

all individuals without regard based on 

race, color, religion, national origin, age, 

sex, sexual orientation, disability, 

marital or familial status, political 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
76100 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 213 / Monday, November 6, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

2https://www.nass.usda.gov/AgCensus/ 

index.php. 3https://quickstats.nass.usda.gov/results/ 

758A0A38-2BF4-39CE-90EF-A581BFEA3E81. 

4https://data.census.gov/profile/424470__Meat_

and_meat_product_merchant_wholesalers?g=

0100000US&n=424470. 

5https://data.census.gov/profile/311612_-Meat_

and_meat_product_merchant_wholesalers?g=

0100000US&n=311612. 

beliefs, parental status, receipt of public 

assistance, or protected genetic 

information. Board membership should 

also reflect the diversity of the 

industries in experience of members, 

methods of production and distribution, 

marketing strategies, and other 

distinguishing factors that will bring 

different perspectives and ideas to the 

tables. Emphasis should also be placed 

on the knowledge, skills, and abilities of 

the Board to serve and represent the 

diverse interests of assessment paying 

producers. 

Thus, the number of members on the 

Board should not dictate the level of 

diversity on the Board. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Pursuant to the requirements set forth 

in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), AMS has 

considered the economic effect of this 

action on small entities and has 

determined that this rule will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The purpose of RFA is to fit regulatory 

actions to the scale of businesses subject 

to such actions in order that small 

businesses will not be unduly burdened. 

In 2022, the Small Business 

Administration (SBA) (13 CFR part 

121.201) published a final rule (84 FR 

64013) that updated its size standards 

based on income or employee numbers 

for various small business falling under 

the North American Industry 

Classification System (NAICS). Within 

that rule, the SBA threshold for ‘‘Beef 

Cattle Ranching and Farming’’ (NAICS 

code 112111) operations to qualify small 

businesses was raised from annual sales 

of $1 million or less to annual sales of 

$2.5 million or less. 

According to the NASS 2017 Census 

of Agriculture, the number of U.S. 

operations with beef cattle totaled 

729,046 and with cattle of any type 

totaled 882,692.2 The same Census of 

Agriculture data shows that roughly 4 

percent of operations with cattle, or 

31,476 operations, have annual sales 

receipts of $1,000,000 or more, the small 

business standard prior to the 2022 

revision.3 No further breakout in the 

Census of Agriculture data is made to 

account for the new, higher SBA 

standard. However, the vast majority of 

cattle producers, 96 percent, would be 

considered small businesses under the 

new SBA standards. It should be noted 

that producers are only indirectly 

impacted by the rule. 

Cattle, beef, and veal importers are 

also impacted by the rule. Based on data 

available on membership in the Meat 

Import Council of America, AMS 

estimates that approximately 190 firms 

import beef or beef products. AMS is 

not aware of any data that reports the 

number of beef-importing entities that 

meet the SBA definition of small 

businesses. 

In addition to cattle producers, 

affected entities under this rule change 

include meat and meat-product 

merchant wholesalers (wholesalers), 

classified under NAICS code 424470, 

and meat processors from carcass 

(processors), classified under NAICS 

code 311612. The SBA thresholds for 

both these businesses to qualify as small 

are that they have fewer than 1,000 

employees. The most current data from 

the Census of Manufacturing states that 

all 2,376 wholesalers were small 

businesses (in 2017) 4 and that all 1,423 

processors were small business (in 

2020).5

Recent import trade data was also 

considered for understanding the 

overall dynamics of this industry 

segment. The Foreign Agricultural 

Service reports monthly trade data for 

traded agricultural products by product 

type. Based on analysis of that trade 

data and consumption data collected in 

the USDA’s World Agricultural Demand 

and Supply Estimates, over the 2017 to 

2022 period, cattle imports ranged 

between 1.8 percent and 2.3 percent of 

the total cattle inventory and that beef 

imports ranged from 9.8 percent to 10.7 

percent of total supply. Veal imports 

during that time were negligible as a 

share of domestic production. 

The rule imposes no new burden on 

the industry, as it only adjusts 

representation on the Board to reflect 

changes in domestic cattle inventory, as 

well as in cattle and beef imports. 

Additionally, the Order § 1260.141 does 

not take into consideration the margin 

of error when analysis is conducted. 

Therefore, the Secretary is applying the 

Order guidance without using the NASS 

margin of error to adjust Board 

membership from 101 to 99. 

AMS is committed to complying with 

the E-Government Act of 2002 to 

promote the use of the internet and 

other information technologies to 

provide increased opportunities for 

citizen access to government 

information and services, and for other 

purposes. 

USDA has not identified any relevant 

federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or 

conflict with this rule. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1260 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Advertising, Agricultural 

research, Imports, Marketing 

agreements, Meat and meat products, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, the Agricultural Marketing 

Service amends 7 CFR part 1260 as 

follows: 

PART 1260—BEEF PROMOTION AND 

RESEARCH 

■ 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR 

part 1260 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 2901–2911 and 7 

U.S.C. 7401. 

■ 2. Revise § 1260.141 paragraph (a) and 

the table immediately following to read 

as follows: 

§ 1260.141 Membership of Board. 

(a) Beginning with the 2023 Board 

nominations and the associated 

appointments effective early in the year 

2024, the United States shall be divided 

into 38 geographical units and 1 unit 

representing importers, for a total of 39 

units. The number of Board members 

from each unit shall be as follows: 

TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (a)—CATTLE AND CALVES 1

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 213 / Monday, November 6, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 76101 

TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (a)—CATTLE AND CALVES 1—Continued 

State/unit (1,000 head) Directors 

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. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
76102 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 213 / Monday, November 6, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

§ 1260.315 [Amended] 

■ 3. Amend § 1260.315 by: 

■ a. Removing paragraph (q); and 

■ b. Redesignating paragraphs (r) 

through (rr) as paragraphs (q) through 

(qq), respectively. 

Melissa Bailey, 

Associate Administrator, Agricultural 

Marketing Service. 

[FR Doc. 2023–24395 Filed 11–3–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2023–1410; Project 

Identifier MCAI–2022–01517–E; Amendment 

39–22575; AD 2023–21–03] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce 

Deutschland Ltd & Co KG Engines 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding 

Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2013–26– 

10 for certain Rolls-Royce Deutschland 

Ltd & Co KG (RRD) Model RB211– 

524G2–19, RB211–524G3–19, RB211– 

524H–36, and RB211–524H2–19 

engines. AD 2013–26–10 required a onetime reduction in the cyclic life of 

certain high-pressure compressor (HPC) 

rotor stage 1 and stage 2 disks, and 

removal of disks that exceed the 

reduced cycle life. Since the FAA issued 

AD 2013–26–10, the manufacturer has 

revised the engine time limits manual 

(TLM), introducing new and more 

restrictive instructions. This AD is 

prompted by the manufacturer revising 

the engine time limits manual, 

introducing new and more restrictive 

instructions. This AD requires revisions 

to the airworthiness limitations section 

(ALS) of the operator’s existing 

approved engine maintenance or 

inspection program, as applicable, as 

specified in a European Union Aviation 

Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which is 

incorporated by reference. The FAA is 

issuing this AD to address the unsafe 

condition on these products. 

DATES: This AD is effective December 

11, 2023. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

of a certain publication listed in this AD 

as of December 11, 2023. 

ADDRESSES: 

AD Docket: You may examine the AD 

docket at regulations.gov under Docket 

No. FAA–2023–1410; or in person at 

Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 

5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. The AD docket 

contains this final rule, the mandatory 

continuing airworthiness information 

(MCAI), any comments received, and 

other information. The address for 

Docket Operations is U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 

Washington, DC 20590. 

Material Incorporated by Reference: 

• For service information identified 

in this final rule, contact EASA, KonradAdenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, 

Germany; phone: +49 221 8999 000; 

email: ADs@easa.europa.eu; website: 

easa.europa.eu. You may find this 

material on the EASA website at 

ad.easa.europa.eu. It is also available at 

regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA– 

2023–1410. 

• You may view this service 

information at the FAA, Airworthiness 

Products Section, Operational Safety 

Branch, 1200 District Avenue, 

Burlington, MA 01803. For information 

on the availability of this material at the 

FAA, call (817) 222–5110. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sungmo Cho, Aviation Safety Engineer, 

FAA, 2200 South 216th Street, Des 

Moines, WA 98198; phone: (781) 238– 

7241; email: sungmo.d.cho@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The FAA issued a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR 

part 39 to supersede AD 2013–26–10, 

Amendment 39–17719 (79 FR 1315, 

January 8, 2014), (AD 2013–26–10). AD 

2013–26–10 applied to certain RRD 

Model RB211–524G2–19, RB211– 

524G3–19, RB211–524H–36, and 

RB211–524H2–19 engines. AD 2013– 

26–10 required a one-time reduction in 

the cyclic life of certain HPC rotor stage 

1 and stage 2 disks, and removal of 

disks that exceed the reduced cycle life. 

The FAA issued AD 2013–26–10 to 

prevent the failure of certain life-limited 

parts, which could result in 

uncontained engine damage and damage 

to the airplane. 

The NPRM published in the Federal 

Register on July 11, 2023 (88 FR 44075). 

The NPRM was prompted by AD 2022– 

0232, dated November 28, 2022 (EASA 

AD 2022–0232) (referred to after this as 

the MCAI), issued by EASA which is the 

Technical Agent for the Member States 

of the European Union. The MCAI states 

that the ALS for RB211–524G/H 

engines, which is approved by EASA, is 

defined and published in TLM T– 

211(524)–7RR, and that these 

airworthiness limitations have been 

identified as mandatory for continued 

airworthiness. The MCAI also states that 

since the original issue of TLM T– 

211(524)–7RR, updated thresholds and 

intervals were introduced for newly 

designed parts. EASA AD 2013–0246 

was issued to require implementation of 

the reduced cyclic life limit and 

replacement of HPC stage 1 and 2 disks 

before exceeding their life limit. The 

MCAI also states that the manufacturer 

published a revised engine TLM since 

EASA AD 2013–0246 was issued, 

introducing new and more restrictive 

instructions. The ALS defined in the 

revised engine TLM also adds RRD 

Model RB211–524G2–T–19, RB211– 

524G3–T–19, RB211–524H–T–36, and 

RB211–524H2–T–19 engines to the list 

of affected engines. 

You may examine the MCAI in the 

AD docket at regulations.gov under 

Docket No. FAA–2023–1410. 

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to 

require revising the existing approved 

engine maintenance or inspection 

program, as applicable, to incorporate 

new and more restrictive airworthiness 

limitations, which are specified in 

EASA AD 2022–0232 described 

previously, except for any differences 

identified as exceptions in the 

regulatory text of this AD and as 

discussed under ‘‘Differences Between 

this AD and the MCAI.’’ 

Discussion of Final Airworthiness 

Directive 

Comments 

The FAA received a comment from 

Air Line Pilots Association, 

International (ALPA). ALPA supported 

the NPRM without change. 

Conclusion 

These products have been approved 

by the aviation authority of another 

country and are approved for operation 

in the United States. Pursuant to the 

FAA’s bilateral agreement with this 

State of Design Authority, it has notified 

the FAA of the unsafe condition 

described in the MCAI referenced 

above. The FAA reviewed the relevant 

data, considered the comment received, 

and determined that air safety requires 

adopting the AD as proposed. 

Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD 

to address the unsafe condition on these 

products. Except for minor editorial 

changes, this AD is adopted as proposed 

in the NPRM. 

Related Service Information Under 1 

CFR Part 51 

The FAA reviewed EASA AD 2022– 

0232, which specifies instructions for 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1