0

Analysis in Support of Certification that the Rule will not have a Significant Economic Impact on 

a Substantial Number of Small Entities

Proposed Rule

Removal of the Ports of Embarkation and Export Inspection Facilities List from the Regulations

Docket No. APHIS-2009-0078

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

June 2010
1

Introduction

APHIS is proposing to amend 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 would 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 

proposed 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 would provide in the 

regulations the Web address and would explain the administrative process for adding or 

removing ports and inspection facilities to or from the list. The technical criteria by which a 
2

designated embarkation port or export inspection facility are added to or removed from the list 

will not change. APHIS would continue to provide an opportunity for public comment on 

changes to the list by publishing notices in the Federal Register that solicit public comment. A 

notice announcing APHIS’ intention to add a designated embarkation port or an export 

inspection facility would also announce the availability of the APHIS-prepared evaluation (the 

basis for the change in the status of the designated embarkation port or export inspection facility) 

for comment. These changes would simplify and expedite APHIS processes for regulating 

animal exports while continuing to provide for public participation in the process.

Effects for 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 proposed notice-based process, considerable time savings could 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.

The proposed change would not alter the technical criteria by which APHIS adds or 

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

proposed change removes the need for rulemaking to administratively change the list of ports 

and inspection facilities.

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 
3

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 

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 proposal would only amend APHIS’ administrative process for changing 

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

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

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

 

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.
4

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

from this list. These changes should 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 timelier changes to the list of designated ports of embarkation and their 

associated export inspection facilities.

Conclusion

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

exports. It would 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, while still providing opportunity for public comment on 

the basis for the action. The proposed changes would 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.

Based on the information presented, if promulgated, this rule will not have a significant 

impact on a substantial number of small entities. We invite comment from members of the

public who believe that the proposed rule may have a significant impact on U.S. producers or 

exporters of livestock.