[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 245 (Thursday, December 22, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-31464]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: December 22, 1994]


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

9 CFR Part 92

[Docket No. 93-006-3]

 

Importation of Certain Cattle From Mexico; Identification 
Requirements

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are amending the animal importation regulations to require 
that certain spayed heifers imported into the United States from Mexico 
be marked with a permanent, legible ``Mx'' on the right hip, and 
that certain steers imported into the United States from Mexico be 
marked with a permanent, legible ``M'' on the right hip, rather than on 
the jaw. These marking requirements are necessary to ensure that all 
steers and spayed heifers imported into the United States from Mexico, 
except those imported directly to slaughter or in-bond for feeding and 
return to Mexico, are clearly identifiable as being of Mexican origin. 
These marking requirements will facilitate the disease surveillance and 
traceback activities conducted in the United States under the National 
Cooperative State-Federal Bovine Tuberculosis Eradication Program.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 23, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. David Vogt, Senior Staff 
Veterinarian, Import-Export Animals Staff, Veterinary Services, APHIS, 
USDA, P.O. Drawer 810, Riverdale, MD 20738. The telephone number for 
the agency contact will change when agency offices in Hyattsville, MD, 
move to Riverdale, MD, during January 1995. Telephone: (301) 436-8170 
(Hyattsville); (301) 734-8170 (Riverdale).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The regulations in 9 CFR part 92 prohibit or restrict the 
importation of certain animals into the United States to prevent the 
introduction of communicable diseases of livestock and poultry. Subpart 
D of part 92 (Secs. 92.400 through 92.435), referred to below as the 
regulations, pertains to the importation of ruminants. Sections 92.424 
through 92.429 of the regulations contain specific provisions regarding 
the importation of ruminants, including cattle, from Mexico.
    One of the diseases addressed by the regulations is bovine 
tuberculosis (referred to below as tuberculosis). Tuberculosis is a 
serious communicable disease of cattle, bison, and other species, 
including humans, caused by Mycobacterium bovis. Tuberculosis in 
animals causes weight loss, general debilitation, and sometimes death.
    Each year, approximately 1 million cattle are imported into the 
United States from Mexico. The vast majority of those cattle--about 99 
percent--are young steers; the remaining 1 percent consists of spayed 
heifers and intact cattle (i.e., calves, bulls, and unspayed females). 
The steers and spayed heifers are, with few exceptions, consigned to 
pastures or feedlots for finish feeding prior to slaughter. Most intact 
cattle are integrated into herds in the United States for breeding 
purposes.
    The period between 1982 and 1992 saw a significant increase in the 
number of Mexican-origin cattle found at slaughter in the United States 
to be infected with tuberculosis. In 1982, 78 samples submitted from 
slaughtered Mexican-origin cattle showed evidence of tuberculosis; that 
number rose to 613 in 1992. In 1982, 33 percent of the tuberculosis 
investigations at slaughter involved Mexican origin cattle; in 1992, 
that number rose to 81 percent.
    That increase in the incidence of tuberculosis in Mexican-origin 
cattle led the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) to 
publish in the Federal Register on November 12, 1993 (58 FR 59963-
59965, Docket No. 93-006-1), a proposed rule to amend the regulations 
to require that spayed heifers and intact cattle (i.e., calves, bulls, 
and unspayed female cattle) imported into the United States from Mexico 
be branded with an ``M'' on the jaw using a hot iron, which was the 
same requirement that applied to most steers imported from Mexico. 
Based on the comments we received from individuals and organizations 
opposed to that proposal, as well as public concern that branding on 
the jaw caused unnecessary distress to cattle, we withdrew the November 
12, 1993, proposed rule referenced above and replaced it with an 
alternative proposal.
    In the alternative proposal, which was published in the Federal 
Register on August 24, 1994 (59 FR 43506-43508, Docket No. 93-006-2), 
we proposed to amend the regulations to require that certain spayed 
heifers imported into the United States from Mexico be marked with a 
permanent, legible ``Mx'' on the right hip, and that certain 
steers imported into the United States from Mexico be marked with a 
permanent, legible ``M'' on the right hip, rather than on the jaw.
    We solicited comments concerning our alternative proposal for a 60-
day period ending October 24, 1994. We received more than 12,000 
comments by that date. They were from private citizens, animal rights 
organizations, a member of Congress, cattle industry associations, 
ranchers, representatives of State governments, and a veterinary 
medical association. We carefully considered all of the comments we 
received. They are discussed below.
    Many commenters did not address the specific provisions of the 
proposed rule; rather, they either demanded that APHIS discontinue face 
branding or stated that they supported APHIS' proposal to discontinue 
face branding of steers. We have, therefore, taken such comments to 
support that aspect of the proposal that would change the location of 
the ``M'' brand on steers from the jaw to the right hip.
    A few commenters objected to the proposed rule in its entirety 
because they felt that APHIS should conduct its disease surveillance 
activities as it sees fit and should not capitulate to outside pressure 
to change its methods. We have made no changes in this final rule based 
on such comments because we believe that the provisions of the proposed 
rule and this final rule do not negatively affect APHIS' ability to 
conduct its disease surveillance activities.
    Several commenters felt that moving the brand from the face to the 
hip was no improvement, and that all M-branding should be discontinued. 
We have made no changes in this final rule based on such comments 
because we continue to believe, for the reasons discussed below, that 
some type of permanent marking is necessary to identify cattle imported 
into the United States from Mexico.
    One commenter urged APHIS to keep the location of the brand on the 
jaw because branding on other locations can markedly reduce the value 
of the hide. While it is true that marking methods such as hot-iron 
branding and freeze branding do damage the hides of cattle and would 
likely result in some loss of value, many private entities such as 
cattle owners and feedlots routinely brand cattle on areas of the hide 
that would have trimmed to produce a ``clean'' hide. Moreover, we do 
not believe that the economic considerations associated with the 
placement of the brand on the hip are significant enough to warrant 
such a change in this final rule, especially given the degree of public 
support for our proposal to relocate the brand from the jaw to the hip.
    Two commenters stated that the location of the brand should remain 
on the jaw, which has been set aside by some State livestock agencies 
for ``government'' brands. They argued that brands on the hip would be 
less visible and could be easily confused with registered ownership 
brands--a number of which are similar to the ``M'' or ``Mx'' 
mark--or feedlot brands. The same location specified for the ``M'' or 
``Mx'' mark has been used by APHIS for the placement of ``S'' 
brands under the brucellosis regulations in 9 CFR part 78 since 1983, 
and we are unaware of any identification problems resulting from that 
requirement. In terms of the visibility of the ``M'' or ``Mx'' 
mark, the mark will be predictably located on each animal, so we 
believe that State and Federal animal health personnel will be able to 
readily discern the mark when necessary. Therefore, we have made no 
changes in this final rule as a result of those comments.
    One commenter stated that the anatomical reference point specified 
for location of the brand on the hip--between the fourth to seventh 
coccygeal vertebrae--is on the moveable part of the tail and could not 
accommodate a 2- to 3-inch brand. Although the regulatory text of the 
proposed rule called for the placement of the ``M'' or ``Mx'' mark 
on the ``right hip, high on the tailhead,'' the anatomical reference 
point specified for the placement of the mark was, as pointed out by 
the commenter, incorrect. To remedy that error, we have changed the 
specific anatomical reference point to ``over the junction of the 
sacral and first coccygeal vertebrae'' in the regulatory text of this 
final rule. Another commenter stated that the specified area is concave 
on thin cattle, which would result in incomplete, unreadable brands on 
such cattle. We do not believe that the concavity of the area near the 
tailhead on most cattle would be pronounced enough to result in an 
appreciable number of unreadable brands. Additionally, if an animal 
were to be offered for importation with an unreadable ``M'' or 
``Mx'' mark, that animal would be refused entry.
    One commenter stated that the placement of the brand on the hip 
would make it possible for a person to modify the brand by, for 
example, branding an additional line or symbol close to the ``M'' or 
``Mx''; having done that, the person could attempt to portray the 
modified brand as an ownership brand in order to disguise the animal's 
Mexican origin. Certainly an ``M'' or ``Mx'' mark could be 
altered, just as any private or regulatory brand could be altered. 
However, because we are requiring that the ``M'' or ``Mx'' mark be 
placed in a specific location that is not likely to be used for marking 
by private entities, we do not believe that the commenter's concerns 
will be a problem. As mentioned above, the ``S'' brands applied to 
brucellosis-exposed cattle under the regulations in 9 CFR part 78 are 
placed in the same location near the tailhead as the ``M'' and 
``Mx'' marks are to be placed, and we are unaware of any attempts 
to modify those ``S'' brands during the 11 years they have been used. 
Additionally, we believe that State brand registries and State animal 
identification regulations will help to discourage persons from taking 
the actions envisioned by the commenter. We have, therefore, made no 
changes in this final rule as a result of that comment.
    One commenter urged APHIS to expand the scope of the marking 
requirements to include intact Mexican cattle because such cattle are 
often integrated into domestic herds for breeding purposes, thus 
heightening the potential for the Mexican-origin cattle to expose 
domestic cattle to disease. As we explained in the proposed rule, we 
believe that the small number of intact cattle imported into the United 
States from Mexico each year, plus the fact that the interstate 
movement of intact cattle is regulated under the brucellosis 
regulations in 9 CFR part 78, make it significantly easier for APHIS to 
trace the movement of Mexican-origin intact cattle following their 
entry into the United States. Therefore, we do not believe that it is 
necessary to permanently identify such cattle as being of Mexican 
origin.
    One commenter urged APHIS to expand the scope of the marking 
requirements to include cattle imported from Mexico in bond for feeding 
and return to Mexico under Sec. 92.427(e) of the regulations because 
such cattle are not always returned to Mexico since the U.S. Customs 
Service stopped collecting the bond as a result of the North American 
Free Trade Agreement. We are aware of the potential problems with the 
in-bond program and are currently reconsidering the regulations 
governing the program. We do not, however, believe that expanding the 
marking requirements to include in-bond cattle is necessary at this 
time. If, at some point, we determine that such a change is necessary, 
the change would be proposed as part of a separate rulemaking.
    Two commenters pointed out that APHIS currently has two proposed 
rules that have not yet been finalized that would render most M-
branding unnecessary. The first proposed rule, published in the Federal 
Register on May 9, 1994 (59 FR 23810-23817, Docket No. 93-014-1), would 
establish comprehensive quarantine and surveillance requirements for 
Mexican cattle offered for importation into the United States. The 
second proposed rule, published in the Federal Register on November 12, 
1993 (58 FR 59959-59962, Docket No. 93-084-1), would require the 
individual identification on a health certificate of imported Mexican-
origin cattle being moved interstate. The commenters noted that the 
quarantine measures, movement restrictions, and documentation 
requirements contained in those proposed rules are similar to the 
restrictions currently placed on cattle imported from Mexico for 
slaughter in accordance with Sec. 92.429 of the regulations or in bond 
for temporary entry in accordance with Sec. 92.427(e) of the 
regulations. The commenters argued that if APHIS believes that it is 
not necessary to brand in-bond and immediate slaughter cattle, then it 
should not be necessary to brand Mexican cattle affected by the two 
proposed rules. Both of the proposed rules mentioned by the commenter 
are still being considered by APHIS and have not been finalized. 
Because the provisions of those two proposals have not been promulgated 
in final regulations, they have no regulatory effect; we cannot make 
any changes in this final rule that are based on the provisions of 
other proposed regulations. However, a similar comment was received in 
response to the May 1994 proposed rule mentioned above (Docket No. 93-
014-1), so the suggestion of exemptions from the branding requirement 
for cattle affected by the provisions of that proposed rule will be 
considered and discussed in any final rulemaking related to that 
proposed rule.
    One commenter stated that branding is unnecessary because the 
official Mexican Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources (SARH) 
blue eartag required by the regulations in Sec. 92.427(d) can be used 
to identify Mexican-origin cattle. We agree that the blue SARH eartag 
is an important identification tool, but we remain concerned that 
eartags can be lost or removed. With the an ``M'' or ``Mx'' mark 
present, we could still determine an animal's country of origin if its 
eartag were lost or removed. Additionally, we believe that it is less 
likely that someone would remove the SARH tag from an ``M'' or 
``Mx'' marked animal in an attempt to conceal the animal's Mexican 
origin, so the SARH tag, with its value as a traceback tool, is more 
likely to remain on the animal.
    Some commenters stated that because APHIS has acknowledged that 
freeze branding can be used to identify cattle imported from Mexico, 
APHIS should respond to the public opposition to hot-iron branding by 
prohibiting hot-iron branding and requiring the use of freeze branding. 
Similarly, another commenter felt that freeze branding should be the 
standard identification method and hot-iron branding should be allowed 
only if the exporter has submitted a written justification for using 
hot-iron branding. Although we acknowledge that freeze branding can 
work as a means of identifying cattle imported from Mexico, we also 
recognize that freeze branding has its limitations. First, a freeze 
brand takes 18 to 21 days to become visible, and there may be some 
exporters of cattle for whom branding that far in advance of offering 
their cattle for entry into the United States is not a viable option. 
Second, freeze brands are not visible on white or light-colored hair, 
and there will certainly be cattle offered for importation that have 
white or light-colored hair at the location specified for the placement 
of the ``M'' or ``Mx'' mark. Because APHIS will not allow cattle 
with unreadable brands into the United States, requiring the use of 
freeze branding would have the effect of prohibiting the importation of 
certain cattle based on their coloring. Therefore, we believe that hot-
iron branding should remain an option for exporters of cattle from 
Mexico.
    Another commenter stated that freeze branding will not be an 
effective means of identifying Mexican-origin cattle because so many of 
those cattle have light-colored hair or white spots. As discussed 
above, we acknowledge that freeze branding is not going to be an option 
for all cattle in all cases. The regulations require a distinct, 
permanent, and legible ``M'' or ``Mx'' mark on certain cattle 
offered for entry; we believe that it is reasonable to expect that the 
exporter of the cattle will keep that requirement, as well as the 
advantages and limitations of hot-iron branding and freeze branding, in 
mind when selecting a marking method.
    Many commenters stated that APHIS should discontinue branding in 
favor of using microchips to individually identify Mexican-origin 
cattle. Some of the commenters pointed to studies that indicated that 
microchip technology would be well-suited to APHIS' stated goals of 
disease surveillance and traceback. We agree that microchips are 
useful, but several factors prevent us from changing the regulations to 
require their use. We continue to believe that an identification method 
must be distinct, permanent, and legible; microchips fail to fully 
satisfy those three criteria. In terms of distinctness, we believe that 
the identification should be readily visible, which microchips, 
clearly, are not. In terms of permanence, a microchip implanted in an 
animal could be removed or could migrate to other parts of the body. In 
terms of legibility, information can be readily stored on and retrieved 
from microchips, but there is no universal chip reader that can access 
the information stored on chips produced by different manufacturers.
    In addition to the many suggestions that APHIS use microchips to 
identify Mexican-origin cattle, numerous commenters offered other 
alternatives to M-branding. Those commenters suggested that APHIS use: 
Stickers, bells, ribbons, tail cropping, ear notching, tags, ear tags, 
magic markers, paint, indelible dye, stamps on the tails, and rings on 
the tails. As is the case with microchips, none of these suggested 
identification meets our criteria for distinctness, permanence, and 
legibility. Paints, dyes, stamps, and markers can fade or be obscured; 
stickers, bells, ribbons, and rings can be lost or removed; and 
notching or cropping, although permanent, are not readily and 
distinctly visible or legible.
    One commenter noted that the proposed new text of Sec. 92.427(c)(2) 
makes no mention of freeze branding, even though it eliminates the 
requirement for hot-iron branding. The commenter asked that freeze 
branding be mentioned, even encouraged, in the revised regulatory text 
of Sec. 92.427(c)(2) in order to inform persons who have read only the 
regulations, and not the supplementary information provided in the 
proposed rule and this final rule, that freeze branding may be used to 
identify cattle imported into the United States from Mexico. We agree 
that the marking methods acceptable to APHIS should be set forth in the 
regulations and have changed the regulatory text in this final rule to 
explicitly state that the ``M'' or ``Mx'' mark may be applied with 
a freeze brand or hot iron.
    One commenter noted that although the proposed rule would allow the 
use of freeze branding or hot-iron branding to mark spayed heifers, an 
unpublished APHIS ovariectomy protocol that requires the M-branding of 
certain spayed heifers--even though that requirement is not published 
in the regulations--appears to require that a hot iron be used to apply 
the brand. The protocol states that the ``Mx'' mark on spayed 
heifers must be a ``distinct, permanent mark which is legible on the 
right side of the tailhead as defined in Title 9, Code of Federal 
Regulations, Part 78.'' The commenter stated that there is no 
definition of ``distinct,'' ``permanent,'' or ``mark'' in those 
regulations, but there are definitions of different types of brands 
associated with the APHIS brucellosis eradication program that describe 
the brands exclusively, or predominantly, as being applied with a hot 
iron. The commenter felt that the protocol should be reworded to make 
it clear that freeze branding and other methods may be used to apply 
the ``Mx'' mark on spayed heifers. The protocol to which the 
commenter is referring is part of the cooperative services agreement 
between APHIS and a private sector veterinarian that provides for APHIS 
veterinary medical officers to monitor ovariectomies performed on 
heifers located in Mexico prior to their importation into the United 
States. The protocol does not state that hot-iron branding must be used 
or that freeze branding may not be used; the ``distinct, permanent 
mark'' language was meant to allow both methods without specifying 
either. The revised text of Sec. 92.427(c)(2) now clearly states that 
either freeze branding or hot-iron branding may be used, so even if the 
protocol were construed to prohibit freeze branding, the regulations 
would preempt the protocol and freeze branding would be allowed.
    Some commenters stated that APHIS should develop faster, more 
accurate tests for the diagnosis of tuberculosis and work to eradicate 
tuberculosis in Mexico, which would eliminate the need to brand cattle 
from Mexico. We agree that eradicating tuberculosis in Mexico would 
eliminate the need for branding cattle from Mexico, but that goal has 
not yet been attained. Researchers from APHIS, other Federal agencies, 
and private entities are constantly working to develop better ways to 
diagnose and prevent the spread of diseases, including tuberculosis. 
Additionally, APHIS and the Mexican Government, along with the 
livestock industries in the United States and Mexico, are cooperating 
in a joint effort to eradicate tuberculosis in Mexico.
    Some commenters felt that since APHIS proposed to end the face 
branding of cattle from Mexico, it should also change the provisions of 
its regulations in 9 CFR parts 50, 51, 77, 78, and 80 that allow or 
require face branding. We have received similar requests and are giving 
them serious consideration. However, any changes to those regulations 
would have to be part of a separate rulemaking proceeding.
    Some commenters had the impression that APHIS knowingly allowed 
tuberculosis-infected cattle to be imported from Mexico and was using 
the M-brand to identify and track those cattle. Those commenters felt 
that APHIS should test all cattle offered for importation into the 
United States from Mexico for tuberculosis before allowing the cattle 
into this country. Other commenters understood that APHIS does indeed 
require cattle offered for importation from Mexico to be tested or, in 
the case of cattle imported for immediate slaughter under Sec. 92.429, 
accompanied by a certificate stating that they have been examined and 
found free from evidence of communicable disease, before allowing the 
cattle into this country. Those commenters did, however, state that 
APHIS should do a better job of testing or alter its methods to include 
a 60-day pre-entry quarantine followed by a tuberculosis test for 
cattle offered for importation into the United States from Mexico. As 
mentioned above, we are considering rulemaking that would establish 
additional quarantine and testing requirements similar to those 
mentioned by the commenter. Until such time as additional quarantine 
and testing requirements are put in place, we will continue to utilize 
the available tools and methods in our efforts to prevent the entry 
into the United States of tuberculosis from Mexico.
    One commenter stated that while APHIS has said that M-branding is 
necessary to facilitate the disease eradication and surveillance 
objectives of the National Cooperative State/Federal Tuberculosis 
Eradication Program, it has failed to establish how M-branding actually 
serves those objectives. Because of that failure, it follows that there 
is no rational basis to support the expansion of M-branding to spayed 
heifers and those provisions of the proposed rule dealing with the 
branding of spayed heifers should be withdrawn. We believe that we have 
established the need for M-branding in previous rulemakings. The 
permanence of branding is perhaps the key factor in our reliance on M-
branding; other identification methods can be lost, removed, or 
obscured. As we have stated before, M-branding is the only permanent, 
readily visible means we have to identify cattle imported into the 
United States from Mexico. We believe that the higher incidence of 
tuberculosis in Mexico makes it necessary for us to be able to identify 
such cattle when searching for the origin of a tuberculosis-infected 
animal. If we can determine that a diseased animal originated in 
Mexico, we will not waste time and effort searching for its herd of 
origin in the United States. Conversely, if the animal is not M-
branded, we can concentrate our disease traceback efforts to those 
cattle that are more likely to be of U.S. origin. We continue to 
believe that M-branding serves the needs of our tuberculosis 
eradication efforts.
    In addition to the comments discussed above, some of the commenters 
raised issues that are not within the scope of the proposed rule and, 
in some cases, are not within APHIS' regulatory purview. Those issues 
related to: The treatment of calves by veal producers, the treatment of 
geese by fois gras producers, the treatment of chickens by poultry 
producers, horse roping for sport in Mexico, rodeos in Mexico and the 
United States, the use of bovine growth hormone in dairy herds, banning 
shetitah (the slaughtering of animals for food in the manner prescribed 
by Jewish law), conditions at zoos in the United States, government 
spending to promote fur exports, the transportation of farm animals and 
the care of animals injured during movement, ``factory farming,'' and 
the welfare of laboratory animals. Because such comments are outside 
the scope of the proposed rule, no changes have been made in this final 
rule as a result of those comments. Any regulatory changes related to 
those issues within APHIS' regulatory purview would have to be proposed 
as part of a separate proposed rule.
    Therefore, based on the rationale set forth in the proposed rule 
and in this document, we are adopting the provisions of the proposal as 
a final rule, with the changes discussed in this document.

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. The 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.
    Cattle imported from Mexico account for about 1 percent of the 
total U.S. cattle population, which in 1991 stood at 99.4 million head. 
The average price per head for cattle from Mexico in 1991 was $350, 
with the total value of imported Mexican cattle exceeding $361 million 
for the year. During 1991, approximately 1 million live cattle were 
imported into the United States from Mexico.
    We are amending the animal importation regulations to require that 
certain spayed heifers imported into the United States from Mexico be 
marked with a permanent, legible ``Mx'' on the right hip, and that 
certain steers imported into the United States from Mexico be marked 
with a permanent, legible ``M'' on the right hip, rather than on the 
jaw.
    Three primary considerations led APHIS to conclude that the marking 
requirements contained in this rule will not have an economic impact on 
any U.S. entities, large or small. First, all steers imported into the 
United States from Mexico, except those steers imported for immediate 
slaughter or in-bond for feeding and return to Mexico, were already 
required to be identified with an M-brand. For these steers, which 
represent 99 percent of the cattle imported into the United States from 
Mexico, only the location of the ``M'' has changed.
    The second consideration follows from the first: That is, although 
there had been no provisions in the regulations requiring spayed 
heifers to be permanently identified as being of Mexican origin, spayed 
heifers represent less than 1 percent of the cattle imported into the 
United States from Mexico. Thus, requiring certain spayed heifers to be 
marked with an ``Mx'' prior to arriving at the U.S. port of entry 
will have an insignificant effect on exporters or importers of spayed 
heifers from Mexico.
    The third consideration is that the cost of marking the cattle, 
which is negligible, will be borne by the Mexican exporter of the 
cattle.
    Therefore, we expect this rule will have no significant economic 
impact on any large or small entities because its provisions will not 
significantly increase or decrease their cost of doing business.
    Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and 
Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action will 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.

Executive Order 12778

    This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12778, 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

    This rule contains no information collection or recordkeeping 
requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 
et seq.).

List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 92

    Animal diseases, Imports, Livestock, Poultry and poultry products, 
Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Accordingly, 9 CFR part 92 is amended as follows:

PART 92--IMPORTATION OF CERTAIN ANIMALS AND POULTRY AND CERTAIN 
ANIMAL AND POULTRY PRODUCTS; INSPECTION AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS FOR 
CERTAIN MEANS OF CONVEYANCE AND SHIPPING CONTAINERS THEREON

    1. The authority citation for part 92 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1622; 19 U.S.C. 1306; 21 U.S.C. 102-105, 
111, 114a, 134a, 134b, 134c, 134d, 134f, 135, 136, and 136a; 31 
U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.17, 2.51, and 371.2(d).

    2. In Sec. 92.427, paragraph (c)(2) is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 92.427  Cattle from Mexico.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) Each steer imported into the United States from Mexico shall be 
identified with a distinct, permanent, and legible ``M'' mark applied 
with a freeze brand, hot iron, or other method prior to arrival at a 
port of entry, unless the steer is imported for slaughter in accordance 
with Sec. 92.429 or in bond for temporary entry in accordance with 
Sec. 92.427(e). Each spayed heifer imported into the United States from 
Mexico shall be identified with a distinct, permanent, and legible 
``Mx'' mark applied with a freeze brand, hot iron, or other method 
prior to arrival at a port of entry, unless the spayed heifer is 
imported for slaughter in accordance with Sec. 92.429 or in bond for 
temporary entry in accordance with Sec. 92.427(e). The ``M'' or 
``Mx'' mark shall be not less than 2 inches nor more than 3 inches 
high, and shall be applied to each animal's right hip, high on the 
tailhead (over the junction of the sacral and first coccygeal 
vertebrae).
* * * * *
    Done in Washington, DC, this 16th day of December 1994.
Lonnie J. King,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 94-31464 Filed 12-21-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P