[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 240 (Friday, December 14, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 64223-64225]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-27150]



 ========================================================================
 Rules and Regulations
                                                 Federal Register
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents 
 having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed 
 to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published 
 under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
 
 The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents. 
 
 ========================================================================
 

  Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 240 / Friday, December 14, 2018 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 64223]]



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

9 CFR Part 93

[Docket No. APHIS-2016-0050]
RIN 0579-AE38


Branding Requirements for Bovines Imported Into the United States 
From Mexico

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are amending the regulations regarding the branding of 
bovines imported into the United States from Mexico. We are taking this 
action at the request of the Government of Mexico to address issues 
that have arisen with the branding requirement for these bovines. These 
changes will help prevent inconsistencies in branding that can result 
in bovines being rejected for import into the United States.

DATES: Effective January 14, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Betzaida Lopez, Senior Staff 
Veterinarian, National Import Export Services, Policy, Permitting, and 
Regulatory Services, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 39, Riverdale, MD 
20737-1231; (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.  93.427 specifically addresses the 
importation of cattle and other bovines from Mexico into the United 
States.
    On April 12, 2018, we published in the Federal Register (83 FR 
15756-15758, Docket No. APHIS-2016-0050) a proposal \1\ to amend the 
regulations by changing the branding requirements for steers and spayed 
heifers from Mexico and the branding option for sexually intact bovines 
from Mexico. At present, cattle from Mexico carry at least two forms of 
identification, generally a brand and an approved eartag. Cattle 
imported from Mexico for other than immediate slaughter are required to 
be branded with an ``M'' for steers, an ``Mx'' for spayed heifers, and 
an ``MX'' brand or tattoo for breeding bovines. This rule will change 
the requirements to increase the size of the brands, simplify them to a 
simple ``M,'' and move the brands for sexually intact bovines to the 
right shoulder of the animal. These changes will help reduce or 
eliminate branding errors, which in turn would reduce the need for 
rebranding and the incidence of cattle rejections at port-of-entry 
inspection. The changes to the description of the placement of the 
brand for steers and spayed heifers clarifies the requirement by making 
the description more specific.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ To view the proposed rule, supplementary document, and the 
comments we received, go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2016-0050.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We solicited comments concerning our proposal for 60 days ending 
June 11, 2018. We received 12 comments by that date. They were from 
veterinary and animal welfare organizations, agriculture and trade 
associations, and private citizens. Six of the commenters supported the 
rule as proposed. The remaining commenters asked questions or expressed 
concerns about the rule. The questions and concerns are discussed 
below.
    One commenter suggested adding a visible, legible, and unequivocal 
name to the branding requirements for bovines in Sec.  93.427(e)(3). 
The commenter stated that this would ensure consistency and uniformity 
of the brands.
    It is not clear which name the commenter thinks should be added to 
the brand; however, we do not agree that adding a name to the brand 
would ensure consistency and uniformity. The larger size and revised 
placement of the brands will provide visual identification of the 
animals' origin. Furthermore, these animals will be bearing official 
ear tags that will aid in tracing the animals back to their farm of 
origin in the event that any of them are found to be affected with a 
disease of concern.
    One commenter stated that people may have the same brands and 
locations registered in States that maintain a brand registry. The 
commenter expressed concern that changing the brand requirements for 
cattle imported from Mexico could result in confusion and disputes.
    It was not clear from the comment if the concern was about changes 
to the brand for feeder and slaughter cattle or for sexually intact 
cattle. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) notes 
that the regulations currently require an ``M'' brand on the right hip 
for steers imported from Mexico. There have been no issues with the 
current requirements. If the commenter's concern is with sexually 
intact cattle, APHIS notes that less than 1 percent of cattle imported 
into the United States are sexually intact animals from Mexico. The 
likelihood that the change to the branding requirements for such a 
small number of cattle will result in confusion is low. Furthermore, 
the option to identify sexually intact cattle from Mexico with an ear 
tattoo remains available. We are making no changes to the rule in 
response to this comment.
    Three commenters recommended that APHIS prioritize the development 
of alternatives to hot-iron branding. Two of the commenters 
specifically mentioned electronic animal identification as an 
alternative to branding.
    Another commenter stated that while they strongly support the use 
of electronic eartags and the sharing of electronic information between 
the United States and Mexico for purposes of animal disease 
traceability, they also supported the retention of branding as the only 
permanent method of identification. The commenter stated that eartags 
are easily removed or lost and a permanent form of identification is 
necessary to protect the health of the U.S. herd.
    APHIS actively monitors advances in animal identification. However, 
as the one commenter noted, eartags may be lost and are readily 
removable, and cannot be considered a permanent form

[[Page 64224]]

of identification. For this reason we require permanent identification 
such as a brand or tattoo for imported live bovines. This permanent 
identification allows APHIS to trace an animal back to the country of 
origin in the event that the animal shows symptoms of a disease.
    A group of three industry organizations expressed concern that the 
proposed movement of the M brand from the hip to the shoulder for 
imported breeding cattle and the increased size of the brand would 
result in lower value for such hides when used for leather. The 
commenters stated that they would prefer to see the identification 
requirements for imported breeding cattle be the same as the 
requirements for feeder cattle, and for cattle imported from Mexico to 
have the same requirements as cattle imported from Canada.
    We agree with the commenters that harmonizing animal identification 
requirements is desirable. However, because of the risk of introducing 
brucellosis into the United States, all Mexican feeder cattle are 
spayed or neutered before being exported to the United States. Sexually 
intact cattle (that is, breeding animals) are quarantined and tested 
for bovine tuberculosis and brucellosis at the border. We need to 
differentiate between breeding and non-breeding cattle imported from 
Mexico not only at the ports so we may quarantine and test them 
accordingly, but also through the life of the animal. For example, if 
an animal identified as a spayed heifer calves, we know that Mexico's 
spaying procedures have not been followed and we may have to consider 
changes to the import requirements to safeguard against the 
introduction of brucellosis from Mexico.
    With respect to the larger brands potentially reducing the value of 
the hides, we anticipate that the new requirements will reduce the 
likelihood of blotching and therefore the need for rebranding, which 
also reduces the value of the hides.
    As we noted above, sexually intact cattle from Mexico represent a 
very small percentage of cattle imported into the United States from 
Mexico, so the number of hides affected by the change to a shoulder 
brand should not be great. Ear tattoos are also still an option for 
sexually intact cattle.
    One commenter stated that the rule should not characterize hot-iron 
branding as humane because branding causes pain and distress. The 
commenter cited both veterinary medical research and international 
standards in support of their statement.
    The proposed rule was referring to the regulations in Sec.  
93.427(e)(3), which call for sexually intact bovines to be permanently 
and humanely identified. We note that those regulations provide for the 
use of tattoos, freeze brands, and other methods in addition to hot 
iron branding.
    One commenter stated that the rule should specifically identify 
tattooing as an acceptable alternative. The commenter stated that Sec.  
93.427(e)(3) currently provides for the use of tattoos for sexually 
intact bovines and asked why tattooing is specifically cited as an 
acceptable method of control for bovine spongiform encephalopathy 
(BSE), but not for tuberculosis. The commenter further stated that 
because a tattoo inside the ear is not visible from a distance, it is 
assumed that the ability to read without close examination is not a 
criterion for acceptable identification techniques.
    The commenter is correct that tattooing continues to be an option 
for sexually intact cattle from Mexico. However, we do not consider 
tattooing a method of control for BSE; instead, it is a means of 
identifying non-U.S.-origin cattle that are likely to remain in the 
population for years. Breeding cattle are usually higher-value animals, 
and therefore we have always provided the option of tattooing them. In 
addition, the number of imports of breeding cattle is so small that 
traceback would be relatively easy in the event that one of these 
animals was diagnosed with a disease. In contrast, the number of feeder 
cattle imported into the United States is very large. For these 
animals, the brand serves not only as identification of to prevent 
commingling with U.S.-origin cattle as required by some States, but 
also differentiates these animals from breeding animals. This is 
important, as we explained above, to ensure that Mexico's spaying 
procedures are being followed and to safeguard against the introduction 
of brucellosis from Mexico.
    One commenter stated that until branding is replaced as an 
identification method, APHIS should investigate pain control measures, 
such as analgesics or anti-inflammatories, and to require relief from 
the pain associated with hot iron branding.
    Requiring the use of pain control measures in association with hot-
iron branding is outside the scope of APHIS' regulatory authority. We 
are making no changes in response to this 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 Orders 12866 and 13771 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.
    This rule is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because 
this rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866. Further, 
APHIS considers this rule to be a deregulatory action under Executive 
Order 13771 as the action may result in cost savings. In accordance 
with guidance on complying with Executive Order 13771, the primary 
estimate of the cost savings (net social welfare gain) for this rule is 
$181,300. This value is the mid-point estimate of cost savings 
annualized in perpetuity using a 7 percent discount rate.
    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 website (see footnote 1 
in this document for a link to Regulations.gov) or by contacting the 
person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    This final rule will amend the regulations in 9 CFR part 93 to 
change the identification requirements for bovines imported from 
Mexico. At present, cattle from Mexico carry at least two forms of 
identification, generally a brand and an approved eartag. Cattle 
imported from Mexico for other than immediate slaughter are required to 
be branded with an ``M'' for steers, an ``Mx'' for spayed heifers, and 
an ``MX'' brand or tattoo for breeding bovines. With this rule all 
bovines imported from Mexico will be branded with a single ``M'' to 
avoid branding errors. In order to distinguish between feeder and 
breeding cattle, the brand for steers and spayed heifers will be placed 
on the back hip and the brand for breeding cattle will be placed on the 
shoulder. Cattle imported from Mexico will still require an approved 
eartag.
    The new identification requirements will reduce if not eliminate 
branding errors, reducing the need for rebranding and the incidence of 
cattle rejections at port-of-entry inspection. Revenue from hides 
accounts for about 75 percent of the byproduct-value of beef cattle. 
Damage from rebranding can reduce hide value. Also, re-inspection due 
to branding errors increases transaction costs. Currently, a $4 
inspection fee per head is billed to the broker who in turn charges the 
exporter. The single ``M''

[[Page 64225]]

brand will both minimize hide damage and the need for re-inspections. 
Because the approved eartag is a current requirement, we do not 
anticipate any additional costs would be incurred.
    Entities that may be impacted by the rule fall into various 
categories of the North American Industry Classification System. The 
majority of these businesses are small entities.

Executive Order 12372

    This program/activity is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic 
Assistance under No. 10.025 and is subject to Executive Order 12372, 
which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local 
officials. (See 2 CFR chapter IV.)

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 in conflict 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 the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 
3501 et seq.), the burden requirements included in this rule have been 
approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under OMB control 
number 0579-0040.

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) 851-2483.

List of Subjects in 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. Section 93.427 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)(1) and 
(e)(3)(i) to read as follows:


Sec.  [thinsp]93.427  Cattle and other bovines from Mexico.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) Each steer or spayed heifer 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 or spayed heifer is 
imported for slaughter in accordance with Sec.  [thinsp]93.429. The 
``M'' mark shall be between 3 inches (7.5 cm) and 5 inches (12.5 cm) 
high and wide, and shall be applied to each animal's right hip, within 
4 inches (10 cm) of the midline of the tailhead (that is, the top of 
the brand should be within 4 inches (10 cm) of the midline of the 
tailhead, and placed above the hook and pin bones). The brand should 
also be within 18 inches (45.7 cm) of the anus.
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (i) An ``M'' mark properly applied with a freeze brand, hot iron, 
or other method, and easily visible on the live animal and on the 
carcass before skinning. Such a mark must be between 3 inches (7.5 cm) 
and 5 inches (12.5 cm) high and wide, and must be applied to the upper 
right front shoulder of each animal; or
* * * * *

    Done in Washington, DC, this 10th day of December 2018.
Kevin Shea,
Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-27150 Filed 12-13-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3410-34-P