Cattle Fever Tick; Importation Requirements for Ruminants From Mexico, 10323-10325 [2015-04074]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
10323
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
Vol. 80, No. 38
Thursday, February 26, 2015
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains regulatory documents having general
applicability and legal effect, most of which
are keyed to and codified in the Code of
Federal Regulations, which is published under
50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by
the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of
new books are listed in the first FEDERAL
REGISTER issue of each week.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service
9 CFR Part 93
[Docket No. APHIS–2012–0073]
RIN 0579–AD91
Cattle Fever Tick; Importation
Requirements for Ruminants From
Mexico
Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
We are amending the
regulations to recognize the State of
Sonora as a region in Mexico that is free
of fever ticks. We are also establishing
an exemption from acaricide dipping
treatment requirements, and the
documentation requirements associated
with such dipping, that were formerly
applicable to cattle and other ruminants
originating from Sonora as a condition
of eligibility for entry to the United
States, provided that certain conditions
are met. This action will remove
restrictions on the importation of cattle
and other ruminants from Sonora that
we believe are no longer necessary and
reduce the costs associated with tick
dipping for exporters and importers of
ruminants.
DATES: Effective March 30, 2015.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.
Betzaida Lopez, Senior Staff
Veterinarian, National Import Export
Services, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road
Unit 39, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301)
851–3300.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
Background
The regulations in 9 CFR part 93
prohibit or restrict the importation of
certain animals, birds, and poultry into
the United States to prevent the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:38 Feb 25, 2015
Jkt 235001
introduction of communicable diseases
of livestock and poultry. Subpart D of
part 93 (§§ 93.400 through 93.436,
referred to below as the regulations)
governs the importation of ruminants;
within subpart D, §§ 93.424 through
93.429 specifically address the
importation of various ruminants from
Mexico into the United States.
On July 17, 2014, we published in the
Federal Register (79 FR 41652–41656,
Docket No. APHIS–2012–0073) a
proposal1 to amend the regulations by
recognizing the State of Sonora as a
region in Mexico that is free of fever
ticks. We also proposed to establish an
exemption from acaricide dipping
treatment requirements, and the
documentation requirements associated
with such dipping, that have applied to
cattle and other ruminants originating
from Sonora as a condition of eligibility
for entry to the United States, provided
that certain conditions are met.
We solicited comments concerning
our proposal for 60 days ending
September 15, 2014. We received two
comments by that date. They were from
a cattle producers’ association and an
individual. One commenter supported
the proposed rule. The other expressed
a generalized opposition, but did not
address the actual content of the
proposed rule. Thus, there is no need to
address that comment. Therefore, for the
reasons given in the proposed rule and
in this document, we are adopting the
proposed rule as a final rule, without
change.
Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory
Flexibility Act
This final rule has been determined to
be not significant for the purposes of
Executive Order 12866 and, therefore,
has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget.
In accordance with 5 U.S. C. 604, we
have performed a final regulatory
flexibility analysis, which is
summarized below, regarding the
economic effects of this rule on small
entities. Copies of the full analysis are
available on the Regulations.gov Web
site (see footnote 1 for a link to
Regulations.gov) or by contacting the
person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
1 To view the proposed rule and the comments
we received, go to https://www.regulations.gov/
#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2012-0073.
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
We are recognizing the Mexican State
of Sonora as a region that is free of fever
ticks. Under this rulemaking, importers
of cattle from Sonora will have to
submit an application either for
inspection or dipping, but not both, as
was previously required.
From 2009 to 2013, 1.21 million cattle
were imported yearly from Mexico.
About one-fourth came from Sonora.
Cattle imported into the United States
from Mexico are generally purchased by
stocker operations that background the
cattle on pasture before they are shipped
to feedlots.
The average unit price of cattle
imported from Mexico between 2009
and 2013 was about $440. The average
cost of dipping with an acaricide is
$3.50 to $10.00 per head. It takes
approximately 5 seconds for 3 cattle to
cross a dipping vat. For an average 500head herd, dipping takes about 15
minutes. To inspect a 500-head herd
takes from 4 to 12 hours. Depending on
the size of the herd and time needed for
inspection, some importers may choose
to have the cattle dipped rather than
inspected. The estimated cost of dipping
is equivalent to about 1 to 2 percent of
the value of the imported cattle. Any
resulting cost savings realized by U.S.
cattle importers due to inspection rather
than dipping of cattle will depend on
the relative price responsiveness of the
sellers and buyers of the cattle. APHIS
does not expect the rule to result in an
increase of any consequence in the
number of cattle imported from Mexico.
Executive Order 12988
This final rule has been reviewed
under Executive Order 12988, Civil
Justice Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts
all State and local laws and regulations
that are inconsistent with this rule; (2)
has no retroactive effect; and (3) does
not require administrative proceedings
before parties may file suit in court
challenging this rule.
Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with section 3507(d) of
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S. C. 3501 et se.), the information
collection or recordkeeping
requirements included in this final rule,
which were filed under 0579–0425,
have been submitted for approval to the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB). When OMB notifies us of its
decision, if approval is denied, we will
publish a document in the Federal
E:\FR\FM\26FER1.SGM
26FER1
10324
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 38 / Thursday, February 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
Register providing notice of what action
we plan to take.
E-Government Act Compliance
The Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service is committed to
compliance with the E-Government Act
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. For information pertinent to
E-Government Act compliance related
to this rule, please contact Ms. Kimberly
Hardy, APHIS’ Information Collection
Coordinator, at (301) 851–2727.
List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 93
Animal diseases, Imports, Livestock,
Poultry and poultry products,
Quarantine, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, we are amending 9 CFR
part 93 as follows:
PART 93—IMPORTATION OF CERTAIN
ANIMALS, BIRDS, FISH, AND
POULTRY, AND CERTAIN ANIMAL,
BIRD, AND POULTRY PRODUCTS;
REQUIREMENTS FOR MEANS OF
CONVEYANCE AND SHIPPING
CONTAINERS
1. The authority citation for part 93
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1622 and 8301–8317;
21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7
CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.
2. In § 93.400, the definition of fever
tick is revised to read as follows:
■
§ 93.400
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
Fever tick. Rhipicephalus annulatus,
Rhipicephalus microplus, and any other
species of tick determined by the
Administrator to be a vector of bovine
babesiosis and specified on the Internet
at https://www.aphis.usda.gov/wps/
portal/aphis/ourfocus/importexport.
*
*
*
*
*
§ 93.423
[Amended]
3. In § 93.423, paragraph (c) is
amended by removing the words
‘‘splenetic, southern, or tick fever’’ and
adding the words ‘‘bovine babesiosis’’ in
their place.
■ 4. In § 93.427, paragraph (b) and the
OMB citation at the end of the section
are revised to read as follows:
rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
■
§ 93.427
Mexico.
Cattle and other bovines from
*
*
*
*
*
(b)(1) Cattle from regions of Mexico
that APHIS has determined to be free
from fever ticks. APHIS has evaluated
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:38 Feb 25, 2015
Jkt 235001
certain regions of Mexico in accordance
with § 92.2 of this chapter, and
determined that they are free from fever
ticks; a list of all such regions is found
on the Internet https://
www.aphis.usda.gov/wps/portal/aphis/
ourfocus/importexport. Copies of the
list are also available by contacting
APHIS at the following address:
Regionalization Evaluation Services,
National Import Export Services,
Veterinary Services, Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service, 4700 River
Road Unit 38, Riverdale, MD 20737.
Regions may be removed from the list
based on a determination by APHIS that
fever ticks exist in the region, on the
discovery of tick-infested cattle from the
region at a port of entry into the United
States, or on information provided by a
representative of the government of that
region that fever ticks exist in the
region. Cattle from regions of Mexico
that APHIS has determined to be free
from fever ticks may be imported into
the United States subject to the
following conditions:
(i) The cattle are accompanied by a
certificate issued in accordance with
§ 93.405 that states that the cattle
originate from a region of Mexico that
APHIS has determined to be free from
fever ticks.
(ii) If the cattle will transit to the
United States through an area of Mexico
that APHIS has not determined to be
free from fever ticks, they are moved in
a sealed means of conveyance, and that
seal remains intact throughout such
transit.
(iii) The cattle are presented for entry
into the United States at a land border
port of entry listed in § 93.403(c).
(iv) The cattle are segregated at the
U.S. port of entry from cattle from
regions of Mexico that APHIS has not
determined to be free from fever ticks.
(v) The importer, or his or her agent,
executes and delivers to the inspector at
the port of entry an application for
inspection or supervised dipping. In
this application, the importer, or his or
her agent, waive all claims against the
United States for any loss or damage to
the cattle occasioned by or resulting
from inspection or dipping or from the
fact that the cattle are later found still
to be tick infested, and for any loss or
damage to any other cattle in the
importer’s possession or control that
come in contact with the dipped cattle.
(vi) The cattle are either inspected by
an APHIS inspector at the port of entry
for evidence of tick infestation or are
treated with a tickicidal dip that is
listed in § 72.13 of this chapter under
the supervision of an inspector at the
port of entry.
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
(vii) If any cattle are determined to be
infested with fever ticks, the lot of cattle
is refused entry and may only be
imported into the United States subject
to the requirements in paragraph (b)(2)
of this section.
(2) Cattle from regions of Mexico that
APHIS has not determined to be free
from fever ticks. Cattle from regions of
Mexico that APHIS has not determined
to be free from fever ticks may only be
imported into the United States subject
to the following conditions:
(i) The cattle have been inspected by
a veterinarian in Mexico and, in the
determination of the veterinarian, are
free from fever ticks and all evidence of
communicable diseases, and have not
been exposed to communicable
diseases, other than bovine babesiosis,
during the 60 days prior to movement
to a port of entry into the United States.
(ii) The cattle have been treated in
Mexico with a tickicidal dip that is
listed in § 72.13 of this chapter within
7 to 14 days before being offered for
entry into the United States.
(iii) The cattle are accompanied by a
certificate issued in accordance with
§ 93.405 that states that this inspection
and dipping have occurred.
(iv) The cattle are presented for entry
into the United States at the port of
entry at Santa Teresa, NM, or a port of
entry within Texas that is listed in
§ 93.403(c).
(v) The importer, or his or her agent,
executes and delivers to the inspector at
the port of entry an application for
inspection and supervised dipping. In
this application, the importer, or his or
her agent, agrees to waive all claims
against the United States for any loss or
damage to the cattle occasioned by or
resulting from this dipping or from the
fact that the cattle are later found to still
be infested with ticks, and for any loss
or damage to any other cattle in the
importer’s possession or control that
come in contact with the dipped cattle.
(vi) When offered for entry, the cattle
receive an inspection by an inspector. If
free from fever ticks, the cattle are
treated once with a tickicidal dip that is
listed in § 72.13 of this chapter 7 to 14
days after the dipping required in
paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section. If
found to be infested with fever ticks, the
cattle are refused entry and may not be
inspected again at a port of entry until
they are again dipped and 7 to 14 days
have elapsed.
(vii) The cattle are not imported into
an area of Texas that is quarantined in
accordance with § 72.5 of this chapter
for bovine babesiosis, or for tick
infestation.
*
*
*
*
*
E:\FR\FM\26FER1.SGM
26FER1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 38 / Thursday, February 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
(Approved by the Office of Management
and Budget under control numbers
0579–0040, 0579–0224, 0579–0393,
and 0579–0425)
Done in Washington, DC, this 20th day of
February 2015.
Kevin Shea,
Administrator, Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 2015–04074 Filed 2–25–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–34–P
FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION
12 CFR Part 620
RIN 3052–AD02
Disclosure to Shareholders; Pension
Benefit Disclosures
ACTION:
Final rule.
The Farm Credit
Administration (FCA, we or our)
amends our regulations related to Farm
Credit System (System) bank and
association disclosures to shareholders
and investors of senior officer
compensation in the Summary
Compensation Table (Table). Under the
final rule, System banks and
associations are not required to report in
the Table the compensation of
employees who are not senior officers
and who would not otherwise be
considered ‘‘highly compensated
employees’’ but for the payments related
to, or change(s) in value of, the
employees’ qualified pension plans,
provided that the plans were available
to all employees on the same basis at the
time the employees joined the plans.
DATES: Effective Date: The regulation
will be effective 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register
during which time either one or both
Houses of Congress are in session. We
will publish a notice of the effective
date in the Federal Register.
Compliance Date: System banks and
associations must comply with the final
rule for compensation reported in the
Table for the fiscal year ending 2015,
and may implement the final rule
retroactively for the fiscal years ended
2014, 2013, and 2012. However,
retroactive application is not required,
and we would expect footnote
disclosure of the change in calculation
for the fiscal years to which the final
rule was applied.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael T. Wilson, Policy Analyst,
Office of Regulatory Policy, Farm Credit
Administration, McLean, VA 22102–
5090, (703) 883–4124, TTY (703) 883–
4056, Or
rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:38 Feb 25, 2015
Jkt 235001
Jeff Pienta, Senior Attorney, Office of
General Counsel, Farm Credit
Administration, McLean, VA 22102–
5090, (703) 883–4020, TTY (703) 883–
4056.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Objective
The objective of this rule is to
improve the quality of disclosure
information shareholders receive on
senior officer and highly compensated
employee compensation.
II. Background
Congress explained in section 514 of
the Farm Credit Banks and Associations
Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 (1992
Act) 1 that disclosures of financial
information and compensation paid to
senior officers, among other disclosures,
provide System shareholders with
information necessary to better manage
their institution and make informed
decisions regarding the operation of
their institution. In addition, the FCA
Board declared its commitment to
support the cooperative business model
and structure by encouraging memberborrowers to participate in the
management, control, and ownership of
their institutions.2 Providing memberborrowers with transparent and
complete disclosures regarding the
compensation of senior officers and
certain other highly compensated
employees is essential to fostering an
environment wherein memberborrowers can do so effectively.
With this as one of our objectives, we
issued a final rule on October 3, 2012,
that enhanced disclosure of senior
officer compensation and other related
topics. Section 620.6(c)(2)(i) requires
System Banks and associations to
disclose senior officer compensation for
the last 3 fiscal years. For purposes of
this reporting requirement only,
§ 620.6(c)(2)(i) extends the regulatory
definition of ‘‘senior officers’’ to include
any employee whose compensation
level was among the five highest paid
during the reporting period. The intent
of this extension was to ensure that
System banks and associations provide
shareholders with necessary
compensation information on highly
compensated employees even though
they did not fall within the regulatory
definition of ‘‘senior officer.’’ The intent
was not to provide compensation
information on employees who would
only reach the ‘‘highly compensated’’
1 Public
Law 102–552, 106 Stat. 4131 (1992).
FCA Policy Statement ‘‘Cooperative
Operating Philosophy—Serving the Members of
Farm Credit System Institutions’’ (FCA–PS–80),
dated October 14, 2010.
2 See
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
10325
threshold solely because of payments
related to or change(s) in the value of a
qualified pension plan that was
available to all employees on the same
basis at the time they joined the plan.
We believe that application of the
existing rule could create such an
unintended effect and reduce the
effectiveness of the disclosure.
Therefore, on November 17, 2014, we
proposed amending existing
§ 620.6(c)(2)(i) to exclude reporting
employees’ compensation in the Table if
the employees were not senior officers
and would be considered highly
compensated employees solely because
of payments related to or change(s) in
value of the employees’ qualified
pension plans provided that the plans
were available to all employees on the
same basis at the time the employee
joined the plan.
III. Comments and Our Response
The comment period for the proposed
rule closed on December 17, 2014 (79
FR 68376, Nov. 17, 2014). We received
four comment letters on our proposed
rule: One comment letter from the
Independent Community Bankers of
America (ICBA), responding on behalf
of its members; one comment from a
Farm Credit bank (FCB); one comment
letter from a System association; and
one comment letter from the Farm
Credit Council, responding on behalf of
its members. Two commenters
supported the proposed rule, one
supported it with suggested changes,
and one opposed the rule. In the
discussion below, we address the
significant comments. After careful
consideration of the comments, the
proposed rule is finalized without any
changes.
A. Transparency and Quality of
Disclosure
The ICBA opposes the proposed rule
and urges the FCA to withdraw the
proposed rule or adopt the ICBA’s
recommendations. The ICBA asserts that
the proposed rule reduces transparency
of pension disclosures to System
shareholders and seeks to allow System
institutions to hide significant
enhancements to pensions and other
compensation arrangements by not
disclosing them. We agree with the
ICBA that employee compensation
should be reported in this disclosure
item if the employee’s compensation
reaches the highly compensated
employee threshold due to large or
significant bonuses and other such
payments. As we explained in the
proposed rule, however, there would be
no reporting requirement for this
disclosure item solely for employees
E:\FR\FM\26FER1.SGM
26FER1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 38 (Thursday, February 26, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 10323-10325]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-04074]
========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 38 / Thursday, February 26, 2015 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 10323]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
9 CFR Part 93
[Docket No. APHIS-2012-0073]
RIN 0579-AD91
Cattle Fever Tick; Importation Requirements for Ruminants From
Mexico
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are amending the regulations to recognize the State of
Sonora as a region in Mexico that is free of fever ticks. We are also
establishing an exemption from acaricide dipping treatment
requirements, and the documentation requirements associated with such
dipping, that were formerly applicable to cattle and other ruminants
originating from Sonora as a condition of eligibility for entry to the
United States, provided that certain conditions are met. This action
will remove restrictions on the importation of cattle and other
ruminants from Sonora that we believe are no longer necessary and
reduce the costs associated with tick dipping for exporters and
importers of ruminants.
DATES: Effective March 30, 2015.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Betzaida Lopez, Senior Staff
Veterinarian, National Import Export Services, VS, APHIS, 4700 River
Road Unit 39, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 851-3300.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The regulations in 9 CFR part 93 prohibit or restrict the
importation of certain animals, birds, and poultry into the United
States to prevent the introduction of communicable diseases of
livestock and poultry. Subpart D of part 93 (Sec. Sec. 93.400 through
93.436, referred to below as the regulations) governs the importation
of ruminants; within subpart D, Sec. Sec. 93.424 through 93.429
specifically address the importation of various ruminants from Mexico
into the United States.
On July 17, 2014, we published in the Federal Register (79 FR
41652-41656, Docket No. APHIS-2012-0073) a proposal\1\ to amend the
regulations by recognizing the State of Sonora as a region in Mexico
that is free of fever ticks. We also proposed to establish an exemption
from acaricide dipping treatment requirements, and the documentation
requirements associated with such dipping, that have applied to cattle
and other ruminants originating from Sonora as a condition of
eligibility for entry to the United States, provided that certain
conditions are met.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ To view the proposed rule and the comments we received, go
to https://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2012-0073.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We solicited comments concerning our proposal for 60 days ending
September 15, 2014. We received two comments by that date. They were
from a cattle producers' association and an individual. One commenter
supported the proposed rule. The other expressed a generalized
opposition, but did not address the actual content of the proposed
rule. Thus, there is no need to address that comment. Therefore, for
the reasons given in the proposed rule and in this document, we are
adopting the proposed rule as a final rule, without change.
Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for the
purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed
by the Office of Management and Budget.
In accordance with 5 U.S. C. 604, we have performed a final
regulatory flexibility analysis, which is summarized below, regarding
the economic effects of this rule on small entities. Copies of the full
analysis are available on the Regulations.gov Web site (see footnote 1
for a link to Regulations.gov) or by contacting the person listed under
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
We are recognizing the Mexican State of Sonora as a region that is
free of fever ticks. Under this rulemaking, importers of cattle from
Sonora will have to submit an application either for inspection or
dipping, but not both, as was previously required.
From 2009 to 2013, 1.21 million cattle were imported yearly from
Mexico. About one-fourth came from Sonora. Cattle imported into the
United States from Mexico are generally purchased by stocker operations
that background the cattle on pasture before they are shipped to
feedlots.
The average unit price of cattle imported from Mexico between 2009
and 2013 was about $440. The average cost of dipping with an acaricide
is $3.50 to $10.00 per head. It takes approximately 5 seconds for 3
cattle to cross a dipping vat. For an average 500-head herd, dipping
takes about 15 minutes. To inspect a 500-head herd takes from 4 to 12
hours. Depending on the size of the herd and time needed for
inspection, some importers may choose to have the cattle dipped rather
than inspected. The estimated cost of dipping is equivalent to about 1
to 2 percent of the value of the imported cattle. Any resulting cost
savings realized by U.S. cattle importers due to inspection rather than
dipping of cattle will depend on the relative price responsiveness of
the sellers and buyers of the cattle. APHIS does not expect the rule to
result in an increase of any consequence in the number of cattle
imported from Mexico.
Executive Order 12988
This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988,
Civil Justice Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts all State and local laws
and regulations that are inconsistent with this rule; (2) has no
retroactive effect; and (3) does not require administrative proceedings
before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.
Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S. C. 3501 et se.), the information collection or
recordkeeping requirements included in this final rule, which were
filed under 0579-0425, have been submitted for approval to the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB). When OMB notifies us of its decision,
if approval is denied, we will publish a document in the Federal
[[Page 10324]]
Register providing notice of what action we plan to take.
E-Government Act Compliance
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is committed to
compliance with the E-Government Act 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. For information pertinent to E-Government Act
compliance related to this rule, please contact Ms. Kimberly Hardy,
APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2727.
List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 93
Animal diseases, Imports, Livestock, Poultry and poultry products,
Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, we are amending 9 CFR part 93 as follows:
PART 93--IMPORTATION OF CERTAIN ANIMALS, BIRDS, FISH, AND POULTRY,
AND CERTAIN ANIMAL, BIRD, AND POULTRY PRODUCTS; REQUIREMENTS FOR
MEANS OF CONVEYANCE AND SHIPPING CONTAINERS
0
1. The authority citation for part 93 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1622 and 8301-8317; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a;
31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.
0
2. In Sec. 93.400, the definition of fever tick is revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 93.400 Definitions.
* * * * *
Fever tick. Rhipicephalus annulatus, Rhipicephalus microplus, and
any other species of tick determined by the Administrator to be a
vector of bovine babesiosis and specified on the Internet at https://www.aphis.usda.gov/wps/portal/aphis/ourfocus/importexport.
* * * * *
Sec. 93.423 [Amended]
0
3. In Sec. 93.423, paragraph (c) is amended by removing the words
``splenetic, southern, or tick fever'' and adding the words ``bovine
babesiosis'' in their place.
0
4. In Sec. 93.427, paragraph (b) and the OMB citation at the end of
the section are revised to read as follows:
Sec. 93.427 Cattle and other bovines from Mexico.
* * * * *
(b)(1) Cattle from regions of Mexico that APHIS has determined to
be free from fever ticks. APHIS has evaluated certain regions of Mexico
in accordance with Sec. 92.2 of this chapter, and determined that they
are free from fever ticks; a list of all such regions is found on the
Internet https://www.aphis.usda.gov/wps/portal/aphis/ourfocus/importexport. Copies of the list are also available by contacting APHIS
at the following address: Regionalization Evaluation Services, National
Import Export Services, Veterinary Services, Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service, 4700 River Road Unit 38, Riverdale, MD 20737.
Regions may be removed from the list based on a determination by APHIS
that fever ticks exist in the region, on the discovery of tick-infested
cattle from the region at a port of entry into the United States, or on
information provided by a representative of the government of that
region that fever ticks exist in the region. Cattle from regions of
Mexico that APHIS has determined to be free from fever ticks may be
imported into the United States subject to the following conditions:
(i) The cattle are accompanied by a certificate issued in
accordance with Sec. 93.405 that states that the cattle originate from
a region of Mexico that APHIS has determined to be free from fever
ticks.
(ii) If the cattle will transit to the United States through an
area of Mexico that APHIS has not determined to be free from fever
ticks, they are moved in a sealed means of conveyance, and that seal
remains intact throughout such transit.
(iii) The cattle are presented for entry into the United States at
a land border port of entry listed in Sec. 93.403(c).
(iv) The cattle are segregated at the U.S. port of entry from
cattle from regions of Mexico that APHIS has not determined to be free
from fever ticks.
(v) The importer, or his or her agent, executes and delivers to the
inspector at the port of entry an application for inspection or
supervised dipping. In this application, the importer, or his or her
agent, waive all claims against the United States for any loss or
damage to the cattle occasioned by or resulting from inspection or
dipping or from the fact that the cattle are later found still to be
tick infested, and for any loss or damage to any other cattle in the
importer's possession or control that come in contact with the dipped
cattle.
(vi) The cattle are either inspected by an APHIS inspector at the
port of entry for evidence of tick infestation or are treated with a
tickicidal dip that is listed in Sec. 72.13 of this chapter under the
supervision of an inspector at the port of entry.
(vii) If any cattle are determined to be infested with fever ticks,
the lot of cattle is refused entry and may only be imported into the
United States subject to the requirements in paragraph (b)(2) of this
section.
(2) Cattle from regions of Mexico that APHIS has not determined to
be free from fever ticks. Cattle from regions of Mexico that APHIS has
not determined to be free from fever ticks may only be imported into
the United States subject to the following conditions:
(i) The cattle have been inspected by a veterinarian in Mexico and,
in the determination of the veterinarian, are free from fever ticks and
all evidence of communicable diseases, and have not been exposed to
communicable diseases, other than bovine babesiosis, during the 60 days
prior to movement to a port of entry into the United States.
(ii) The cattle have been treated in Mexico with a tickicidal dip
that is listed in Sec. 72.13 of this chapter within 7 to 14 days
before being offered for entry into the United States.
(iii) The cattle are accompanied by a certificate issued in
accordance with Sec. 93.405 that states that this inspection and
dipping have occurred.
(iv) The cattle are presented for entry into the United States at
the port of entry at Santa Teresa, NM, or a port of entry within Texas
that is listed in Sec. 93.403(c).
(v) The importer, or his or her agent, executes and delivers to the
inspector at the port of entry an application for inspection and
supervised dipping. In this application, the importer, or his or her
agent, agrees to waive all claims against the United States for any
loss or damage to the cattle occasioned by or resulting from this
dipping or from the fact that the cattle are later found to still be
infested with ticks, and for any loss or damage to any other cattle in
the importer's possession or control that come in contact with the
dipped cattle.
(vi) When offered for entry, the cattle receive an inspection by an
inspector. If free from fever ticks, the cattle are treated once with a
tickicidal dip that is listed in Sec. 72.13 of this chapter 7 to 14
days after the dipping required in paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this
section. If found to be infested with fever ticks, the cattle are
refused entry and may not be inspected again at a port of entry until
they are again dipped and 7 to 14 days have elapsed.
(vii) The cattle are not imported into an area of Texas that is
quarantined in accordance with Sec. 72.5 of this chapter for bovine
babesiosis, or for tick infestation.
* * * * *
[[Page 10325]]
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control numbers
0579-0040, 0579-0224, 0579-0393, and 0579-0425)
Done in Washington, DC, this 20th day of February 2015.
Kevin Shea,
Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-04074 Filed 2-25-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
