9632 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 21, 1995 / Proposed Rules

Cattle Diseases and Surveillance Staff,

4700 River Road Unit 36, Riverdale, MD

20737–1231; (301) 734–8715.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On May 9, 1994, we published in the

Federal Register (59 FR 23810–23817,

Docket No. 93–014–1) a proposed rule

to amend the regulations in 9 CFR parts

50, 77, and 92 to require certain steers

and spayed heifers imported into the

United States from Mexico to be sent to

a quarantined pasture or feedlot for

finish feeding, or to holding facility for

quarantine and a 60-day postentry

tuberculin test. The proposed rule also

contained provisions to deny claims for

indemnity for Mexican-origin steers or

spayed heifers that tested positive to the

60-day post entry tuberculin test, and to

deny claims for indemnity for cattle that

were exposed to such animals.

We initially solicited comments on

the proposed rule for 60 days ending on

July 8, 1994. We received several

requests for an extension of the

comment period to allow interested

parties additional time to prepare

comments on the proposal. In response

to those requests, we published a notice

in the Federal Register on July 18, 1994

(59 FR 36374, Docket No. 93–014–2)

that reopened and extended the

comment period for the proposed rule

until September 16, 1994.

By the close of the extended comment

period, we had received a total of 165

comments. The comments were

submitted by representatives of the

Mexican Government, animal rights

organizations, private citizens, dairies

and dairy associations, U.S. and

Mexican tuberculosis eradication

committees, cattle industry associations,

a bank, cattle companies, feedlot

operators, veterinary and animal health

associations, State agriculture agencies

and livestock boards, cattle importers

and exporters, a farm bureau federation,

government and private veterinarians,

ranchers, and universities. None of the

commenters supported the proposed

rule as written; some offered general

suggestions, while others submitted

detailed recommendations for changes.

The majority of the commenters

believed that the proposed rule would

adversely affect the cattle industry and

efforts to control tuberculosis in both

the United States and Mexico. Many

commenters believed that the proposed

rule placed the burden of controlling

potentially infected Mexican cattle on

individual States and failed to provide

any incentive to Mexican cattle

producers to develop and implement a

comprehensive tuberculosis control and

eradication program. Other commenters

also cited the potential hardship that the

proposed rule would place on U.S. and

Mexican cattle producers.

After considering all the comments

we received, we have concluded that it

is necessary to comprehensively

reexamine the issues associated with the

importation into the United States of

cattle from Mexico. Therefore, we are

withdrawing the May 9, 1994, proposed

rule referenced above. The concerns and

recommendations of all the commenters

will be considered during the

development of any new proposed

regulations regarding the importation of

cattle from Mexico.

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1622; 19 U.S.C. 1306;

21 U.S.C. 102–105, 111–113, 114, 114a,

114a–1, 115–117, 120, 121, 125, 134a, 134b,

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

U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.17, 2.51, and 371.2(d).

Done in Washington, DC, this 13th day of

February 1995.

Lonnie J. King,

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service.

[FR Doc. 95–4180 Filed 2–17–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–34–M

9 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. 93–084–3]

Interstate Movement of Mexican-Origin

Cattle; Certification Requirements

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.

SUMMARY: We are withdrawing a

proposed rule that would have amended

the regulations concerning the interstate

transportation of animals to require that

all Mexican-origin cattle moved in

interstate commerce be accompanied by

a certificate on which each animal is

individually identified. We are taking

this action after reevaluating the

proposed rule in light of the comments

we received following the publication of

the proposed rule.

DATES: The proposed rule is withdrawn

February 21, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.

James P. Davis, Senior Staff

Veterinarian, Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service, Veterinary Services,

Cattle Diseases and Surveillance Staff,

4700 River Road Unit 36, Riverdale, MD

20737–1231; (301) 734–4923.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On November 12, 1993, we published

in the Federal Register (58 FR 59959–

59962, Docket No. 93–084–1) a proposal

to amend the regulations concerning the

interstate transportation of animals in 9

CFR part 71 to require all Mexicanorigin cattle moved in interstate

commerce to be accompanied by a

certificate on which each animal is

individually identified. The certificate

would have been issued by an Animal

and Plant Health Inspection Service

(APHIS) representative, State

representative, or accredited

veterinarian in the State from which the

cattle were to be moved. We also

proposed to make several

nonsubstantive changes to the

regulations in part 71 for the sake of

clarity and accuracy.

We initially solicited comments

concerning our proposal for 30 days

ending December 13, 1993. We received

several requests for an extension of the

comment period to give interested

parties additional time to prepare

comments on the proposal. In response

to those requests, we published in the

Federal Register on December 22, 1993

(58 FR 67708–67709, Docket No. 93–

084–2), a document reopening and

extending the comment period until

February 14, 1994.

We received a total of 41 comments

by the close of the extended comment

period. The comments were submitted

by State departments of agriculture and

animal health agencies, veterinarians,

private citizens, cattle industry

associations, cattle-oriented businesses,

and a member of the U.S. House of

Representatives. Eight commenters

supported the proposed rule as written,

while another five commenters offered

some support but suggested changes.

The remaining 28 commenters opposed

the proposed rule.

Some of the commenters questioned

the need for individual identification on

a certificate, asserting that State

veterinarians could be notified by other

means of the arrival of Mexican-origin

cattle in their States. Many commenters

believed that the proposed rule would

place a huge new burden on the cattle

industry, bringing excessive paperwork

requirements, increased labor costs, and

expensive time delays. Many of the

commenters also believed that APHIS

had seriously underestimated the costs

that would be associated with

completing, handling, and filing the

certificates on which the cattle would be

individually identified.

We carefully considered all of the

comments we received. In light of the

issues raised by many of the

commenters, we have concluded that

additional research is necessary to

determine if the proposed rule would

likely impose greater logistical and

financial burdens on those entities that
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 21, 1995 / Proposed Rules 9633

would be affected by its provisions than

we had initially anticipated. Therefore,

we are withdrawing the November 12,

1993, proposed rule referenced above.

The concerns and recommendations of

all the commenters will be considered

during the development of any new

proposed regulations that would affect

the interstate movement of Mexicanorigin cattle.

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 111–113, 114a, 114a–

1, 115–117, 120–126, 134b, and 134f; 7 CFR

2.17, 2.51, and 371.2(d).

Done in Washington, DC, this 13th day of

February 1995.

Lonnie J. King,

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service.

[FR Doc. 95–4179 Filed 2–17–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P

9 CFR Part 94

[Docket No. 94–058–1]

Importation of Wild Turkey Carcasses

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: We are proposing to amend

the regulations concerning imported

animal products to allow wild turkey

carcasses from countries where Exotic

Newcastle disease is considered to exist

to be brought into the United States if

the head, feet, and viscera of the wild

turkeys have been removed. Currently,

wild turkey carcasses must be cooked

before they may be imported. However,

we have determined that wild turkey

carcasses, once the head, feet, and

viscera have been removed, may be

imported into the United States without

risk of introducing disease. This

proposed change in the regulations

would reduce restraints on hunters who

wish to bring wild turkey carcasses into

the United States.

DATES: Consideration will be given only

to comments received on or before April

24, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Please send an original and

three copies of your comments to

Docket No. 94–058–1, Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service, Policy and

Program Development, Regulatory

Analysis and Development, 4700 River

Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737–

1238. Comments received may be

inspected at USDA, room 1141, South

Building, 14th Street and Independence

Avenue SW., Washington, DC, between

8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through

Friday, except holidays. Persons

wishing to inspect comments are

requested to call ahead on (202) 690–

2817 to facilitate entry into the

comment reading room.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.

John Gray, Senior Staff Veterinarian,

Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service, Veterinary Services, Import/

Export Products, 4700 River Road Unit

40, Riverdale, MD 20737–1231, (301)

734–7885.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The regulations in 9 CFR part 94

(referred to below as the regulations)

govern the importation into the United

States of specified animals, birds, and

poultry, and animal, bird, and poultry

products to prevent the introduction

into the United States of various

diseases of livestock and poultry.

Currently, the regulations in

§ 94.6(c)(3), (c)(4), and (c)(5) require that

carcasses, and parts or products of

carcasses, of poultry, game birds, or

other birds, may be imported from

countries where exotic Newcastle

disease (VVND) is considered to exist

only under certain conditions.

VVND is considered to exist in

Mexico. Hunters have requested that

they be allowed to return to the United

States from Mexico with fresh killed

turkey. Currently, the regulations

require that turkeys from Mexico and

other countries where VVND is

considered to exist be cooked, packed in

hermetically sealed containers and

cooked, or imported under a permit.

However, the regulations provide that

game birds (defined in § 94.0 as

‘‘Migratory birds, including certain

ducks, geese, pigeons, and doves’’) may

be imported without cooking or permit

if they have been eviscerated, and the

heads and feet have been removed.

When the turkeys are cooked for later

consumption, any VVND virus in the

meat will be destroyed. Viscera, heads,

and feet for these game birds may not

be imported into the United States,

since VVND may be spread by these

parts. The Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service (APHIS) has

determined that turkeys may also be

imported without presenting any

significant disease risk if the head, feet,

and viscera of the turkey are removed

before the carcass is presented for entry

into the United States.

We propose, therefore, to add wild

turkeys to the definition of game birds

in § 94.0, and to allow wild turkey

carcasses with heads, feet, and viscera

removed to be imported from countries

where VVND is considered to exist

without further restriction. We also

propose to amend the definition of

poultry in § 94.0 to clarify that, when

turkey is commercial, domestic, or penraised, it would be poultry under the

regulations (as opposed to a wild turkey,

which would be a game bird).

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory

Flexibility Act

This proposed rule has been reviewed

under Executive Order 12866. The rule

has been determined to be not

significant for purposes of Executive

Order 12866 and, therefore, has not

been reviewed by the Office of

Management and Budget.

This proposed rule change would

affect individual hunters who bring

wild turkey carcasses into the United

States from countries where VVND

exists. This would primarily involve

individuals who hunt wild turkeys in

Mexico, since we are not aware of any

significant interest in bringing wild

turkey carcasses into the United States

from other countries where VVND

exists. Most hunters from the United

States who hunt wild turkey in Mexico

hunt the Gould turkey (a subspecies not

found in the United States) or the Rio

Grande turkey. It is estimated that

between 50 and 100 wild turkey

carcasses are brought into the United

States from Mexico annually, by less

than 50 U.S. hunters. There are a

minimal number of small businesses

that assist U.S hunters in booking

Mexican guides for these turkey-hunting

trips, and booking the trips is only a

minor part of their business.

Currently, hunters must cook the wild

turkey carcasses before bringing them

into the United States from Mexico.

This proposed rule would give hunters

the option of not cooking the wild

turkeys if they remove the head, feet,

and viscera. We do not anticipate a

significant increase in the number of

either U.S. hunters of wild Mexican

turkeys, or wild turkey carcasses

imported into the United States, as a

result of this proposed rule.

Under these circumstances, the

Administrator of the Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service has

determined that this action would not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

Executive Order 12778

This proposed rule has been reviewed

under Executive Order 12778, Civil

Justice Reform. If this proposed rule is

adopted: (1) All State and local laws and

regulations that are inconsistent with

this rule will be preempted; (2) no

retroactive effect will be given to this

rule; and (3) administrative proceedings

will not be required before parties may

file suit in court challenging this rule.