United States 

Department of 

Agriculture

Animal and 

Plant Health 

Inspection 

Service

March 2011

Analysis in Support of Certification that the 

Rule will not have a Significant Economic 

Impact on a Substantial Number of Small 

Entities

Final Rule

Docket No. APHIS-2009-0078

RIN 0579-AD25

Removal of the Ports of Embarkation and 

Export Inspection Facilities List from 

Regulations

Policy & Program Development

Policy Analysis & Development
0

Introduction 

This analysis provides the basis, as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, for 

certification by the APHIS Administrator that the rule will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small entities.

APHIS is amending the live animal export regulations by removing the list of designated 

ports of embarkation and their associated export inspection facilities. As a result of this 

rulemaking, those ports and facilities will henceforth be listed on the APHIS Web site rather than 

in the regulations, thus enabling the Agency to amend the list, when necessary, in a timelier 

manner and allowing for greater flexibility in the regulation of animal exports. The Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-354) requires agencies to evaluate the potential effects of

proposed and final rules on businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions. 

Section 605 of the RFA allows an agency to certify a rule if the final rulemaking will not have a 

significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Following is the factual 

basis for such certification in this case.

The regulations in 9 CFR part 91, “Inspection and Handling of Livestock for 

Exportation” prescribe conditions for exporting animals from the United States. The regulations 

state among other things that all animals, except animals exported by land to Canada or Mexico, 

must be exported through the designated ports of embarkation, unless the exporter can show that 

the animals would suffer undue hardship if they were required to be moved to a designated port 

of embarkation. Paragraph (a) of § 91.14 lists ports that have been designated by APHIS as 

having met the requirements for use as ports of embarkation. In addition to removing the list of 

designated ports of embarkation and their associated export inspection facilities and posting the 

list to APHIS’ Website, APHIS will provide in the regulations the Web address and will explain 
1

the administrative process for adding or removing ports and inspection facilities to or from the 

list. The final change will not alter the technical criteria by which APHIS adds or removes 

designated embarkation ports and inspection facilities from the list. Rather, the final change 

removes the need for rulemaking to administratively change the list of ports and inspection 

facilities.

APHIS solicited comments concerning our proposal for 60 days ending November 16, 

2010. We received one comment by that date, from a livestock exporter who supported the 

proposed rule. Therefore, for reasons given in the proposed rule, APHIS is adopting the proposed 

rule as a final rule, without change.

Potential Impact on Small Entities

Currently, rulemaking is required to amend the CFR to change the list of designated 

embarkation ports and associated export inspection facilities. By eliminating the need for 

specific prior rulemaking for approving changes in the list of the ports and inspection facilities 

under the final notice-based process, considerable time savings can be reaped. The rulemaking 

process is an inherently longer process than a notice-based process. A notice-based approach 

can be 6 to 12 months shorter than a rulemaking approach in a given situation.

Those entities most likely to be economically affected by the rule are exporters of live 

animals and domestic livestock producers. The Small Business Administration (SBA) has 

established guidelines for determining which businesses are to be considered small. Exporters of 

live animals are identified within the broader wholesaling trade sector of the U.S. economy. A 

firm primarily engaged in wholesaling animals is considered small if it employs not more than 

100 persons. These entities either sell goods on their own account (import/export merchants) or 

arrange for the sale of goods owned by others (import/export agents and brokers). According to 
2

SBA size standards for beef cattle ranching and farming (NAICS 112111), dairy cattle and milk 

production (NAICS 112120), hog and pig farming (NAICS 112210), sheep farming (NAICS 

112410), and goat farming (NAICS 112420), operations with not more than $750,000 in annual 

receipts are considered small. Cattle feedlots (NAICS 112112) with less than $2.5 million in 

annual receipts are considered small. 

NAICS code 424520 covers livestock merchant wholesalers. All firms in this category 

were considered small in 2006.1 More than 98 percent of beef cattle and ranches had annual 

receipts of less than $500,000 in 2007.2 About 80 percent of dairy farms had less than $500,000 

in annual receipts, and slightly more than 10 percent had more than $1 million in annual receipts 

in 2007. About 73 percent of hog and pig farms had less than $500,000 in annual receipts, and 

nearly 17 percent had more than $1 million in annual receipts in 2007. More than 99 percent of 

sheep and goat farms had less than $500,000 in annual receipts in 2007. About 96 percent of 

cattle feedlots had less than $2.5 million in annual receipts in 2007. Based on these percentages,

it is likely that most of the entities that may be affected by this proposed rule are small.

However, this final notice will only amend APHIS’ administrative process for changing 

the list of designated embarkation ports and associated export inspection facilities. The final

action will not make any changes in the status of any designated embarkation port or associated 

export inspection facility, nor will the final action alter the technical criteria by which designated 

embarkation ports and associated export inspection facilities are added to or removed from this 

list. These changes will not significantly impact the supply of animals and animal products in the 

United States. We expect little effect on U.S. entities other than benefits they may derive from 

 

1 U.S. Census Bureau. 2006 County Business Patterns by Employment Size Class. 

2 U.S. Department of Agriculture. National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2007 Census of Agriculture. The census does not 

include a size classification of less than $750,000 in annual receipts in its compiled statistics.
3

timelier changes to the list of designated ports of embarkation and their associated export 

inspection facilities.

Conclusion

APHIS expects the final rule to have little impact on U.S. livestock production and 

exports. It will eliminate the need for specific prior rulemaking for approving changes in the list 

of designated embarkation ports and associated export inspection facilities, which may result in 

considerable regulatory time savings. The final changes will not alter the technical standards by 

which APHIS adds or removes the ports and inspection facilities. Changes to the list would take 

place more rapidly, thereby facilitating the export of animals.

Under these circumstances, the Administration of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service has determined that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities.