United States 

Department of 

Agriculture

Animal and 

Plant Health 

Inspection 

Service

July 2014

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

Proposed Rule

APHIS-2014-0018

Livestock Marketing Facilities

Policy & Program Development

Policy Analysis & Development
i

Table of Contents

Introduction......................................................................................................................... 2

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis................................................................................ 2

Reasons Action is Being Considered.............................................................................. 2

Objectives of and Legal Basis for the Rule .................................................................... 2

Potentially Affected Small Entities................................................................................. 6

Duplication, Overlap, or Conflict with Existing Rules and Regulations........................ 9

Alternatives to minimize Significant Economic Impacts of the Rule............................. 9
ii

Introduction

The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires Agencies to assess the possible impacts on small 

entities. We are proposing to amend the regulations governing approval of facilities that receive 

livestock moved in interstate commerce. We are also proposing several amendments to the 

conditions under which livestock may move to such facilities without official identification or 

prior issuance of an interstate certificate of veterinary inspection or alternative documentation. 

These changes are necessary to update the regulations governing livestock marketing facilities, 

while also helping ensure animal disease traceability of livestock that are moved in interstate 

commerce to such facilities.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

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. Section 603 of the Act requires agencies to prepare and make available for public 

comment an initial regulatory flexibility analysis that describes expected impacts of a proposed 

rule on small entities. 

Reasons Action is Being Considered

APHIS enacts regulations to prevent, control, and eradicate diseases of livestock, thereby 

increasing foreign and domestic confidence in the safety of U.S. farm-raised animals and their 

products. APHIS is proposing several amendments to the conditions under which livestock may 

move to facilities in the course of interstate commerce. The changes are necessary to update the 
2

regulations governing livestock marketing facilities, while also helping ensure animal disease 

traceability of livestock that are moved in interstate commerce to such facilities.

Objectives of and Legal Basis for the Rule

PROPOSED REVISIONS

General Requirements for Livestock Marketing Facilities

APHIS is proposing requirements that apply to all livestock marketing facilities 

regardless of whether they have sought APHIS approval. All livestock marketing facilities 

would have to allow APHIS or State representatives to collect blood samples, conduct testing, 

and carry out operations and measures at the facilities in order to detect, control, and eradicate

diseases and pests of livestock. In order to carry out these operations and measures, APHIS or 

State representatives could request records or receipts retained by the facilities that pertain to 

these disease and pest detection, control, and eradication efforts, and the facilities would have to 

provide any records or receipts so requested. Additionally, all livestock marketing facilities 

would have to maintain a record of the receipt, distribution, and application of all official 

identification devices and USDA-approved backtags at the facility. 

Revised Requirements for APHIS Approval Of Livestock Marketing Facilities 

We would also revise the conditions for APHIS approval of livestock marketing 

facilities. Currently, facilities have to execute an agreement with APHIS that is codified in the 

regulations themselves. We would now require them to execute The Approved Livestock 

Marketing Facility Agreement. The Approved Livestock Marketing Facility Agreement would 

be similar in structure and content to the existing agreement with a few substantive revisions:
3

 We would remove a requirement that an accredited veterinarian, State representative, 

or APHIS representative must be on the premises at all times on sale days to perform 

duties in accordance with State and Federal regulations.

 In its place, we would add a requirement specifying that the facility must allow 

Federal and State representatives to perform duties at the facility in accordance with 

Federal and State regulations, as requested, and requirements specifying that 

accredited veterinarians must be available (either physically present or on-call) on 

sale days in order to provide any inspection of livestock that is required by the 

regulations before the animals leave the facility and to issue ICVIs, as necessary.

 We would add a provision specifying that APHIS or the State will inspect each 

approved facility at least twice yearly.

Documentation Requirements for Livestock Moved to Approved Livestock Marketing 

Facilities

The regulations currently allow cattle and bison to be moved to an approved livestock 

marketing facility with an owner-shipper statement, rather than an ICVI. However, the 

information maintained by approved livestock marketing facilities for all livestock that enter the 

facility often includes all categories of information that are required on an owner-shipper 

statement. Thus, we are proposing to allow cattle and bison to be moved interstate to an 

approved livestock marketing facility without an accompanying owner-shipper statement, 

provided a State animal health official has waived the need for the owner-shipper statement and 

all of the information required for an owner-shipper statement is recorded as soon as the cattle or 
4

bison are offloaded at the approved livestock marketing facility and this record is maintained in 

accordance with the record retention requirements of the traceability regulations.

Backtag Placement

APHIS is requesting public comment regarding whether we should amend the regulations 

to specify a location for placing USDA-approved backtags on cattle and bison, and, if so, where 

it should be. We also request public comment whether, instead of a regulatory requirement, 

preferred placement of the tags should be a guideline or recommendation within the Animal 

Disease Traceability General Standards.

ESTIMATED IMPACTS

We are proposing to remove the requirement that an accredited veterinarian, State 

representative, or APHIS representative must be on the premises at all times on sale days to 

perform duties in accordance with State and Federal regulations because it has presented 

logistical problems in recent years at some facilities. 

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported that veterinarians earned a median wage 

of $40.61 per hour in 2012. This likely overestimates the median wages of large animal 

veterinarians, however BLS statistics do not specify wages by type of veterinary practice. The 

proposed rule would relax the requirement to have an accredited veterinarian present. We are 

proposing to require that the facility must allow Federal and State representative to perform their 

duties as requested and that all approved livestock marketing facilities must have an accredited 

veterinarian available (either physically present or on-call) on sale days in order to provide 

inspection of livestock before the animals leave the facility and to issue ICVIs, as necessary. 

This provision provides greater flexibility to the livestock marketing facility. Overall, the 

amount of time an accredited veterinarian, State representative, or APHIS representative will 
5

need to be on the premise will be reduced, thus lowering the overall costs incurred by the 

livestock marketing facilities as compared to the current requirements. 

In the event that Federal or State personnel require access to the facility in order to 

perform duties at the facility in accordance with Federal and State regulations, the facility would 

have to provide such access. Similarly, APHIS or the State would inspect approved facilities at 

least twice a year in order to ensure that the facility continues to operate in accordance with the 

agreement. We do not anticipate that facilities would incur a measurable economic cost to 

provide access to a facility or to allow for an inspection done by APHIS or State officials. 

APHIS currently requires that approved livestock facilities keep for a minimum of 5 

years paper or electronic records of any ICVIs or alternate documentation used in lieu of an ICVI 

for livestock that enter the facility on or after the effective date of this rule. Given the current 

recordkeeping and document requirements, we anticipate that any impact on the recordkeeping 

requirements on livestock marketing facilities will be small. Our expectation is that incremental 

costs of maintaining a record of the receipt, distribution, and application of all official 

identification devices and USDA-approved backtags will be small for the majority of livestock 

marketing facilities. We do not have data to estimate the additional cost of recordkeeping for 

official ID and backtags, and we welcome public comment on any costs.

In 2012, there were an estimated 30 million cattle moved interstate each year. In 2012, inshipments of cattle directly to slaughter totaled an estimated 19.8 million head. The U.S. cattle 

and calf inventory totaled 93 million head on January 1, 2012. However, we do not have 

information on interstate livestock movements specifically to livestock marketing facilities 

although we expect that this would account for the majority of the 30 million cattle moving 

interstate.
6

APHIS is proposing to allow cattle and bison to be moved interstate to an approved 

livestock marketing facility without an accompanying owner-shipper statement, provided a State 

animal health official has waived the need for the owner-shipper statement and all of the 

information required for an owner-shipper statement is recorded as soon as the cattle or bison are 

offloaded at the approved livestock marketing facility and this record is maintained in 

accordance with the record retention requirements of the traceability regulations. As this 

provision reduces documentation and recordkeeping requirements, we anticipate that any 

economic effect on livestock marketing facilities will be positive.

APHIS is also requesting public comment regarding whether we should amend the 

regulations to specify a location for placing the backtags and clarifying some definitions within 

the regulation. We do not anticipate that changes to the placement of the backtag would incur a 

measurable economic cost. Similarly, we do not anticipate that clarifying definitions including

“Directly,” “Farm of Origin,” or “No More Than One” in the context of the rule would incur a 

measurable economic cost.

Potentially Affected Small Entities

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires that agencies consider the economic 

impact of rule changes on small entities, i.e., small businesses, organizations, and governmental 

jurisdictions. 

The Small Business Administration (SBA) sets small-entity standards for firms primarily 

engaged in livestock production and marketing. APHIS expects the cattle industry will be the 

livestock sector principally affected by this rule. Livestock marketing facilities will be directly 

affected and cattle production enterprises that move cattle interstate may also be affected.
7

Existing animal identification requirements for the interstate movement of farm-raised 

animals largely satisfy the official animal identification and ICVI requirements. Cattle moving 

interstate are often required to be accompanied by a health certificate under current regulations. 

In addition, nearly all States require a certificate of veterinary inspection for breeder and feeder 

cattle entering from another State. 

The table below shows cattle industries that will be affected by the rule, as categorized by 

the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS), and sales and employment 

information that underscores the prevalence of small entities among establishments that comprise 

these industries. We note that numbers of establishments shown include ones that may not be 

directly affected by the rule, in particular, those that do not move cattle interstate. 

Small-entity representation in industries that may be affected by the rule 

Industry (NAICS 

code)

Number of

Establishments 

SBA SmallEntity Size 

Standard

Average Value of 

Establishments’ 

Annual 

Sales

Average 

Number of 

Employees

Beef cattle 

ranching and 

farming 

(112111) 

740,978 < $750,000 

annual receipts $43,197

Dairy cattle and 

milk production 

(112120)

50,556 < $750,000 

annual receipts $611,773

Cattle feedlots 

(112112) 13,734 < $7,500,0000 annual receipts $977,048

Animal 

slaughtering and 

processing(3116)

3,773 < 500 employees 133.5

Rendering and 

meat byproduct 

processing 

(311613)

232 < 500 employees 23
8

Livestock 

Merchant 

Wholesalers

1,012 < 500 employees 7.1

Sources: USDA NASS, 2012 Census of Agriculture, 2007 Economic Census Industry 

Snapshots

.

The Census of Agriculture allows further examination of small entities that could be 

affected by the rule, namely, small family cattle enterprises and cattle enterprises for which one 

or more of the principal operators belong to a socially disadvantaged group. Small family farms 

are defined by USDA as family farms with gross sales of less than $250,000 (USDA ERS 2010). 

(Any farm where the operator and persons related to the operator own a majority of the business 

is considered a family farm.) In 2012, nearly 88 percent of farms with cattle and calf inventories 

were small family farms.

Small family farms are further divided into retirement farms (operators reporting they are 

retired), residential/ lifestyle farms (operators reporting a major occupation other than farming), 

and farming-occupation farms (operators reporting farming as their major occupation). Farmingoccupation farms are classified as low-sales small family farms (sales less than $100,000) and 

high-sales small family farms (sales between $100,000 and $249,999). A fifth category of small 

family farms are limited resource farms, which have sales of not more than $100,000 and a total 

household income at or below the national poverty level for a family of four, or less than 50 

percent of county median household income.

The Census of Agriculture indicates that in 2012, 40 percent of small family cattle 

operations were residential/lifestyle farms. With regard to the other categories of small family 

cattle enterprises, over one-fourth of the owners reported that they had already retired, limited 
9

resource farms and the low-sales farming-occupation farms each comprised about 15 percent of 

the operations, and about 6 percent were high-sales farming-occupation farms. 

Socially disadvantaged groups are ones that historically have been subjected to bias and 

prejudice. They include women, persons of Hispanic origin, American Indians or Alaska 

Natives, Asians, African Americans, and Native Hawaiians or other Pacific Islanders. These 

farm operators, themselves, may not have experienced bias or prejudice, but they identify with 

one or more of these gender, ethnic, and racial groups.

For more than 8 percent of cattle operations in 2012, the principal operator was a woman. 

About 5 percent of cattle operations had a person of Hispanic heritage and/or an American 

Indian or Alaskan native as one of their top-three operators. Fewer than 2 percent of cattle 

operations have an African-American as a top-three operator.

Most livestock marketing facilities qualify as small according to SBA guidelines. Most 

cattle enterprises are small family farms. As is true for other cattle operations, incremental costs 

of the rule for these facilities will depend on current routine management practices, and whether 

the enterprise is already receiving cattle interstate.

Duplication, Overlap, or Conflict with Existing Rules and Regulations

APHIS has not identified any duplication, overlap, or conflict of the proposed rule with 

other Federal rules.

Alternatives to minimize Significant Economic Impacts of the Rule

Based on our review of available information, APHIS does not expect the proposed 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.