### United States

Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service October 2014 Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

Final Rule

APHIS - 2012 - 0073
RIN 0579 - AD91 Ruminants Imported from Fever Tick - Free Regions in Mexico

Policy & Program Development Policy Analysis & Developmenti



### Summary The Mexican government has declared the State of Sonora as a region free of “fever ticks,” that is, certain ticks of the genus Rhipicephalus that cause cattle fever. APHIS has determined that there would be negligible risk of fever ticks being introduced from Mexico by exempting cattle and other ruminants originating from this S tate from acaricide treatment and the
7

- to 12

- day waiting period prior their entry into the United States. The final rule w ill require affected importers to apply for either inspection or supervised dipping at the port of entry. Under the final rule, cattle that ar e dipped at the port of entry will not need to be hel d for a 7

- to 12

- day waiting period. From 2009 to 2013, 1.21 million cattle were imported yearly from Mexico. About one

fourth came from Sonora. Cattle imported into the United States from Mexico are generally purchased by stocker operations that backgr ound the cattle on pasture before they are shipped to feedlots. The average unit price of cattle imported from Mexico, 2009 to 2013, was about $440. The average cost of dipping with an acaricide is $3.50 to $10.00 per head. It takes approximately
five se conds for three cattle to cross a dipping vat. For an average 500

- head herd, dipping takes about 15 minutes. To inspect a 500

- head herd takes from 4 to 12 hours. Depending on the size of the herd and time needed for inspection, some importers may choose to have the cattle dipped rather than inspected. The estimated cost of dipping is equivalent to about 1 to 2 percent of the value of the imported cattle. Any resulting cost savings realized by U.S. cattle importers, due to inspection rather than dipping of c attle will depend on the relative price responsiveness of the sellers and buyers of the cattle. APHIS does not expect the rule to result in an increase of any consequence in the number of cattle imported from Mexico.ii



### Table of Contents Summary

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... i Introduction

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 1 Need for and Obj ectives of the Rule

................................ ................................ ............................... 1 Significant Issues raised by Public Comment in response to the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 2 Comments filed by the Small Business Administration in response to the Proposed Rule

............ 2 Potentially Affected Small Entities

................................ ................................ ................................ . 2 Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements

................................ . 3 Steps taken by APHIS to minimize Significant Economic Impacts on Small Entities

.................. 3 Referenc es ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 41



### Introduction
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires agencies to evaluate the potential effects of their proposed and final rules on small businesses, small organizations and small governmental jurisdictions. This final regulatory flexibility analysis des cribes expected impacts of this rule on small entities, as required by s ection 60 4 of the Act. Regulations in 9 CFR 93.427(b)(2)(i) and (ii) require that cattle entering the United States from Mexico, except when known to be free of exposure to fever ticks (certain ticks of the genus Rhipicephalus ), to be treated with an acaricide 7 to 12 days prior to entry. The cattle must be accompanied by documentation from the relevant Mexican health authorities certifying treatment. Animals that are known to be free of exposure to cattle fever ticks are exempt from this requirement. Fever ticks cause cattle fever, also referred to as bovine babesiosis. The final rule will exempt cattle originating from the Mexican State of Sonora from acaricide treatment and the asso ciated documentation as long as certain requirements are met. In addition, the final rule w ill require the importer to apply for either inspection or supervised dipping at the port of entry. The current regulations require both. Under the final rule, cattl e that are dipped at the port of entry will not need to be held for a 7

- to 12

- day waiting period. 

### Need for and Objectives of the Rule
The Mexican government has declared Sonora free of fever ticks and requested that cattle and other ruminants from Senora be exempt from acaricide treatment and the associated waiting period as a condition of eligibility for entry to the United States. APHIS has determined that recognition of these fever tick

- free regions and the treatment exemption pose minimal risk of introducing fever ticks into the United States.2



### Significant Issues raised by Public Comment in response to the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

There were not significant issues raised by the pub lic comment in response to the Initial
R egulatory F le xibility A nalysis. 

### Comments filed by the Small Business Administration in response to the Proposed Rule

There were no comments filed by the Small Business Administration in response to the proposed rule. 

### Potentially Affected Small Entities
For the purpose of this analysis and following the Small Business Administration (SBA) guidelines, the potentially affected entities are classified as Beef Cattle Ranching and Farming (NAICS 112111). By the SBA standard, farms in this category are conside red small if annual receipts are not more than $750,000. According to the 2012 Census of Agriculture, of the 619,172 beef cattle farms, 99 percent had annual receipts of less than $ 750 ,000 and are therefore considered small. Cattle imported into the Unit ed States from Mexico are generally purchased by stocker operations that background the cattle on pasture before they are shipped to feedlots. While there is no economic information available on the number, size, or distribution of the stocker operations , it is reasonable to assume they are small , given that 99 percent of beef cattle ranches and farms in general are small entities.3

From 2009 to 2013, the United States imported an average of 1.21 million cattle annually from Mexico, of which about one

- fou rth originated in Sonora. 1 The average unit price of cattle imported from Mexico, 2009 to 2013, was about $440. The average cost of dipping with acaricide is $3.50 to $10.00 per head. It takes approximately five seconds for three cattle to cross a dipping vat, or about 15 minutes for an average 500

- head herd. It takes anywhere from 4 to 12 hours to inspect a herd of this size , or from 30 to 90 seconds per head. Depending on the size of the herd and time needed for inspection , some importers may choose to have the cattle dipped rather than inspected. The estimated cost of dipping is equivalent to about 1 to 2 percent of the value of the imported cattle. Any resulting cost savings realized by U.S. cattle importers, due to inspe ction rather than dipping of cattle, will depend on the relative price responsiveness of the sellers and buyers of the cattle. APHIS does not expect the rule to result in an increase of any consequence in the number of cattle imported from Mexico. 

### Proje cted Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirement s

Reporting and recordkeeping requirements associated with the final rule are discussed in the rule under the he ading "Paperwork Reduction Act. 

### Steps taken by APHIS to minimize Significant Eco nomic Impact s on Small Entities

Based on our review of available information, APH IS does not expect the rule to have a significant economic impact on small entities. In the absence of significant economic impacts, we have not identified alternatives that would minimize such impacts.

1 Economic Research Service: http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/animal

- products/cattle

- beef/statistics

information.aspx4 

### References

Census of Agriculture, 2012 , http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/ Small Business Administration. A Guide for Government Agencies How to Comply with the Regulatory Flexibility Act. http://www.sba.gov/advo/laws/regflex.html Small Business Administration. Small Business Standard Match to North American Industry Classification System http://www.sba.gov/size/sizetable2002.html