This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains regulatory documents having general

applicability and legal effect, most of which

are keyed to and codified in the Code of

Federal Regulations, which is published under

50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by

the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of

new books are listed in the first FEDERAL

REGISTER issue of each week.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

10323 

Vol. 80, No. 38 

Thursday, February 26, 2015 

1To view the proposed rule and the comments 

we received, go to http://www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2012-0073. 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

9 CFR Part 93 

[Docket No. APHIS–2012–0073] 

RIN 0579–AD91 

Cattle Fever Tick; Importation 

Requirements for Ruminants From 

Mexico 

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are amending the 

regulations to recognize the State of 

Sonora as a region in Mexico that is free 

of fever ticks. We are also establishing 

an exemption from acaricide dipping 

treatment requirements, and the 

documentation requirements associated 

with such dipping, that were formerly 

applicable to cattle and other ruminants 

originating from Sonora as a condition 

of eligibility for entry to the United 

States, provided that certain conditions 

are met. This action will remove 

restrictions on the importation of cattle 

and other ruminants from Sonora that 

we believe are no longer necessary and 

reduce the costs associated with tick 

dipping for exporters and importers of 

ruminants. 

DATES: Effective March 30, 2015. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Betzaida Lopez, Senior Staff 

Veterinarian, National Import Export 

Services, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road 

Unit 39, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 

851–3300. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The regulations in 9 CFR part 93 

prohibit or restrict the importation of 

certain animals, birds, and poultry into 

the United States to prevent the 

introduction of communicable diseases 

of livestock and poultry. Subpart D of 

part 93 (§§ 93.400 through 93.436, 

referred to below as the regulations) 

governs the importation of ruminants; 

within subpart D, §§ 93.424 through 

93.429 specifically address the 

importation of various ruminants from 

Mexico into the United States. 

On July 17, 2014, we published in the 

Federal Register (79 FR 41652–41656, 

Docket No. APHIS–2012–0073) a 

proposal1 to amend the regulations by 

recognizing the State of Sonora as a 

region in Mexico that is free of fever 

ticks. We also proposed to establish an 

exemption from acaricide dipping 

treatment requirements, and the 

documentation requirements associated 

with such dipping, that have applied to 

cattle and other ruminants originating 

from Sonora as a condition of eligibility 

for entry to the United States, provided 

that certain conditions are met. 

We solicited comments concerning 

our proposal for 60 days ending 

September 15, 2014. We received two 

comments by that date. They were from 

a cattle producers’ association and an 

individual. One commenter supported 

the proposed rule. The other expressed 

a generalized opposition, but did not 

address the actual content of the 

proposed rule. Thus, there is no need to 

address that comment. Therefore, for the 

reasons given in the proposed rule and 

in this document, we are adopting the 

proposed rule as a final rule, without 

change. 

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

This final rule has been determined to 

be not significant for the purposes of 

Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, 

has not been reviewed by the Office of 

Management and Budget. 

In accordance with 5 U.S. C. 604, we 

have performed a final regulatory 

flexibility analysis, which is 

summarized below, regarding the 

economic effects of this rule on small 

entities. Copies of the full analysis are 

available on the Regulations.gov Web 

site (see footnote 1 for a link to 

Regulations.gov) or by contacting the 

person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

We are recognizing the Mexican State 

of Sonora as a region that is free of fever 

ticks. Under this rulemaking, importers 

of cattle from Sonora will have to 

submit an application either for 

inspection or dipping, but not both, as 

was previously required. 

From 2009 to 2013, 1.21 million cattle 

were imported yearly from Mexico. 

About one-fourth came from Sonora. 

Cattle imported into the United States 

from Mexico are generally purchased by 

stocker operations that background the 

cattle on pasture before they are shipped 

to feedlots. 

The average unit price of cattle 

imported from Mexico between 2009 

and 2013 was about $440. The average 

cost of dipping with an acaricide is 

$3.50 to $10.00 per head. It takes 

approximately 5 seconds for 3 cattle to 

cross a dipping vat. For an average 500- 

head herd, dipping takes about 15 

minutes. To inspect a 500-head herd 

takes from 4 to 12 hours. Depending on 

the size of the herd and time needed for 

inspection, some importers may choose 

to have the cattle dipped rather than 

inspected. The estimated cost of dipping 

is equivalent to about 1 to 2 percent of 

the value of the imported cattle. Any 

resulting cost savings realized by U.S. 

cattle importers due to inspection rather 

than dipping of cattle will depend on 

the relative price responsiveness of the 

sellers and buyers of the cattle. APHIS 

does not expect the rule to result in an 

increase of any consequence in the 

number of cattle imported from Mexico. 

Executive Order 12988 

This final rule has been reviewed 

under Executive Order 12988, Civil 

Justice Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts 

all State and local laws and regulations 

that are inconsistent with this rule; (2) 

has no retroactive effect; and (3) does 

not require administrative proceedings 

before parties may file suit in court 

challenging this rule. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

In accordance with section 3507(d) of 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S. C. 3501 et se.), the information 

collection or recordkeeping 

requirements included in this final rule, 

which were filed under 0579–0425, 

have been submitted for approval to the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB). When OMB notifies us of its 

decision, if approval is denied, we will 

publish a document in the Federal 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
10324 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 38 / Thursday, February 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

Register providing notice of what action 

we plan to take. 

E-Government Act Compliance 

The Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service is committed to 

compliance with the E-Government Act 

to promote the use of the Internet and 

other information technologies, to 

provide increased opportunities for 

citizen access to Government 

information and services, and for other 

purposes. For information pertinent to 

E-Government Act compliance related 

to this rule, please contact Ms. Kimberly 

Hardy, APHIS’ Information Collection 

Coordinator, at (301) 851–2727. 

List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 93 

Animal diseases, Imports, Livestock, 

Poultry and poultry products, 

Quarantine, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Accordingly, we are amending 9 CFR 

part 93 as follows: 

PART 93—IMPORTATION OF CERTAIN 

ANIMALS, BIRDS, FISH, AND 

POULTRY, AND CERTAIN ANIMAL, 

BIRD, AND POULTRY PRODUCTS; 

REQUIREMENTS FOR MEANS OF 

CONVEYANCE AND SHIPPING 

CONTAINERS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 93 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1622 and 8301–8317; 

21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 

CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4. 

■ 2. In § 93.400, the definition of fever 

tick is revised to read as follows: 

§ 93.400 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Fever tick. Rhipicephalus annulatus, 

Rhipicephalus microplus, and any other 

species of tick determined by the 

Administrator to be a vector of bovine 

babesiosis and specified on the Internet 

at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/wps/

portal/aphis/ourfocus/importexport. 

* * * * * 

§ 93.423 [Amended] 

■ 3. In § 93.423, paragraph (c) is 

amended by removing the words 

‘‘splenetic, southern, or tick fever’’ and 

adding the words ‘‘bovine babesiosis’’ in 

their place. 

■ 4. In § 93.427, paragraph (b) and the 

OMB citation at the end of the section 

are revised to read as follows: 

§ 93.427 Cattle and other bovines from 

Mexico. 

* * * * * 

(b)(1) Cattle from regions of Mexico 

that APHIS has determined to be free 

from fever ticks. APHIS has evaluated 

certain regions of Mexico in accordance 

with § 92.2 of this chapter, and 

determined that they are free from fever 

ticks; a list of all such regions is found 

on the Internet http://

www.aphis.usda.gov/wps/portal/aphis/

ourfocus/importexport. Copies of the 

list are also available by contacting 

APHIS at the following address: 

Regionalization Evaluation Services, 

National Import Export Services, 

Veterinary Services, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service, 4700 River 

Road Unit 38, Riverdale, MD 20737. 

Regions may be removed from the list 

based on a determination by APHIS that 

fever ticks exist in the region, on the 

discovery of tick-infested cattle from the 

region at a port of entry into the United 

States, or on information provided by a 

representative of the government of that 

region that fever ticks exist in the 

region. Cattle from regions of Mexico 

that APHIS has determined to be free 

from fever ticks may be imported into 

the United States subject to the 

following conditions: 

(i) The cattle are accompanied by a 

certificate issued in accordance with 

§ 93.405 that states that the cattle 

originate from a region of Mexico that 

APHIS has determined to be free from 

fever ticks. 

(ii) If the cattle will transit to the 

United States through an area of Mexico 

that APHIS has not determined to be 

free from fever ticks, they are moved in 

a sealed means of conveyance, and that 

seal remains intact throughout such 

transit. 

(iii) The cattle are presented for entry 

into the United States at a land border 

port of entry listed in § 93.403(c). 

(iv) The cattle are segregated at the 

U.S. port of entry from cattle from 

regions of Mexico that APHIS has not 

determined to be free from fever ticks. 

(v) The importer, or his or her agent, 

executes and delivers to the inspector at 

the port of entry an application for 

inspection or supervised dipping. In 

this application, the importer, or his or 

her agent, waive all claims against the 

United States for any loss or damage to 

the cattle occasioned by or resulting 

from inspection or dipping or from the 

fact that the cattle are later found still 

to be tick infested, and for any loss or 

damage to any other cattle in the 

importer’s possession or control that 

come in contact with the dipped cattle. 

(vi) The cattle are either inspected by 

an APHIS inspector at the port of entry 

for evidence of tick infestation or are 

treated with a tickicidal dip that is 

listed in § 72.13 of this chapter under 

the supervision of an inspector at the 

port of entry. 

(vii) If any cattle are determined to be 

infested with fever ticks, the lot of cattle 

is refused entry and may only be 

imported into the United States subject 

to the requirements in paragraph (b)(2) 

of this section. 

(2) Cattle from regions of Mexico that 

APHIS has not determined to be free 

from fever ticks. Cattle from regions of 

Mexico that APHIS has not determined 

to be free from fever ticks may only be 

imported into the United States subject 

to the following conditions: 

(i) The cattle have been inspected by 

a veterinarian in Mexico and, in the 

determination of the veterinarian, are 

free from fever ticks and all evidence of 

communicable diseases, and have not 

been exposed to communicable 

diseases, other than bovine babesiosis, 

during the 60 days prior to movement 

to a port of entry into the United States. 

(ii) The cattle have been treated in 

Mexico with a tickicidal dip that is 

listed in § 72.13 of this chapter within 

7 to 14 days before being offered for 

entry into the United States. 

(iii) The cattle are accompanied by a 

certificate issued in accordance with 

§ 93.405 that states that this inspection 

and dipping have occurred. 

(iv) The cattle are presented for entry 

into the United States at the port of 

entry at Santa Teresa, NM, or a port of 

entry within Texas that is listed in 

§ 93.403(c). 

(v) The importer, or his or her agent, 

executes and delivers to the inspector at 

the port of entry an application for 

inspection and supervised dipping. In 

this application, the importer, or his or 

her agent, agrees to waive all claims 

against the United States for any loss or 

damage to the cattle occasioned by or 

resulting from this dipping or from the 

fact that the cattle are later found to still 

be infested with ticks, and for any loss 

or damage to any other cattle in the 

importer’s possession or control that 

come in contact with the dipped cattle. 

(vi) When offered for entry, the cattle 

receive an inspection by an inspector. If 

free from fever ticks, the cattle are 

treated once with a tickicidal dip that is 

listed in § 72.13 of this chapter 7 to 14 

days after the dipping required in 

paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section. If 

found to be infested with fever ticks, the 

cattle are refused entry and may not be 

inspected again at a port of entry until 

they are again dipped and 7 to 14 days 

have elapsed. 

(vii) The cattle are not imported into 

an area of Texas that is quarantined in 

accordance with § 72.5 of this chapter 

for bovine babesiosis, or for tick 

infestation. 

* * * * * 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 38 / Thursday, February 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 10325 

1Public Law 102–552, 106 Stat. 4131 (1992). 

2See FCA Policy Statement ‘‘Cooperative 

Operating Philosophy—Serving the Members of 

Farm Credit System Institutions’’ (FCA–PS–80), 

dated October 14, 2010. 

(Approved by the Office of Management 

and Budget under control numbers 

0579–0040, 0579–0224, 0579–0393, 

and 0579–0425) 

Done in Washington, DC, this 20th day of 

February 2015. 

Kevin Shea, 

Administrator, Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 2015–04074 Filed 2–25–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION 

12 CFR Part 620 

RIN 3052–AD02 

Disclosure to Shareholders; Pension 

Benefit Disclosures 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Farm Credit 

Administration (FCA, we or our) 

amends our regulations related to Farm 

Credit System (System) bank and 

association disclosures to shareholders 

and investors of senior officer 

compensation in the Summary 

Compensation Table (Table). Under the 

final rule, System banks and 

associations are not required to report in 

the Table the compensation of 

employees who are not senior officers 

and who would not otherwise be 

considered ‘‘highly compensated 

employees’’ but for the payments related 

to, or change(s) in value of, the 

employees’ qualified pension plans, 

provided that the plans were available 

to all employees on the same basis at the 

time the employees joined the plans. 

DATES: Effective Date: The regulation 

will be effective 30 days after 

publication in the Federal Register 

during which time either one or both 

Houses of Congress are in session. We 

will publish a notice of the effective 

date in the Federal Register. 

Compliance Date: System banks and 

associations must comply with the final 

rule for compensation reported in the 

Table for the fiscal year ending 2015, 

and may implement the final rule 

retroactively for the fiscal years ended 

2014, 2013, and 2012. However, 

retroactive application is not required, 

and we would expect footnote 

disclosure of the change in calculation 

for the fiscal years to which the final 

rule was applied. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael T. Wilson, Policy Analyst, 

Office of Regulatory Policy, Farm Credit 

Administration, McLean, VA 22102– 

5090, (703) 883–4124, TTY (703) 883– 

4056, Or 

Jeff Pienta, Senior Attorney, Office of 

General Counsel, Farm Credit 

Administration, McLean, VA 22102– 

5090, (703) 883–4020, TTY (703) 883– 

4056. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Objective 

The objective of this rule is to 

improve the quality of disclosure 

information shareholders receive on 

senior officer and highly compensated 

employee compensation. 

II. Background 

Congress explained in section 514 of 

the Farm Credit Banks and Associations 

Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 (1992 

Act) 1 that disclosures of financial 

information and compensation paid to 

senior officers, among other disclosures, 

provide System shareholders with 

information necessary to better manage 

their institution and make informed 

decisions regarding the operation of 

their institution. In addition, the FCA 

Board declared its commitment to 

support the cooperative business model 

and structure by encouraging memberborrowers to participate in the 

management, control, and ownership of 

their institutions.2 Providing memberborrowers with transparent and 

complete disclosures regarding the 

compensation of senior officers and 

certain other highly compensated 

employees is essential to fostering an 

environment wherein memberborrowers can do so effectively. 

With this as one of our objectives, we 

issued a final rule on October 3, 2012, 

that enhanced disclosure of senior 

officer compensation and other related 

topics. Section 620.6(c)(2)(i) requires 

System Banks and associations to 

disclose senior officer compensation for 

the last 3 fiscal years. For purposes of 

this reporting requirement only, 

§ 620.6(c)(2)(i) extends the regulatory 

definition of ‘‘senior officers’’ to include 

any employee whose compensation 

level was among the five highest paid 

during the reporting period. The intent 

of this extension was to ensure that 

System banks and associations provide 

shareholders with necessary 

compensation information on highly 

compensated employees even though 

they did not fall within the regulatory 

definition of ‘‘senior officer.’’ The intent 

was not to provide compensation 

information on employees who would 

only reach the ‘‘highly compensated’’ 

threshold solely because of payments 

related to or change(s) in the value of a 

qualified pension plan that was 

available to all employees on the same 

basis at the time they joined the plan. 

We believe that application of the 

existing rule could create such an 

unintended effect and reduce the 

effectiveness of the disclosure. 

Therefore, on November 17, 2014, we 

proposed amending existing 

§ 620.6(c)(2)(i) to exclude reporting 

employees’ compensation in the Table if 

the employees were not senior officers 

and would be considered highly 

compensated employees solely because 

of payments related to or change(s) in 

value of the employees’ qualified 

pension plans provided that the plans 

were available to all employees on the 

same basis at the time the employee 

joined the plan. 

III. Comments and Our Response 

The comment period for the proposed 

rule closed on December 17, 2014 (79 

FR 68376, Nov. 17, 2014). We received 

four comment letters on our proposed 

rule: One comment letter from the 

Independent Community Bankers of 

America (ICBA), responding on behalf 

of its members; one comment from a 

Farm Credit bank (FCB); one comment 

letter from a System association; and 

one comment letter from the Farm 

Credit Council, responding on behalf of 

its members. Two commenters 

supported the proposed rule, one 

supported it with suggested changes, 

and one opposed the rule. In the 

discussion below, we address the 

significant comments. After careful 

consideration of the comments, the 

proposed rule is finalized without any 

changes. 

A. Transparency and Quality of 

Disclosure 

The ICBA opposes the proposed rule 

and urges the FCA to withdraw the 

proposed rule or adopt the ICBA’s 

recommendations. The ICBA asserts that 

the proposed rule reduces transparency 

of pension disclosures to System 

shareholders and seeks to allow System 

institutions to hide significant 

enhancements to pensions and other 

compensation arrangements by not 

disclosing them. We agree with the 

ICBA that employee compensation 

should be reported in this disclosure 

item if the employee’s compensation 

reaches the highly compensated 

employee threshold due to large or 

significant bonuses and other such 

payments. As we explained in the 

proposed rule, however, there would be 

no reporting requirement for this 

disclosure item solely for employees 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES