Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 234 / Friday, December 5, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 64265

(d) Seed for planting must be treated

by one of the following methods:

(1) With 6.8 fl. oz. of Carboxin thiram

(10 percent + 10 percent, 0.91 + 0.91 lb.

ai./gal.) flowable liquid and 3 fluid

ounces of pentachloronitrobenzene

(2.23 lb. ai./gal.) per 100 pounds of seed;

(2) With 4.0 fluid ounces of Carboxin

thiram (1.67 + 1.67 lb. ai./gal.) flowable

liquid and 3 fluid ounces of

pentachloronitrobenzene (2.23 lb. ai./

gal.) per 100 pounds of seed;

(3) With 4.0 fluid ounces of Carboxin

thiram (1.67 + 1.67 lb. ai./gal.) flowable

liquid per 100 pounds of seed;

(4) With 6.8 fl. oz. of Carboxin thiram

(10 percent + 10 percent, 0.91 + 0.91 lb.

ai./gal.) flowable liquid per 100 pounds

of seed; or

(5) With 3 fluid ounces of

pentachloronitrobenzene (2.23 lb. ai./

gal.) per 100 pounds of seed.

* * * * *

Done in Washington, DC, this 28th day of

November.

Craig A. Reed,

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service.

[FR Doc. 97–31902 Filed 12–4–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service

9 CFR Parts 91 and 93

[Docket No. 94–076–2]

Cattle Imported In Bond for Feeding

and Return to Mexico

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: We are adopting as a final

rule, with one change, an interim rule

that amended the animal exportation

and importation regulations by

removing provisions that allowed the

temporary, in-bond importation of cattle

from Mexico into the United States for

feeding and return to Mexico for

slaughter. That interim rule was

necessary because the U.S. Customs

Service, to comply with provisions of

the North American Free Trade

Agreement, had discontinued its

collection of duties and cash bonds on

cattle imported into the United States

from Mexico; without a cash bond, we

were unable to meaningfully penalize

importers who failed to return those

cattle to Mexico. We continue to believe

that the termination of the in-bond

program was necessary to prevent the

dissemination of animal diseases into

the United States by in-bond cattle that

may have remained in the United States

in violation of the regulations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 5, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.

David Vogt, Senior Staff Veterinarian,

National Center for Import and Export,

VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 39,

Riverdale, MD 20737–1231; (301) 734–

8170.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The regulations in 9 CFR part 93

prohibit or restrict the importation of

certain animals into the United States to

prevent the introduction of

communicable diseases of livestock and

poultry. Subpart D of part 93 (§§ 93.400

through 93.435), referred to below as the

regulations, pertains to the importation

of ruminants. Sections 93.424 through

93.429 of the regulations contain

specific provisions regarding the

importation of ruminants, including

cattle, from Mexico.

Note: At the time the interim rule referred

to in this document was published, the

provisions described in the previous

paragraph were located in 9 CFR part 92.

However, on October 28, 1997, we published

in the Federal Register (62 FR 56000–56026,

Docket No. 94–106–9) a final rule that

redesignated part 92 as part 93. In describing

the actions taken in the interim rule, we will

use the part and section numbers used in the

interim rule; where appropriate, however, we

will cross-reference part 92 citations with

their current locations in part 93.)

In an interim rule published in the

Federal Register on March 15, 1995 (60

FR 13896–13898, Docket No. 94–076–1),

and effective March 30, 1995, we

amended the regulations by removing

§ 92.427(e), ‘‘Cattle imported in bond for

feeding and return to Mexico,’’ in its

entirety and by removing five references

to the in-bond program that were found

elsewhere in part 92 and in the animal

export regulations in 9 CFR part 91.

Before the effective date of the interim

rule, § 92.427(e) of the regulations

provided for the temporary importation

of cattle from Mexico into the United

States under U.S. Customs bond for

feeding and return to Mexico for

slaughter. Cattle imported under that inbond program were exempt from some

animal disease testing requirements that

applied to the importation of other

cattle from Mexico, but were subject to

additional restrictions during the time

they were in the United States that did

not apply to other cattle imported from

Mexico.

We solicited comments concerning

the interim rule for 60 days ending May

15, 1995. We received six comments by

that date. They were from a foreign

government, foreign and domestic trade

associations and industry groups, and a

customs brokerage. One of the

commenters strongly supported the

interim rule, while the remaining five

commenters opposed the

discontinuation of the program. Their

comments are discussed below.

Two commenters reported that they

had experienced no problems with the

in-bond program and felt that it could

continue in the absence of a bond, but

offered no specific evidence to support

their position. Similarly, two other

commenters stated that the in-bond

program had presented no animal health

problems in its 5 years of existence, so

there was no reason to believe that the

opposite would be true in the future.

Those commenters stated that the

safeguards contained in the in-bond

program, such as the use of sealed

vehicles for movement and the

requirement that in-bond cattle be held

in quarantined feedlots, had proven

sufficient in the past to prevent the

spread of disease, and could continue to

do so. We agree that the quarantine and

movement restrictions of the in-bond

program were effective in mitigating the

disease risk associated with in-bond

cattle. However, as we stated in the

interim rule, the actions of some

importers led us to believe that the

posting of a bond was necessary to

ensure compliance with those

provisions of the in-bond program.

Without the authority to institute a bond

system similar to that administered by

the U.S. Customs Service at U.S. ports

of entry on the Mexican border prior to

January 1, 1994, we found that it was

necessary to terminate the in-bond

program in order to prevent animal

diseases from being introduced into,

and disseminated within, the United

States.

One commenter stated that the

Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service (APHIS) was incorrect in

claiming that cattle imported

temporarily for feeding and return to

Mexico were no longer covered by a

bond; Customs bonds do still apply, the

commenter argued, so the in-bond

program could continue. We noted in

the interim rule that Customs and

APHIS continued to allow temporary

importations of cattle from Mexico even

after January 1, 1994, when the Customs

Service discontinued its collection of

duties and cash bonds on imported

Mexican cattle in order to comply with

provisions of the North American Free

Trade Agreement (NAFTA). From

January 1, 1994, until March 30, 1995,

the effective date of the interim rule, the

entry of those cattle was covered by a
64266 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 234 / Friday, December 5, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

paperwork-only bond, with no money

involved, so in terms of a Customs bond

being applied to temporary importations

of Mexican cattle, the commenter is

correct. Our interim rule should have

stated that cattle imported for feeding

and return to Mexico were no longer

covered by a cash bond, and that it was

the absence of any cash bond that led to

our determination that the in-bond

program should be terminated.

One commenter contended that the

interim rule violated the terms of

NAFTA by instituting a sanitary

measure without providing a risk

assessment, considering alternatives and

economic impacts, or providing the

required 60-day notice to Mexico.

The interim rule contained a

discussion of the increased disease risks

associated with the in-bond program

and the measures that had been in place

to mitigate those risks. As stated in the

interim rule, the additional risks

stemmed largely from the fact that inbond cattle were exempted from

meeting certain testing requirements for

brucellosis and tuberculosis; those risks

had been mitigated by the quarantine

and movement restrictions of the inbond program, and the cash bond had

served to ensure that the quarantine and

movement restrictions were observed.

The termination of the in-bond program

was based on our determination that the

loss of the cash bond rendered our

mitigating measures less effective than

we believed was necessary.

The interim rule also discussed

alternatives to ending the in-bond

program, e.g., continuing with a

paperwork-only bond and the

possibility of APHIS implementing its

own bond system. Further, an economic

analysis was provided in the interim

rule to satisfy the requirements of

Executive Order 12866 and the

Regulatory Flexibility Act.

With regard to the 60-day notice,

NAFTA allows a party to omit such

notice when the party considers it

necessary to take measures to address an

urgent problem relating to sanitary and

phytosanitary protection. In such cases,

the party must: (1) Immediately provide

a notification of the measures, including

a brief description of the urgent

problem; (2) provide a copy of such

measures upon request; and (3) allow

other parties and interested persons to

make comments in writing and, upon

request, discuss such comments and

take such comments and the results of

such discussions into account. All three

of those requirements were satisfied by

the interim rule in that it provided

notification of our termination of the inbond program 15 days prior to the

effective date of that action; set forth a

description of the urgent problem that

led us to publish the interim rule

without prior opportunity for public

comment; provided a full description of

the measures we were taking; and

provided a 60-day comment period

during which interested persons could

submit comments for APHIS’

consideration.

One commenter stated that the

interim rule is an unjustified nontariff

trade barrier because the rule was based

not on animal health concerns, but on

an administrative problem, i.e., the

inability of the Customs Service to

collect the bond. We disagree with that

argument because Customs’ inability to

collect the bond is a reality mandated by

NAFTA, not an ‘‘administrative

problem’’ that could be solved by a

change in procedure or a reallocation of

resources. As explained above and in

the interim rule, we found that the bond

was an important factor in the

enforceability of the restrictions

designed to mitigate the higher disease

risk posed by cattle imported under the

in-bond program. If those restrictions

were disregarded, there is the very real

possibility that cattle that had not been

tested for tuberculosis or brucellosis

could be commingled with domestic

livestock and spread disease; we regard

that as an animal health concern.

As noted above, the interim rule

removed § 92.427(e), which contained

the in-bond program’s provisions, and

five references to those provisions found

elsewhere in parts 91 and 92. Following

the publication of the interim rule, it

was brought to our attention that we

failed to remove a sixth reference to the

in-bond program from the regulations in

§ 92.427(c)(2) (current § 93.427(c)(2)).

We are, therefore, removing that

reference in this final rule.

Therefore, based on the rationale set

forth in the interim rule and in this

document, we are adopting the

provisions of the interim rule as a final

rule with the change discussed in this

document.

This final rule also affirms the

information contained in the interim

rule concerning Executive Order 12866

and the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

Executive Order 12372, and the

Paperwork Reduction Act.

Executive Order 12988

This 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.

List of Subjects

9 CFR Part 91

Animal diseases, Animal welfare,

Exports, Livestock, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements,

Transportation.

9 CFR Part 93

Animal diseases, Imports, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements.

Accordingly, the interim rule

amending 9 CFR parts 91 and 92 (now

9 CFR parts 91 and 93) that was

published at 60 FR 13896–13898 on

March 15, 1995, is adopted as a final

rule with the change set forth below.

PART 93—IMPORTATION OF CERTAIN

ANIMALS, BIRDS, 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; 19 U.S.C. 1306;

21 U.S.C. 102–105, 111, 114a, 134a, 134b,

134c, 134d, 134f, 135, 136, and 136a; 31

U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.2(d).

§ 93.427 [Amended]

2. In § 93.427, in paragraph (c)(2), the

second sentence is amended by

removing the words ‘‘or in bond for

temporary entry in accordance with

§ 93.427(e)’’.

Done in Washington, DC, this 1st day of

December 1997.

Craig A. Reed,

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service.

[FR Doc. 97–31899 Filed 12–4–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P

NATIONAL CREDIT UNION

ADMINISTRATION

12 CFR Part 791

Rules of NCUA Board Procedure;

Promulgation of NCUA Rules and

Regulations; Public Observation of

NCUA Board Meetings

AGENCY: National Credit Union

Administration (NCUA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The NCUA Board amends its

rules to revise and clarify Board

procedures relating to procedural

rulings, notation voting, Board

meetings, and the agenda. This

amendment more clearly defines the

procedures that are to be followed when

a Board member appeals a procedural