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.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

64223 

Vol. 83, No. 240 

Friday, December 14, 2018 

1To view the proposed rule, supplementary 

document, and the comments we received, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;

D=APHIS-2016-0050. 

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 (§§ 93.400 through 93.436, 

referred to below as the regulations) 

governs the importation of ruminants; 

within subpart D, § 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. 

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 § 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 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
64224 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 240 / Friday, December 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

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 § 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 § 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’’ 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 240 / Friday, December 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 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 

■ 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. Section 93.427 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (c)(1) and (e)(3)(i) to 

read as follows: 

§ 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 § 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 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2018–0802; Product 

Identifier 2018–NM–082–AD; Amendment 

39–19525; AD 2018–25–14] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Fokker 

Services B.V. Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for all 

Fokker Services B.V. Model F28 Mark 

0070 and 0100 airplanes. This AD was 

prompted by reports of electrical arcing 

between the auxiliary power unit (APU) 

starter motor positive terminal and the 

APU fuel drain line. This AD requires 

the removal of certain clamps and 

replacement of the flexible APU fuel 

drain line. We are issuing this AD to 

address the unsafe condition on these 

products. 

DATES: This AD is effective January 18, 

2019. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

of a certain publication listed in this AD 

as of January 18, 2019. 

ADDRESSES: For service information 

identified in this final rule, contact 

Fokker Services B.V., Technical 

Services Dept., P.O. Box 1357, 2130 EL 

Hoofddorp, the Netherlands; telephone 

+31 (0)88–6280–350; fax +31 (0)88– 

6280–111; email technicalservices@

fokker.com; internet http://

www.myfokkerfleet.com. You may view 

this service information at the FAA, 

Transport Standards Branch, 2200 

South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For 

information on the availability of this 

material at the FAA, call 206–231–3195. 

It is also available on the internet at 

http://www.regulations.gov by searching 

for and locating Docket No. FAA–2018– 

0802. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the internet at http://

www.regulations.gov by searching for 

and locating Docket No. FAA–2018– 

0802; or in person at Docket Operations 

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

The AD docket contains this final rule, 

the regulatory evaluation, any 

comments received, and other 

information. The address for Docket 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES