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

SUMMARY: This final rule revises the official U.S. standards for grades

of carcass beef and the related standards for grades of slaughter

cattle. The changes eliminate ``B'' maturity (approximately 30-42

months of age) carcasses with small or slight marbling degrees from the

Choice and Select grades and include them in the Standard grade. This

action is being taken because carcasses with these characteristics have

been shown to be both quite variable and often unacceptable in

palatability, which contributes significantly to inconsistent

palatability of Choice and Select grade beef. The standards for grades

of slaughter cattle, which are based on the beef carcass grades, are

revised to parallel the changes in the beef carcass grade standards.

This change should serve to strengthen the competitive position of beef

products through increased quality and consistency, and thus be in the

best interests of the beef industry. Also, it should provide the

consumer with an improved product through greater consistency and

predictability in the eating quality of Choice and Select grade beef.

The changes should provide the industry with long-term benefits because

pricing systems will be improved, quality inconsistencies will be

reduced, demand for beef will be improved, and the market share beef

commands should increase. These revisions are the same as those

proposed in the January 19, 1995, Federal Register (60 FR 3982).

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 1, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Herbert C. Abraham, Chief, Livestock

and Meat Standardization Branch, Livestock and Seed Division,

Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, P.O.

Box 96456, Washington, D.C. 20090-6456, 202/720-4486.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Order 12866

The Department of Agriculture is issuing this rule in conformance

with Executive Order 12866.

Executive Order 12778

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12778, Civil

Justice Reform. This action is not intended to have retroactive effect.

This rule would not preempt any State or local laws, regulations, or

policies, unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this

rule. There are no administrative procedures which must be exhausted

prior to any judicial challenge to the provisions of this rule.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), has

certified that this action will not have a significant economic impact

on a substantial number of small entities, as defined in the Regulatory

Flexibility Act, P.L. 96-345 (5 U.S.C. 601). The use of the beef

carcass and slaughter cattle grade standards is voluntary, and they are

applied equally to all size entities covered by these regulations.

Further, this action does not impose any new requirements or costs, it

only modifies the grade requirements to reflect modern production

practices. All entities can make needed management changes in response

to market signals. The action is expected to benefit the industry by

improving consumer satisfaction with beef products, and there should be

a positive impact on overall industry returns.

Background

Federal beef grading is a voluntary fee for service program,

provided under the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, as amended (7

U.S.C. 1621 et seq.). A primary purpose of the grades is to divide the

population of cattle and beef into uniform groups (of similar quality,

yield, value, etc.), in order to facilitate marketing. Grades provide a

simple, effective means of describing a product that is easily

understood by both buyers and sellers. By identifying separate and

distinct segments of a commodity, grades enable buyers to obtain that

particular portion of the entire range of a commodity which meets their

individual needs. At the same time, grades are important in

transmitting information to cattle producers so that more informed

production decisions can be made. For example, the market preference

for a particular grade of beef can be communicated to cattle producers

so they can adjust their production accordingly.

When beef is voluntarily graded, the official grade consists of a

quality grade and/or a yield grade. The quality grades are intended to

identify differences in the palatability (eating satisfaction) of

cooked beef primarily through the combined characteristics of marbling

and maturity. The principal official USDA quality grades for young

(maturity groups A and B) cattle and carcasses are Prime, Choice,

Select, and Standard.

In developing the grades, the Department has followed the

philosophy that, to be effective, beef grades should sort the supply of

beef carcasses into homogeneous groups having a sufficiently narrow

range of grade-determining factors so that carcasses within a given

grade are essentially interchangeable. Another major objective is to

provide as uniform and consistent product as possible within a given

grade.

National Cattlemen's Association Petition

In June 1994, the National Cattlemen's Association (NCA) petitioned

USDA to modify the beef quality grade standards by removing B-maturity

carcasses with small and slight marbling scores from the Choice and

Select grades and include such carcasses in the Standard grade. This

action was recommended by a NCA Carcass Quality Task Force which worked

for approximately 1\1/2\ years to develop specific recommendations for

the beef industry to win the ``war on fat,'' while enhancing beef

quality and consistency. The task force had broad representation

[[Page 2892]]

from the cattle production and feeding sectors, as well as packers,

purveyors, and retailers. Several actions were recommended, but only

this particular recommendation related directly to the beef grade

standards.

The NCA petition stated the modern beef animal today is typically

marketed at 12 to 15 months of age when fed as calves and 18 to 24

months of age when fed as yearlings. These modern animals are the

result of progressive breeders and feeders who produce faster growing,

more efficient cattle. If these animals receive proper care and

nutrition, they should have no difficulty producing carcasses in the A-

maturity group. Carcasses of B-maturity are typically from cattle which

are 30 to 42 months of age when marketed.

Research conducted for the Department by Texas A&M University

(Smith et al., 1984, Journal of Food Quality), using trained taste

panels, indicates that nearly 50 percent of the loin steaks from B-

maturity carcasses with slight marbling, and over 30 percent of the

loin steaks from B-maturity carcasses with small marbling, are less

than satisfactory. These B-maturity carcasses significantly contribute

to the variability of palatability within the Select and Choice grades

and they do not epitomize the ``modern beef carcass.'' Permitting B-

maturity carcasses with a small and slight degree of marbling to be

graded Choice and Select when they have been proven to be considerably

more variable in palatability than A-maturity carcasses with slight and

small marbling provides no incentives for the beef industry to decrease

production and marketing of cattle which do not conform to consumer

demand for quality and consistency.

Although these cattle make up only a small percentage of the U.S.

fed beef supply, their variability in palatability can significantly

affect overall consumer satisfaction with beef. According to a national

beef quality audit conducted in 1991, B-maturity carcasses with slight

and small marbling made up about 4.8 percent of the fed-beef supply.

The beef industry processes approximately 26 million fed beef carcasses

annually. The estimated 4.8 percent of fed-beef affected by the

proposed grade change would represent approximately 1.3 million

carcasses. It is estimated that 42 percent of these carcasses would

have less than desirable palatability. This means over 500,000

carcasses with less than desirable palatability could be removed from

the Choice and Select grades, which should have a very positive effect

on consumer satisfaction with beef. The NCA believes producers can and

will respond quickly to the market signals that these ``older'' cattle

should be marketed at an age at which they can produce A-maturity

carcasses and thus produce beef that is more acceptable to consumers.

Such a shift in management could effectively eliminate most B-maturity

carcasses from the beef supply without negatively affecting overall

economic returns to the industry.

The proposed change was seen as having a positive effect on the

marketing of Select grade beef. It would not only make the palatability

more consistent, but it would also make the nutritional profile more

consistent by removing from the Select grade, B-maturity carcasses

which have higher amounts of fat due to the higher marbling level

(small in B-maturity compared to slight in A-maturity) required for

these carcasses to qualify for Select. This makes the Select grade more

uniform in both fat content and consistency of palatability and enhance

its acceptance by consumers who desire leaner beef. Since the U.S. Good

name was changed to U.S. Select in 1987 (52 FR 35679), the percentage

of Select graded beef has steadily increased, and in FY 93, 33.6

percent of graded steer and heifer beef was Select.

The NCA recommendation stated it was submitted to aid the beef

industry in producing a higher quality, more consistent beef product

under the Choice and Select grades. Eliminating B-maturity carcasses

will allow market forces to further discourage the production of cattle

which do not conform to consumers desire for tender, tasty beef

products. The modern beef animal raised using modern breeding and

feeding technology should have no trouble producing a carcass of A-

maturity. The small proposed modification to the standards will

strengthen consumer confidence in using grades to identify quality and

consistency when purchasing beef.

Proposed Standards

The Department carefully evaluated the recommendation and concurred

that the suggested changes should improve consumer satisfaction with

the Choice and Select grades and thus strengthen the competitive

position of beef in the marketplace while aiding the beef industry in

its objective of providing more palatable, consistent beef to

consumers.

Therefore, it was proposed that the beef carcass standards be

revised to eliminate B-maturity (approximately 30-42 months of age)

carcasses with small or slight marbling degrees from the Choice and

Select grades and reduce their grade to Standard.

It was also proposed that the standards for grades of slaughter

cattle, which are based on the beef carcass grade standards, be revised

to reflect the changes proposed for the beef carcass grade standards.

Grades of slaughter cattle are intended to be directly related to the

grades of the carcasses they produce.

Comments

A 90-day comment period, which closed on April 19, 1995, was

provided for submission of comments. The official number of comments

submitted prior to the close of the comment period was 403. In

addition, approximately 65 comments were received which were submitted

after the close of the comment period. These 65 comments expressed

essentially the same views as the 403 comments submitted in a timely

manner. All submitted comments are part of the public record on the

proposed change and are available for public review. The comments were

divided into several groups (sectors) representing segments of the

production and consumption chain with similar interests. The comments

were also classified as being submitted by an individual or an

organization. The distribution of comments by these categories is shown

in Table 1.

The percentage support/opposition for the proposed change by source

and classification (i.e., individual or organization) is shown in Table

2. Over 70 percent of the comments from both individuals and

organizations supported the proposed change. The proposed change was

strongly supported by the purveyor and processor, retail and

restaurant, consumer, government, and academia sectors. Of the comments

from these sectors, only two individual comments were opposed to the

proposed changes. The strongest opposition to the proposed changes was

from the cattle feeding, cattle marketing, and the packer sectors. All

comments from packers, all but one comment from the cattle marketing

sector, and a majority of cattle feeders were opposed to the proposed

changes. While the majority of cattle feeding and marketing sector

comments were opposed, if they are combined with the comments from the

cattle production sector, a large majority of comments from both

organizations (71.4%) and individuals (63.0%) representing cattle

interests (production, feeding, and marketing) supported the proposed

change.

[[Page 2893]]

Table 1--Distribution of Comments

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

Source Organizations\1\ Individuals\2\ Total

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

Cattle production............. 27 171 198

Cattle Feeding................ 4 96 100

Cattle Marketing.............. 3 8 11

Packer........................ 2 4 6

Purveyor and processor........ 2 17 19

Retail and Restaurant......... 1 6 7

Consumer...................... 0 34 34

Government.................... 0 5 5

Academia...................... 0 15 15

Other......................... 0 8 8

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

Total................... 39 364 403

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

\1\Includes comments of state, regional, and national organizations.

\2\Includes comments of individuals, comments with multiple signers, and

businesses.

Table 2.--Comments in Favor of or Opposed To Adoption of USDA Proposed Changes.\1\

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

Favor Oppose

Source ---------------------------------------------- Total

Number Percent Number Percent

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

Cattle Production:

Individuals\2\....................................... 131 77.1 39 22.9 170

Organizations........................................ 25 92.6 2 7.4 27

Cattle Feeding:

Individuals\2\....................................... 40 42.1 55 57.9 95

Organizations........................................ 0 0 4 100.0 4

Cattle Marketing:

Individuals.......................................... 1 12.5 7 87.5 8

Organizations........................................ 0 0 3 100.0 3

Packer:

Individuals.......................................... 0 0 4 100.0 4

Organizations........................................ 0 0 2 100.0 2

Purveyor and Processor:

Individuals.......................................... 16 94.1 1 5.9 17

Organizations........................................ 2 100.0 0 0 2

Retail and Restaurant:

Individuals.......................................... 6 100.0 0 0 6

Organizations........................................ 1 100.0 0 0 1

Consumer:

Individuals\2\....................................... 32 97.0 1 3.0 33

Organizations........................................ 0 -- 0 -- 0

Government:

Individuals.......................................... 5 100.0 0 0 5

Organizations........................................ 0 -- 0 -- 0

Academia:

Individuals\2\....................................... 14 100.0 0 0 14

Organizations........................................ 0 -- 0 -- 0

Other:

Individuals.......................................... 7 100.0 0 0 7

Organizations........................................ 0 -- 0 -- 0

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

Total............................................ 280 70.2 119 29.8 399

Individuals.................................... 252 70.0 108 30.0 360

Organizations.................................. 28 71.2 11 28.2 39

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

\1\Includes all written comments except 4 which were nonresponsive or noncommittal regarding the proposed

changes.

\2\One comment from this source was nonresponsive or noncommittal regarding the proposed changes.

Comments in favor of the change strongly supported the removal of

B-maturity carcasses with small and slight marbling from the Choice and

Select grades. The proposed change was seen by many commenters as an

opportunity to improve the overall quality of beef from these grades by

removing a group of carcasses which only comprise a small percentage of

the fed-beef supply, but contribute significantly to beef with less

than desirable eating satisfaction for consumers. These commenters

indicated that removal of a group of carcasses of which up to

approximately 50 percent may produce an inconsistent, variable product

which provides consumers with a less than desirable eating experience

was a first step toward restoring consumer confidence and market share

which has been eroding over the last several years. These comments

expressed the view that any group of carcasses with this degree of

variability should not be allowed in the Choice and Select grades if

the industry is serious in its desire to be consumer driven.

Many supporters of the proposed change, including several from the

academic sector, stated the scientific evidence strongly supports the

proposed changes. These comments supported the conclusions of the NCA

task force which concluded the scientific evidence supported the

proposed changes. These studies indicated variability and inconsistency

of palatability of beef with small and slight marbling in B-maturity

was much greater than comparable levels of marbling in A-maturity, even

though some data did not indicate significant differences in overall

palatability. The high degree of inconsistency was cited by many

[[Page 2894]]

comments from the cattle production and feeding sectors as a situation

which must be corrected. Consumption sectors (consumer, purveyor and

processor, retail and restaurant) were also very concerned over product

which failed to meet consumer desires. Supporters of the proposed

changes postulated that few successful businesses would choose to do

nothing if they found a product line with up to 50 percent customer

dissatisfaction.

Many comments from cattle sectors and academia expressed the belief

that a large majority of B-maturity carcasses are the result of

management decisions that can be modified by the industry. Further,

these comments stated that by sending a strong market signal that these

cattle will not be included in the Choice and Select grades, management

decisions can be made that will eliminate a large number of them from

the fed-beef supply. Many supporters as well as opponents of the

proposed changes indicated many B-maturity carcasses are from older

``Mexican feeders'' or first or second-calf heifers. Supporters

strongly believed these management practices could be modified and were

against allowing these types of cattle to be included in the same

grades as properly managed, A-maturity cattle. Several cattle producers

and/or feeders indicated they had taken advantage of the system that

allowed these types of cattle to be included in the Choice and Select

grades, but feel it is now time to take a positive step with long-term

benefits in mind to improve the quality and consistency of beef.

Comments from cattle feeders, producers, and marketers which

opposed the changes often stated the belief that there would be a

significant negative economic impact. Estimates of over $100 million

annually in lost revenue were predicted by some of these commenters.

Similarly, comments from the packer sector indicated a projected

reductions of $20 million to $78 million in revenue annually. These

estimates were generally based solely on projected losses in value due

to decreasing the grade of the affected B-maturity carcasses from

Choice and Select to Standard. Some feeders and producers were

concerned that the changes would simply be used by packers as an

opportunity to further discount cattle, who would then pass the beef

through the system as ``no-roll'' product that would not be discounted

appropriately, thus providing an economic windfall for packers. These

commenters also believed the beef targeted by the change would not be

eliminated from the beef supply, but would simply be marketed in a

different manner.

Several of the comments opposed to the changes expressed the

concern that the changes ``unfairly penalized'' the approximately 50

percent of the affected B-maturity carcasses which are considered to

produce ``desirable'' product. As discussed previously, supporters of

the proposal believed any dissatisfaction level of this magnitude was

extremely detrimental to consumer acceptance of beef. Several of the

comments from cattle producers and feeders also expressed concern that

the proposed changes would unfairly penalize operations that grazed

older yearling cattle or fed ``older Mexican'' cattle or 1st or 2nd-

calf heifers. These comments suggested that these cattle would be

severely discounted in the market and would severely affect their

production and marketing.

Some comments from the packing and cattle feeding sectors

questioned the interpretation of the research considered in developing

the proposal which indicated higher variability in palatability of B-

maturity carcasses. A few of these comments indicated some studies

showed beef of B-maturity to be similar to A-maturity beef in overall

palatability. Two studies (National Consumer Retail Beef Study-1986 and

Beef Customer Satisfaction-1994) were cited by a few commenters as

showing consumers do not regard fed-beef as having palatability

problems.

Evaluation of Comments

Supporters of the changes indicated the approximately 50 percent of

B-maturity carcasses with less than desirable palatability have a

significant negative impact on consumer satisfaction with beef. Many

opponents of the changes did not disagree with the evidence of

palatability problems in up to 50 percent of B-maturity carcasses.

However, these commenters believed the remaining 50 percent of B-

maturity carcasses would be ``unfairly discounted'' under the proposal.

Even though it would be preferable to not exclude the approximately 50

percent of carcasses in B-maturity which have desirable eating

satisfaction from the Choice and Select grades, no method for

distinguishing these carcasses from those with undesirable eating

satisfaction is currently available. Although these B-maturity

carcasses with less than desirable palatability represent a relatively

small portion of the fed-beef supply, AMS recognizes that the negative

impact they can have on consumer satisfaction with Choice and Select

beef supports their exclusion from these grades. AMS also has carefully

reevaluated the supporting scientific evidence which compares the

palatability of A and B-maturity beef and concludes there is strong

evidence of greater variability of eating quality in B-maturity beef

than in A-maturity beef. While some opponents of the proposed changes

questioned some of the evidence, most of the comments (including

several from opponents of the changes) supported the evidence. The two

studies (National Consumer Retail Beef Study-1986 and Beef Customer

Satisfaction-1994) cited by some opponents as evidence that the changes

should not be made evaluated only A-maturity carcasses, B-maturity

carcasses were not included in these studies. In addition to the

scientific evidence, the very strong support for the proposed changes

from the consumption sectors (purveyor, processor, retail, restaurant,

and consumer) indicates that consumers desire a more consistent, less

variable eating experience from beef products. The need for improved

consumer satisfaction is evident, and this action should provide the

industry with an opportunity to eliminate a source of beef from the

Choice and Select grades that has been shown to be much more variable

in palatability than A-maturity beef.

Commenters who both supported and opposed the proposed changes

indicated several management practices which contribute to the

production of B-maturity carcasses. These include feeding of ``older

Mexican'' cattle and 1st and 2nd-calf heifers. While these types of

cattle are not the only source of B-maturity carcasses, they

potentially are a significant source. AMS believes these comments

support the ability of the industry to identify many sources of B-

maturity carcasses and either alter management practices to prevent

their production as fed-beef or to merchandize them according to their

value in the marketing system. Beef produced from such management

systems cannot be properly marketed with beef produced from young, fed-

cattle under 30 months of age because of the variability they introduce

into the Choice and Select grades.

A few comments from ``stocker'' operators were concerned the

changes would cause their cattle which are grazed up until about 20

months of age and leave the feedlot at about 23-24 months to be

discounted because they would produce B-maturity carcasses. There is no

evidence to indicate these cattle when properly managed and marketed

would not produce A-maturity carcasses (approximately 30 months of

age).

[[Page 2895]]

Supporters of the grade change generally indicated a belief that

the proposed changes would have a beneficial long-term impact on the

industry, but provided no monetary figures. Much of the opposition to

the proposed changes was due to potential negative economic impact.

Some opponents of the changes provided estimates of negative economic

impact on the industry from $20 million to over $100 million annually.

Because of the wide variation in the type and magnitude of the

predicted impacts expressed by commenters, AMS concluded an independent

economic study would better enable AMS to most effectively evaluate the

proposed changes. AMS contracted with Dr. Wayne Purcell, Director,

Research Institute on Livestock Pricing, Virginia Tech University, to

conduct an independent economic analysis. Dr. Purcell is widely

accepted by the industry as an authority on livestock marketing. His

analysis has been made part of the public record on the proposed

changes.

The economic impact study found if management strategies are not

changed and the same number of B-maturity carcasses continue to be

produced, a short-run negative impact on the industry of -$21 million

could be projected. These immediate costs come from the reduced prices

of B-maturity carcasses that are in the pipeline and from the price

depressing influence of an increase in ungraded and processing beef as

these carcasses are marketed. However, if management strategies are

improved to eliminate even 25 percent of these B-maturity carcasses, a

positive impact of $86 million would occur, and if 50 percent are

eliminated due to management, a positive impact of $194 million would

occur over an adjustment period of about 18 months. If credit is given

to longer term benefits coming from improved demand as some of the

quality inconsistency is eliminated, the benefits to the industry could

easily exceed $1.0 billion across the next 10 years. This study

concluded the benefits to the whole industry far outweigh short-run

adjustments. Longer term, it concluded the entire industry would

benefit because of improved pricing systems, reduction of quality

inconsistencies, improved demand for beef, and a larger market share

for beef.

AMS concludes that the industry can utilize improved management

strategies to eliminate a portion of B-maturity carcasses from the fed-

beef supply. AMS also concludes the economic impact study provides the

most reliable indication of potential economic impacts from the

changes. The projected negative impacts provided by some commentors

generally only accounted for the decrease in value of the B-maturity

carcasses which would not grade Choice or Select after the grade

change. The commentors did not account for price-related benefits,

improved consumer demand, or changes in the supply/demand price

relationship for Choice and Select beef after removal of B-maturity

carcasses. Many comments indicated producers and feeders have the

ability to identify and manage differently cattle types which

contribute significantly to production of B-maturity carcasses. What

percentage of B-maturity carcasses will be eliminated and over what

time period is difficult to predict. However, based on the comments and

other information, it is reasonable to assume that improved management

strategies will enable the industry to achieve a 25 percent reduction

in the number of B-maturity carcasses in the first or second year of

the change, if an adjustment period is provided prior to implementation

of the change. A 25 percent reduction would enable the industry to

realize the net benefits projected by the economic study of $86 million

over the eighteen months following implementation of the change by

removing an identifiable source of inconsistent quality from the Choice

and Select grades and the fed-beef supply.

In consideration of the public comments submitted in response to

the proposed rule of January 19, 1995 (60 FR 3982-3986), and all other

available information, USDA adopts the proposed rule to revise the

official U.S. standards for grades of carcass beef and the related

standards for grades of slaughter cattle by eliminating ``B'' maturity

(approximately 30-42 months of age) carcasses with small or slight

marbling degrees from the Choice and Select grades and including them

in the Standard grade. However, in order to allow the industry time to

adjust its production and marketing practices and to market beef

currently in the pipeline, implementation will be delayed until July 1,

1996.

List of Subjects

7 CFR Part 53

Cattle, Hogs, Livestock, Sheep.

7 CFR Part 54

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

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR Part 53 and 7 CFR

Part 54 are amended as follows:

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

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

follows:

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

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

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

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(3) The approximate maximum age limitation for the Prime, Choice,

and Standard grades of steers, heifers, and cows is 42 months. The

maximum age limitation for the Select grade for steers, heifers, and

cows is approximately 30 months. The Commercial grade for steers,

heifers, and cows includes only cattle over approximately 42 months.

There are no age limitations for the Utility, Cutter, and Canner grades

of steers, heifers, and cows. The maximum age limitation for all grades

of bullocks is approximately 24 months.\1\

\1\Maximum maturity limits for bullock carcasses are the same as

those described in the beef carcass grade standards for steers,

heifers, and cows at about 30 months of age. However, bullocks

develop carcass indicators of maturity at younger chronological ages

than steers. Therefore, the approximate age at which bullocks

develop carcass indicators of maximum maturity is shown herein as 24

months rather than 30 months.

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

* * * * *

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

Sec. 53.204 Specifications for official U.S. standards for grades of

slaughter steers, heifers, and cows (quality).

* * * * *

(c) Select. (1) The Select grade is limited to steers, heifers, and

cows with a maximum age limitation of approximately 30 months.

Slaughter cattle possessing the minimum qualifications for Select have

a thin fat covering which is largely restricted to the back and loin.

The brisket, flanks, twist, and cod or udder are slightly full and the

muscling is slightly firm.

* * * * *

PART 54--MEATS, PREPARED MEATS, AND MEAT PRODUCTS (GRADING,

CERTIFICATION, AND STANDARDS)

4. Section 54.104 is revised by removing the word ``Select'' in

paragraph (n), revising the third and fifth sentences in paragraph (o)

and revising Figure 1 in paragraph (o) to read as follows:

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

* * * * *

[[Page 2896]]

(o) * * * The Prime, Choice, Select, and Standard grades are

restricted to beef from young cattle; the Commercial grade is

restricted to beef from cattle too mature for Prime, Choice, and

Standard; and the Utility, Cutter, and Canner grades may include beef

from animals of all ages. * * * Except for the youngest maturity group

and the Choice grade in the second maturity group, within any specified

grade, the requirements for marbling increase progressively with

evidences of advancing maturity. * * *

BILLING CODE 3410-02-P

[[Page 2897]]

[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TR30JA96.006

BILLING CODE 3410-02-C

[[Page 2898]]

* * * * *

5. Section 54.106 is amended by revising the third sentence in

paragraph (b) (3), revising paragraphs (c) (1) and (c) (2) and removing

paragraph (c) (3) as follows:

Sec. 54.106 Specifications for official United States standards for

grades of carcass beef (quality-steer, heifer, cow).

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(3) * * * In carcasses throughout the range of maturity included in

this group, a minimum modest amount of marbling is required (see Figure

1) and the ribeye muscle is slightly firm.

(c) Select (1) For carcasses throughout the range of maturity

permitted in the Select grade, the minimum degree of marbling required

is a minimum slight amount (see Figure 1) and the ribeye may be

moderately soft.

(2) Carcasses in the maturity group permitted range from the

youngest that are eligible for the beef class to those at the juncture

of the two youngest maturity groups, which have slightly red and

slightly soft chine bones and cartilages on the ends of the thoracic

vertebrae that have some evidence of ossification. In addition, the

sacral vertebrae are completely fused and the cartilages on the ends of

the lumbar vertebrae are nearly completely ossified. The rib bones are

slightly wide and slightly flat and the ribeye muscle is slightly light

red in color and is fine in texture.

* * * * *

Dated: January 25, 1996.

Kenneth C. Clayton,

Acting Administrator.

[FR Doc. 96-1816 Filed 1-26-96; 11:27 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-02-P