[Federal Register: January 2, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 1)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 1-6]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr02ja09-2]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
9 CFR Part 93
[Docket No. APHIS-2007-0095]
RIN 0579-AC63
Importation of Cattle From Mexico; Addition of Port at San Luis,
AZ
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are amending the regulations regarding the importation of
cattle from Mexico by adding San Luis, AZ, as a port through which
cattle that have been infested with fever ticks or exposed to fever
ticks or tick-borne diseases may be imported into the United States. A
new facility for the handling of animals is to be constructed on the
Mexican side of the border at the port of San Luis, AZ, that will be
equipped with facilities necessary for the proper chute inspection,
dipping, and testing that are required for such cattle under the
regulations. We are also amending the regulations to remove provisions
that limit the admission of cattle that have been infested with fever
ticks or exposed to fever ticks or tick-borne diseases to the State of
Texas. The statutory requirement that limited the admission of those
cattle to the State of Texas has been repealed. These changes will make
an additional port of entry available and relieve restrictions on the
movement of imported Mexican cattle within the United States.
DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective January 2, 2009 except
for the amendment (amendatory instruction 3)
[[Page 2]]
to Sec. 93.427(b)(2) introductory text, for which the effective date
is delayed indefinitely. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
will publish a document announcing an effective date for that provision
in the Federal Register.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Betzaida Lopez, Staff
Veterinarian, National Center for Import and Export, VS, APHIS, 4700
River Road Unit 39, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 734-8364.
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 94.429
specifically address the importation of various ruminants from Mexico
into the United States.
In Sec. 93.426, paragraph (a) states that all ruminants offered
for entry into the United States from Mexico must be inspected at the
port of entry and found to be free from communicable diseases and fever
tick infestation and to not have been exposed to communicable diseases
and fever tick infestation. Ruminants found to be affected with or to
have been exposed to a communicable disease, or infested with fever
ticks, are to be refused entry except as provided in Sec.
93.427(b)(2).
Under Sec. 93.427(b)(2), cattle that have been exposed to
splenetic, southern, or tick fever, or that have been infested with or
exposed to fever ticks, may be imported from Mexico for admission into
the State of Texas, except that portion of the State quarantined
because of fever ticks, either at one of the land border ports in Texas
listed in Sec. 93.403(c) of the regulations, or at the port of Santa
Teresa, NM, provided that certain conditions are met. Those conditions
are spelled out in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (b)(2)(v) of Sec.
93.427.
On January 9, 2008, we published in the Federal Register (73 FR
5132-5135, Docket No. APHIS-2007-0095) a proposal \1\ to amend the
regulations by adding San Luis, AZ, as a port through which cattle that
have been infested with fever ticks or exposed to fever ticks or tick-
borne diseases may be imported into the United States. A new facility
for the handling of animals is to be constructed on the Mexican side of
the border at the port of San Luis, AZ, that will be equipped with
facilities necessary for the chute inspection, dipping, and testing
that are required for such cattle under the regulations. We also
proposed to amend the regulations to remove provisions that limit the
admission of cattle that have been infested with fever ticks or exposed
to fever ticks or tick-borne diseases to the State of Texas. The
statutory requirement that limited the admission of those cattle to the
State of Texas has been repealed. These changes were intended to make
an additional port of entry available and relieve restrictions on the
movement of imported Mexican cattle within the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ To view the proposed rule, supporting documents, and the
comments we received, go to http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/
component/main?main=DocketDetail&d=APHIS-2007-0095.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We solicited comments concerning our proposal for 60 days ending
March 31, 2008. We received 52 comments by that date. They were from
private citizens, industry groups, and State agriculture organizations.
Thirty-eight commenters supported the proposed rule. Fourteen
commenters expressed concerns regarding the proposed rule. The issues
they raised are discussed below.
One commenter objected to allowing cattle infested with fever ticks
to be imported into the United States.
The regulations currently allow cattle that have been exposed to
splenetic, southern, or tick fever, or that have been infested with or
exposed to fever ticks, to be imported into the United States; we
proposed to allow their importation through the port of San Luis.
However, the animals would have to meet the requirements in the
regulations for inspection, dipping, and certification of freedom from
ticks before entering the United States.
Many commenters expressed concern that the opening of the new port
at San Luis may cause an increase in the number of Mexican cattle
imported into the United States annually, particularly because it would
reduce the cost to ship for some entities. The commenters also stated
that this increase could cause financial harm to cattle ranchers in the
United States or damage the international reputation of the U.S. cattle
industry. Several commenters expressed concern with the risk
assessment, stating that its conclusion that the rule would not
increase risk was based on a faulty assumption that the new port would
not lead to an increase in the volume of cattle exports from Mexico.
In response to these comments, we have prepared an addendum to the
risk assessment,\2\ which gives additional details regarding the
reasons we do not expect this rule to increase the number of Mexican
cattle imported into the United States. As the addendum states,
increases or decreases in Mexican cattle import volumes are due to a
number of factors, most importantly weather, the financial situation of
Mexican cattle farmers, and the price of feeder cattle in the
southwestern United States. In addition, although imports have
increased over time, the total export market for Mexican cattle is not
expected to increase in the future because the demand for domestic beef
within Mexico continues to increase. Mexican beef calf exports are
almost all destined for the United States already. Therefore, it is
unlikely that Mexican cattle producers will have a large number of
additional cattle available for export to the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See footnote 1 for the address to view the risk assessment
and the addendum to the risk assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, even if the export market were to increase, we would
not expect large numbers of cattle to enter the United States through
San Luis. Currently, the majority of Mexican cattle (about 80 percent)
are destined for New Mexico or Texas ports, with only a small
percentage (about 15 percent) going to ports in more westerly States,
including Arizona and California. This is because the mountainous
terrain and lack of well-developed roads running east to west within
Mexico make it difficult for cattle from eastern States of Mexico,
where the majority of cattle are produced, to utilize ports in more
westerly States within the U.S. If these trends continue, we would
expect the bulk of the increase in Mexican cattle imports to continue
to enter through New Mexico and Texas ports based on proximity, cost,
and convenience of travel. The Mexican States that are closest to the
San Luis port and that would, therefore, be most likely to use the San
Luis port are: Baja California Norte, Baja California Sur, Nayarit,
Sinaloa, and Sonora. Because these five Mexican States account for only
about 14 percent of Mexican cattle production, even if they were to
increase their cattle exports, it is unlikely that there will be a
significant increase in the number of Mexican cattle exported to the
United States as a result of our opening the port of San Luis to cattle
that have been exposed to splenetic, southern, or tick fever, or that
have been infested with or exposed to fever ticks.
One commenter asked what impact the proposed rule would have on the
price of cattle and beef.
[[Page 3]]
Since the amount of cattle entering the United States from Mexico
is not expected to increase significantly as a result of this final
rule, cattle prices should not be greatly affected. However, some
importers who have been importing Mexican cattle into the United States
through ports in Texas and New Mexico may save some shipping costs by
switching to the port in San Luis. To the extent that these savings on
shipping costs are passed on by brokers, consumers could see lower
prices.
Several commenters expressed concern that allowing cattle to be
imported through the port at San Luis would result in more Mexican
cattle moving to areas in the United States conducive to tick
establishment.
We expect most of the cattle that will be imported through the port
at San Luis will be cattle that otherwise would have been imported
through Texas or New Mexico ports, and not cattle that would otherwise
not have been imported. Because brokers importing cattle from Mexico
usually supply cattle to the same entities they have previously dealt
with, we do not expect the U.S. destination of Mexican cattle to change
as a result of this rule. As stated in the addendum to the risk
assessment, cattle imported through the port at San Luis will most
likely be bound for California or other areas of Arizona where non-
exposed cattle and cattle not previously infested with fever ticks and
found to be eligible for importation have historically gone. Although
there are areas within Southern California that may be conducive to
fever tick establishment, fever ticks within the United States have
been confined to certain quarantined areas in Texas since 1943 despite
continual importation of Mexican cattle into the United States.
As stated previously, even if cattle infested with fever ticks are
presented for importation, they would have to meet the requirements in
the regulations for inspection, dipping, and certification of freedom
from ticks of any type before entering the United States. Although
dipping cattle with acaricide is not considered 100 percent effective
against ticks, these measures are the same requirements for cattle
entering at other ports. Therefore, opening the port at San Luis to
Mexican cattle that have been infested with fever ticks or exposed to
fever or tick-borne diseases does not present an additional risk of
introduction and spread of fever ticks or introduction and spread of
tick fever.
Several commenters expressed concern that the area around the
proposed San Luis port may also be conducive to tick establishment if
cattle remain in the area.
As stated in the risk assessment, the area surrounding the port of
San Luis is not suitable for the establishment of fever ticks. This is
because precipitation levels in the area around the port are too low to
support the establishment of fever ticks. While moisture from the
Colorado River and from private wells in the area may create micro-
habitats that could increase the chance of survival for fever ticks,
cattle imported through the port at San Luis are not likely to remain
near the port. Finally, even if tick-infested cattle were imported and
did remain near the port at San Luis, they, along with all other cattle
imported through the port, would have been inspected, dipped, and
certified as free from ticks of any type before entering the United
States. As stated previously, although not 100 percent effective
against ticks, these are the same requirements for cattle entering at
other ports. Therefore, there is no additional risk of introduction and
spread of fever ticks or introduction and spread of tick fever.
Two commenters stated that tick fever outbreaks have occurred in
areas of the United States and Europe above the 36[deg] N line of
latitude, which contradicts the findings in the risk assessment. One of
these commenters asked that the risk assessment be revised to address
this issue.
There has never been an outbreak of fever ticks or tick fever
within the United States above the 36[deg] N line of latitude that has
been conclusively linked to cattle imported from Mexico. As mentioned
in the risk assessment, the environment above the 36[deg] N line of
latitude is not conducive for the establishment of fever ticks, even in
the case that some ticks might make it across the border. This is
because fever ticks thrive in tropical and subtropical climates; at
temperatures below 20 [deg]C, the reproductive ability of female ticks
appears to be impaired.
As noted by the commenter, tick fever outbreaks have been reported
in areas of Europe above the 36[deg] N line of latitude (i.e., Finland,
the Netherlands, Romania, and Slovenia); however those outbreaks were
due to species of Babesia (Babesia divergens and B. jakimovi) that are
transmitted via a different, non-Boophilus species of tick (Ixodes
ricinus) capable of thriving in more northern climates. Neither these
Babesia species nor this tick species are indigenous to the United
States, although similar tick species such as I. (dammini) scapularis
and I. pacificus are present that feed on deer and mice, and are
capable of spreading another species of Babesia, B. microti. However,
unlike with other Babesia species that cause tick fever, humans and not
cattle are the intermediate hosts for B. microti.
One commenter expressed concern that the restriction limiting the
importation of cattle that have been infested with fever ticks or
exposed to fever ticks or tick-borne diseases to the State of Texas was
lifted without allowing for public comment.
As stated in the proposed rule, the passage of the North American
Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Implementation Act removed the statutory
provisions that limited the importation of cattle only into the State
of Texas. Following the passage of the NAFTA Implementation Act, our
permitting procedures were modified to allow cattle that had been
infested with or exposed to fever ticks to be moved from Mexico into
States other than Texas under the conditions described in Sec.
93.427(b)(2). However, we did not make a corresponding change in the
regulations to reflect the statutory amendment. We sought to rectify
this error in this rulemaking, which also allowed the public the
opportunity to comment on the removal of the restriction.
Several commenters expressed concern regarding acaricide-resistant
ticks present in Mexico. One commenter suggested that we require Mexico
to standardize their tick treatment protocol for exported cattle
according to the recommendations of the Binational Tick Committee,
which requires a 400 ppm Amitraz immersion.
Although there is a concern about acaricide-resistant ticks in
Mexico, the resistance has proven to be due to the inappropriate use of
acaricides. The Mexican Government has developed a pesticide resistance
management program to minimize the development and spread of resistant
tick populations. We expect that these changes will ensure that
acaricides continue to be an effective treatment for cattle imported
into the United States. Cattle from Mexico are currently being treated
with at least a 400 ppm Amitraz treatment before entering the United
States.
Several commenters stated that the Cattle Fever Tick Eradication
Program must be fully funded and implemented.
We will continue to seek full funding of our tick eradication
program and, in the event of a fever tick outbreak, will take
appropriate action to eliminate the outbreak.
One commenter asked if more information was available about the
economic effects of the proposed rule on small businesses. Another
commenter stated that a cost-benefit analysis should
[[Page 4]]
be conducted before the proposed rule is finalized. One commenter
stated that our estimate of the costs of eradicating ticks from
infested herds is inadequate because it is based on 2005 data and
because it did not include the costs of replacing animals lost to tick
fever.
The initial regulatory flexibility analysis in the proposed rule
provided all the information that was available to us regarding the
potential economic effects of the proposed rule on small businesses.
The cost data in the regulatory flexibility analysis was based on the
most current data available at the time of drafting. Although some of
this data might be from 2005, this does not impact the regulatory
flexibility analysis. Despite the costs, we will continue to use all
the resources at our disposal to prevent the introduction and dispersal
of tick fever into the United States. Moreover, we note that there has
never been an outbreak of tick fever in the United States that was
conclusively linked to Mexican-origin cattle.
One commenter expressed concern that the United States could
experience lost export markets because it does not follow World
Organization of Animal Health (OIE) guidelines with regard to tick
fever. In particular, the commenter mentioned the OIE guidelines
recommending that a country limit its imports to animals that have
resided since birth in a zone recognized as free from tick fever or to
animals that have tested negative for tick fever in the preceding
month, and that have been treated with an acaricide prior to shipment.
In order for bovine babesiosis to persist in cattle populations in
the United States, three factors must simultaneously exist: Agent,
host, and environment. In the absence of all three elements, it is
still possible for disease to be detected occasionally, but difficult
for the infection to persist in a population. Fever ticks are currently
confined to quarantined areas within Texas and movement restrictions
are in place to prevent the movement of cattle from Mexico into the
quarantined areas. As stated in the risk assessment, in the absence of
vector ticks, tick-borne diseases cannot be spread and, therefore, will
gradually disappear from an infected herd. Therefore, even if an animal
was a carrier of tick fever, because there are no vectors to transmit
the disease within the United States outside of the quarantined areas
and because there are restrictions in place to prevent the movement of
Mexican cattle into or through tick quarantine areas, it is unlikely
that tick fever would be introduced and spread within the United
States. We are not aware of having lost any export markets due to not
complying with OIE guidelines. Moreover, we do not believe it is
necessary to limit U.S. cattle imports to animals that have resided
since birth in a zone recognized as free from tick fever or to those
cattle that have tested negative for tick fever prior to importation.
Several commenters stated that the prohibition on the movement of
tick-infested cattle into the area of Texas quarantined for cattle tick
fever must be maintained.
We agree with the commenter, as we are continuing eradication
efforts in that area of Texas. Therefore, this rule continues the
prohibition on the movement from Mexico of tick-infested cattle or
cattle that have been exposed to fever ticks or tick-borne diseases
into the quarantined areas of Texas.
Several commenters stated that APHIS should work closely with
Mexico to ensure that new cattle-handling facilities, including the
port at San Luis, AZ, are properly managed, equipped, and funded to
prevent the spread of cattle fever ticks into the United States and
that port staff are adequately trained. One commenter stated that all
port staff should be full-time and that APHIS should conduct regular
reviews of procedures at the port at San Luis, AZ.
All ports on the Mexican border are staffed by APHIS as well as
employees of the Mexican Government, and APHIS guidelines are in place
to ensure consistency and close coordination between the two groups. In
addition, APHIS has standard operating procedures in place that detail
proper tick inspection procedures. All ports are staffed with full-time
employees, and port facility reviews are conducted on a regular basis
to make sure the facilities themselves and the procedures they employ
are adequate to prevent the introduction of cattle fever ticks into the
United States. The San Luis port, like all other ports that handle
Mexican cattle, will undergo an inspection and approval process prior
to being opened for trade.
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.
Effective Dates
This is a substantive rule that relieves restrictions and, pursuant
to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553, may be made effective less than 30
days after publication in the Federal Register.
Immediate removal of the provision in Sec. 93.427(b) that limited
the admission of certain Mexican-origin cattle to parts of Texas will
make our regulations consistent with the NAFTA Implementation Act and
with our permitting procedures, which were modified following the
passage of the NAFTA implementation Act.
However, we are delaying, indefinitely, the effective date of the
addition of San Luis, AZ, to the list in Sec. 93.427(b) of ports
through which cattle that have been infested with fever ticks or
exposed to fever ticks or tick-borne diseases may be imported from
Mexico, pending construction of new facilities and APHIS inspection of
those facilities to confirm that they are properly equipped to allow
for the necessary chute inspection, dipping, and testing of cattle.
Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act
This final 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.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 604, we have performed a final
regulatory flexibility analysis, which is set out below, regarding the
economic effects of this rule on small entities.
For the purpose of this analysis, and following Small Business
Administration (SBA) guidelines, the potentially affected entities are
classified as Beef Cattle Ranching and Farming (North American Industry
Classification System 112111). By SBA standards, farms in this category
are considered small if annual receipts are not more than $750,000.
According to the 2002 Census of Agriculture, of the 664,431 beef cattle
farms, 659,009, or 99 percent, had annual receipts of less than
$500,000 and are therefore considered small. Cattle imported into the
United States from Mexico are generally purchased by stocker operations
before they are shipped to feedlots. While there is no economic
information available on the number, size, or distribution of the
stocker operations, it is reasonable to assume they are small given
that 99 percent of beef cattle ranches and farms in general are small
entities.
From 2000 to 2006, an average of 45,258 cattle per year entered
through the port of San Luis, Arizona.\3\ Historically, 80 percent of
U.S. cattle imports from Mexico have gone to Texas and New Mexico.
Between 2003 and 2008, over 6.5 million cattle entered the United
States from Mexico at various
[[Page 5]]
ports. The ports with the largest volume of cattle imports between 1994
and 2003 were Santa Teresa/El Paso (26.64 percent), Presidio (18.12
percent), and Nogales (14.24 percent). Only 5.95 percent of U.S. cattle
imports from Mexico came through San Luis.\4\ To date, the San Luis
port has only received 8,000 head of cattle in 2008. As mentioned in
the addendum to the risk assessment, San Luis' western location makes
it inconvenient, and therefore unlikely, that there will be a major
shift in cattle movements from existing ports in Texas and New Mexico.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Source: Centers for Epidemiology and Animal Health Import
Tracking System.
\4\ Source: Live cattle imports by Port of Entry from Mexico
into the United States: Data and Models, New Mexico State
University, August 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any positive effects of the rule for small entities in the San Luis
area, such as increased volumes of business for firms that transport
cattle, are expected to be largely matched by business declines for
firms operating from the Texas and New Mexico ports. Cattle importers
who find it advantageous to use the San Luis port will be positively
affected. There may also be positive effects at the Texas and New
Mexico ports if the diversion of imports to San Luis of cattle that
have been infested with fever ticks or exposed to fever ticks or tick-
borne diseases reduces operational delays when the demand for imports
is beyond the capacity of those border facilities; however, APHIS has
no information on whether such periods of insufficient capacity have
occurred, and if so, how frequently.
The final rule will increase the number of cattle operations
allowed to receive cattle from Mexico that have been infested with
fever ticks or exposed to fever ticks or tick-borne diseases. A larger
number of more widely distributed U.S. entities will be afforded the
opportunity to benefit from importing these cattle. Establishment of
San Luis, AZ, as a port of entry for cattle from Mexico that have been
infested with fever ticks or exposed to fever ticks or tick-borne
diseases will also make these cattle more readily accessible for
entities to the west of Texas; transport costs from the port of entry
will be lower because the cattle will be moved over shorter distances.
The Mexican Government has requested that a land-border port be
established on the Mexico-Arizona border to move cattle that have been
infested with fever ticks or exposed to fever ticks or tick-borne
diseases from Mexico to the United States. APHIS has determined that
with the construction of new facilities at the port of San Luis, this
request can be satisfied given that the new port will be equipped to
handle cattle that have been infested with fever ticks or exposed to
fever ticks or tick-borne diseases. The potential impacts for affected
U.S. cattle operations, most of which are small entities, are expected
to be positive. This rule does not contain any new reporting,
recordkeeping, or compliance requirements. There are no significant
alternatives to the rule that will accomplish the stated objectives.
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
This final rule contains no new information collection or
recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 93
Animal diseases, Imports, Livestock, Poultry and poultry products,
Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
0
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, effective January 2, 2009 by revising
paragraph (b)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 93.427 Cattle from Mexico.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) Cattle that have been exposed to splenetic, southern, or tick
fever, or that have been infested with or exposed to fever ticks, may
be imported from Mexico for admission into the United States, except
into areas of Texas quarantined because of said disease or tick
infestation as specified in Sec. 72.5 of this chapter, either at one
of the land border ports in Texas listed in Sec. 93.403(c) or at the
port of Santa Teresa, NM, provided that the following conditions are
strictly observed and complied with:
(i) The cattle shall be accompanied by a certificate issued in
accordance with Sec. 93.405(a), and showing that the veterinarian
issuing the certificate has inspected the cattle and found them free
from fever ticks and any evidence of communicable disease, and that, as
far as it has been possible to determine, they have not been exposed to
any such disease, except splenetic, southern, or tick fever, during the
60 days immediately preceding their movement to the port of entry.
(ii) The cattle shall be shown by a certificate issued in
accordance with Sec. 93.405(a) to have been dipped in a tickicidal dip
within 7 to 12 days before being offered for entry.
(iii) The importer, or his or her duly authorized agent, shall
first execute and deliver to an inspector at the port of entry an
application for inspection and supervised dipping wherein he or she
shall agree to waive all claims against the United States for any loss
or damage to the cattle occasioned by or resulting from dipping, or
resulting from the fact that they are later found to be still tick
infested; and also for all subsequent loss or damage to any other
cattle in the possession or control of such importer which may come
into contact with the cattle so dipped.
(iv) The cattle when offered for entry shall receive a chute
inspection by an inspector. If found free from ticks they shall be
given one dipping in one of the permitted dips listed in Sec. 72.13(b)
of this chapter under the supervision of an inspector 7 to 14 days
after the dipping required by paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section. The
selection of the permitted dip to be used will be made by the port
veterinarian in each case. If found to be infested with fever ticks,
the entire lot of cattle shall be rejected and will not be again
inspected for entry until 10 to 14 days after they have again been
dipped in the manner provided by paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section.
(v) The conditions at the port of entry shall be such that the
subsequent movement of the cattle can be made without exposure to fever
ticks.
* * * * *
0
3. Section 93.427 is further amended, with an effective date pending
further notice, by revising paragraph (b)(2) introductory text to read
as follows:
Sec. 93.427 Cattle from Mexico.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) Cattle that have been exposed to splenetic, southern, or tick
fever, or that
[[Page 6]]
have been infested with or exposed to fever ticks, may be imported from
Mexico for admission into the United States, except into areas of Texas
quarantined because of said disease or tick infestation as specified in
Sec. 72.5 of this chapter, either at one of the land border ports in
Texas listed in Sec. 93.403(c) or at the port of Santa Teresa, NM,
provided that the following conditions are strictly observed and
complied with:
* * * * *
Done in Washington, DC, this 22nd day of December 2008.
Kevin Shea,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. E8-31212 Filed 12-31-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P