### United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service April 2013 Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Proposed Rule

APHIS

- 2012

- 0073
RIN 0579

- AD91 Ruminants Imported from Fever Tick

- Free Regions in Mexico

Policy & Program Development Policy Analysis & Development

### Summary
The Mexican government has declared the S tate 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 th is state from acaricide treatment and the
7

- to 12

- day waiting period p r ior their entry into the United States. The proposed rule would require affected importer s to apply for either inspection or supervised dipping at the port of entry. Under the proposed rule, cattle that are dipped at the port of entry wo uld not need to be held for a 7

- to 12

- day waiting period. From 2009 to 201 3 , 1.2 1 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 background the cattle on pasture before they are shipped to feedlots. The average unit price of cattle imported from Mexico, 2009 to 201 3 , was about $440. The average cost of dipping with acaricide is $3.50 to $10.00 per head. It takes ap proximately five seconds for three cattle to cross a dipping vat. For an average 500

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

- head herd take s 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 r ather than dipping of cattle, would 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.

i

### Table of Contents Summary

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

................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 1 Reasons Action is Being Considered

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

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

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

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

............................ 3 Alternatives to minimize Significant Economic Impacts of the Rule

................................ . 4 References

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 5

ii

### 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 initial regulatory flexibility analysis describes expected impacts of this proposed rule on small entities, as required by sectio n 603 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 acaricid e 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 t icks cause cattle fever , also referred to as bovine babesiosis. The proposed rule would exempt cattle originating from the Mexican S tate of Sonora from acaricide treatment and the associated documentation as long as certain requirements are

met

. In additi on, the proposed rule would require the importer to apply for either inspection or supervised dipping at the port of entry. The current regulations require both. Under the proposed rule, cattle that are dipped at the port of entry would not need to be held for a 7

- to 12

- day waiting period. 

### Reasons Action is Being Considered
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

1that recognition of these fever

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

### Objectives of and Legal Basis for the Rule
The objective of the proposed rule is to facilitate the importation of Mexican cattle by designating the S tate Sonora as a region of Mexico that are free of fever ticks. The proposed rule is a part of a c ontinuing policy to allow the importation of foreign agricultural and animal products that pose no significant risk of introducing pests or diseases into the United States. This rule would amend 9 CFR 93.427. Its legal basis rests on the statutes that unde rlie this regulation, namely, the Animal Health Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 8301 et seq. )

. 

### 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 considered small if annual receipts are not more than $750,000. According to the 200 7 Census of Agriculture, of the 656,475 beef cattle farms , 99 percent had annual receipts of less than $ 750 ,000 and are therefore considered small. Cattle imported into the United 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.

2From 2009 to 201 3 , the United States imported an average of 1.2 1 million cattle annually from Mexico , of which about one

- fourth originated in Sonora

. 1 The average unit price of cattle imported from Mexico, 2009 to 201 3 , 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

. I t take s anywhere from 4 to 12 hours to inspect a herd of this size

. That is 30 to 90 seconds per head. Depe nding 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 cattle, would depend on the relative price responsiveness of the sellers and buy ers 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. 

### Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirement s

Reporting and recordkeeping requiremen ts a ssociated with the proposed rule are discussed in the rule under the heading "Paperwork Reduction Act." 

### Duplication, Overlap , or Conflict with Existing Rules and Regulations

APHIS has not identified any duplication, overlap, or conflict of the proposed ru le with other Federal rules.

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

- products/cattle

- beef/statistics

information.aspx 3

### 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. We have prepared this initial regulatory flexibility analysis because our understanding of possible economic effects of the rule on small entities is incomplete. In the absence of apparent significant economic impacts, we have not identified alternatives that would minim ize such impacts.

4

### References
Census of Agriculture, 2007, http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Full_Report/index.asp U.S. Small Business Administration. U.S. Small Business Administration: Table of Small Business Size Standards Match to North American Industry Classification System http://www.sba.gov/idc/groups/pu blic/documents/sba_homepage/serv_sstd_tablepdf.pdf

5