# 60 FR 9631: Cattle From Mexico > Federal · Regulations · In force URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_95-4180 ## Section - **Citation:** 60 FR 9631 - **Heading:** Cattle From Mexico - **Jurisdiction:** Federal - **Kind:** Regulations - **Status:** In force - **Text as of:** August 14, 2026 - **Source:** Compiled text - **Location:** Federal Register / Vol. 60 / 60 FR 9631 ## Text DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 9 CFR Parts 50, 77, and 92 [Docket No. 93-014-3] Cattle From Mexico AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: We are withdrawing a proposed rule that would have required 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 a holding facility for quarantine and a 60-day post- entry tuberculin test. The proposed rule would also have denied claims for indemnity for Mexican-origin steers or spayed heifers that were positive to the 60-day post-entry tuberculin test, and would have denied claims for indemnity for cattle that were exposed to such animals. We are taking this action after considering 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 DATES: The proposed rule is withdrawn February 21, 1995.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. Joseph S. VanTiem, 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) 734-8715. 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 nt 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 t 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 ## Nearby sections - [60 FR 82 Excise Tax On Self-Dealing By Private Foundations.](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_94-31666.md) - [60 FR 89 Proposed Tolerance Revocation for Folpet; Extension of Comment Period and Request for Additional Information](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_94-32285.md) - [60 FR 2033 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 747 Series Airplanes Equipped With General Electric Model CF6-80C2 Series Engines or Pratt & Whitney Model PW4000 Series Engines](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_95-307.md) - [60 FR 2043 Proposed Modification of Class D Airspace Areas; Detroit, MI, and Alton, IL](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_95-364.md) - [60 FR 2067 Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Maryland; VOC RACT Catch-ups and Stage I Vapor Recovery](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_95-287.md) - [60 FR 2070 Listing Endangered and Threatened Species; Shortnose Sturgeon in the Kennebec River System (Maine)](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_95-275.md) - [60 FR 2364 Anchorage Regulations; Regulated Navigation Areas and Limited Access Areas (CGD 86-079)](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_95-435.md) - [60 FR 2365 Cable Compulsory License: Notice of Inquiry Regarding Merger of Cable Systems and Individual Pricing of Broadcast Signals](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_95-439.md) - [60 FR 2563 Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California State Implementation Plan Revision, Placer County Air Pollution Control District (PCAPCD) and San Diego County Air Pollution Control District (SDCAPCD)](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_95-521.md) - [60 FR 2727 Acquisition Regulation; Acquisition and Use of Environmentally Preferable Products and Services](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_95-681.md) - [60 FR 2910 Collection of Debts by Tax Refund Offset](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_95-776.md) - [60 FR 3185 Designation of Lightering Zones](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_95-947.md) - [60 FR 3189 Independent Nail Superfund Site Notice of Intent to Delete; National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_95-826.md) - [60 FR 3585 Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Model F28 Mark 0100 Series Airplanes](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_95-1133.md) --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_95-4180. Check the current official text before relying on it. Not legal advice.