Analysis in Support of Certification that the Rule will not 

have a Significant Economic Impact on a Substantial 

Number of Small Entities

Final Rule

Pepper Imports from Panama

APHIS-2010-0002

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

November 2010
1

Summary

This analysis examines impacts for U.S. small entities of a rule that allows pepper 

imports from Panama. Available data show that Panama exported 29 MT and 4 MT of peppers 

to the rest of the world in 2006 and 2007, respectively. The United States does not have a 

history of pepper imports from Panama. We assume the pattern of imports from Panama would 

be similar to those of Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras, which are currently

allowed to export peppers to the United States. These countries in aggregate exported 4.1 percent 

of their production to the United States in 2008. Among the group, Honduras exported the 

highest share of its production (9.65 percent). Therefore, we model three levels of pepper exports 

to the United States from Panama, of increasing magnitude: (i) an amount equal to the quantity

Panama exported to all countries in 2006 (29 MT); (ii) an amount equal to 4.1 percent of its 

production (112 MT); and (iii) an amount equal to 9.65 percent of its production (261 MT). The 

largest assumed level of U.S. imports (scenario iii) is less than 0.02 percent of average annual 

U.S. consumption. Even when assuming the largest import quantity and no displacement of 

imports from other countries, the welfare loss for U.S. small-entity producers would be

equivalent to less than 0.05 percent of their average revenue.

U.S. producers of peppers are predominantly small. Other small entities that could be 

affected by the rule include fresh pepper importers. Based on available information, the rule 

would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
2

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. The analysis examines impacts for U.S. small 

entities of a rule that allows fresh pepper imports from Panama. The rule amends 7 CFR 319.56, 

and is part of a continuing program to allow the importation of foreign agricultural products that 

APHIS has determined can be safely imported to the United States.

When an agency promulgates a final rule, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires 

the agency to “prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis” which, among other things, 

describes the impact of the rule on small entities (5 U.S.C. 604). Section 605 of the RFA allows 

an agency to certify that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. As specified by § 605 of the RFA, the following economic analysis 

provides the basis for certification of the rule to allow importation of peppers from Panama.

As background, we provide a brief overview of pepper production and trade by the 

United States and Panama. This is followed with an estimate of price and welfare effects of the 

rule based on assumed levels of pepper imports from Panama. We then describe the expected 

impact on small entities.

U.S. Pepper Production and Trade

The United States is a major pepper producer and importer. The U.S. produced 919,532 

metric tons (MT) of fresh peppers valued at $680 million in 2009, while imports that year totaled 
3

1,380,613 MT. Fresh pepper production occurs in many States. The top eight States (CA, FL, 

GA, MI, NM, NJ, NC, and OH) accounted for 98 percent of total production in 2009.1 

As shown in table 1, U.S. pepper production has fluctuated over recent years, while there 

has been an upward trend in consumption. The most recent data show production averaged 

979,711MT between 2003 and 2009. Consumption increased over this same period, from 

1,850,026 to 2,206,733 MT, and U.S. imports increased from 993,151 to 1,380,613 MT. Mexico 

is the source of the largest share of imports (83.5 percent in 2009), followed distantly by Canada 

(11.4 percent) and the Netherlands (2.7). These three countries accounted for 97.6 percent of 

total pepper imports. The United States was a net importer throughout the period, with average 

annual imports (1,206,951 MT) dwarfing exports (109,242 MT). Imports represent 58 percent of 

consumption. Imports from Panama are expected to be very small compared to an already large 

import base. Panama’s total production averaged 2,705 MT between 2003 and 2008.

 

1 USDA/NASS, Vegetables 2009 Summary, January 2010.
4

Table 1--U.S. Fresh Pepper: Supply, Utilization and Price, 2003-2009

Year

Production 

in Metric 

Tons

Consumption 

in Metric Tons

Wholesale 

Price in $ 

per MT

Exports 

in Metric 

Tons

Imports in 

Metric 

Tons

2003 992,742 1,850,026 1,191 135,867 993,151

2004 1,039,236 1,964,896 1,962 132,945 1,058,605

2005 1,024,721 2,049,862 1,310 122,142 1,147,283

2006 983,262 2,144,852 1,473 101,179 1,262,769

2007 950,240 2,116,396 1,623 92,576 1,258,732

2008 948,245 2,209,173 1,833 86,573 1,347,501

2009 919,532 2,206,733 1,569 93,412 1,380,613

7-Year 

Average 

(2003-2009) 979,711 2,077,420

 

1,543 109,242 1,206,951

Sources: Production and consumption data are from USDA ERS, Vegetables and Melons 

Situation Outlook Yearbook/VGS-2010/January, 2010, while export and import data are from 

USDA FAS. U.S. wholesale price data are from USDA AMS. 

Panama Pepper Production and Trade

Production of peppers in Panama increased from 2,645 MT in 2003, to 2,765 MT in 

2008. The average quantity of peppers produced by Panama during the period was 2,705 MT. 

Panama has had sporadic pepper exports. It exported 29 MT in 2006 and 4 MT in 2007.2 Most 

of the exports went to Canada.3 

The rule is in response to a request from the Panama for market access for the export of 

peppers to the United States. There is no history of pepper exports from Panama to the United 

States. Given the relatively small quantity of peppers produced in Panama, exports to the United 

 

2 UN/FAO, Trade (FAOstat@fao.org)

3 Global Trade Atlas, Global Trade Information Services, Inc., country edition, March 10, 2010.
5

States are expected to be minor. Even if all of Panama’s pepper production were imported, an 

unlikely situation, it would represent only 0.13 percent of U.S. pepper consumption.4

This rule adds Panama to the list of Central American countries approved to export 

peppers to the United States. The mitigation requirements remain unchanged with the addition 

of Panama. For peppers (other than Capsicum pubescens) from areas free of Mediterranean fruit 

fly, the systems approach consists of a preharvest inspection for the pests of concern, and a 

phytosanitary certificate. For regions in which Mediterranean fruit fly does exist, the peppers 

must be grown in registered production sites using pest exclusionary greenhouses, trapping for 

Medfly, and issuance of a phytosanitary certificate. For Capsicum pubescens peppers from areas 

where Mexican fruit fly exists, the peppers must be grown in registered production sites with an 

APHIS approved trapping program, the peppers must be packed in pest exclusionary

packinghouses, and a phytosanitary certificate is required. 

Impact of Fresh Pepper Imports

We estimate the impact of pepper imports from Panama on U.S. production, 

consumption, and prices using a non-spatial partial equilibrium model. The data used were 

obtained from the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) and the Global Trade Atlas.

5

 U.S. pepper 

import prices are used as a surrogate for Panama’s export prices.6 The demand and supply

elasticities used are -0.48 and 0.12, respectively.

7

 

4 This percent is obtained by dividing Panama’s average production (2003-2008) of 2,705 MT by average total U.S. 

pepper consumption (2003-2009) of 2,077,420 MT.

5 UN/FAO, FAO stat data (http://faostat.fao.org) and Global Trade Atlas, Global Trade Information Services, Inc., 

country edition, March 2010.

6 Global Trade Atlas, Global Trade Information Services, Inc., country edition, March 2010.

7 The demand elasticity is from Gian Carlo Moschin, and Pier Luigi Rizzi, “Deriving a Flexible Mixed Demand 

System: The Normalized Quadratic Model,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 89, #4 (November 

2007), pp. 1034-1045; and elasticity of supply is from Jaime E. Malaga, Gary W. Williams, and Stephen W. Fuller, 

“U.S. Mexico fresh vegetable trade: the effects of liberalization and economic growth,” Agricultural Economics, 

Vol. 26 (2001), pp. 45-55.
6

Available data show that Panama exported 29 MT and 4 MT of peppers to the rest of the 

world in 2006 and 2007, respectively. The United States does not have a history of pepper 

imports from Panama. We assume the pattern of imports from Panama would be similar to those 

of Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras, which are currently allowed to export 

peppers to the United States. These countries in aggregate exported 4.1 percent of their 

production to the United States in 2008. Among the group, Honduras exported the highest share 

of its production (9.65 percent). We use these percentages in our trade scenarios. Therefore, we 

model three levels of pepper exports to the United States from Panama, of increasing magnitude: 

(i) an amount equal to the quantity Panama exported to all countries in 2006 (29 MT); (ii) an 

amount equal to 4.1 percent of its production (112 MT); and (iii) an amount equal to 9.65 percent 

of its production (261 MT). The largest assumed level of imports is equivalent to less than 0.02 

percent of average annual consumption by the United State during this same period. 

Table 2 presents the changes we estimate could result from the assumed levels of U.S. 

pepper imports from Panama. These include annual changes in U.S. consumption, production, 

wholesale price, consumer welfare, producer welfare, and net welfare. The maximum level of 

assumed pepper imports to the United States of 261 MT would result in a price decline of $0.37

per MT in the wholesale price of peppers and a fall in U.S. production of 25 MT. Consumption 

could increase by 236 MT. Producer welfare could decline by $318,000 and consumer welfare

could increase by $759,000, yielding an annual net welfare of about $441,000.
7

Table 2: Estimated Impact on the U.S. Economy of Pepper Imports from Panama for Three 

Import Scenarios

Assumed annual pepper imports 

from Morocco, MT 29111222613

Change in U.S. consumption, 

MT 26.25 101.38 236.25

Change in U.S. production, MT -2.75 -10.62 -24.75

Change in wholesale price of 

peppers, dollars per MT -$0.04 -$0.16 -$0.37

Change in consumer welfare $84,384 $352,903 $759,494

Change in producer welfare -$35,358 -$136,554 -$318,216

Annual net benefit $49,026 $189,349 $441,278

Note: The baseline data used are seven-year annual averages for production, consumption, 

prices, exports and imports, as reported in the last row of table 1. The demand and supply

elasticities used are -0.48 and 0.12, respectively (see footnote 8). 

1An amount equal to peppers exported by Panama to all countries in 2006 (29 MT).

2An amount equal to 4.1 percent of Panama’s total production (112 MT).

3An amount equal to 9.65 percent of Panama’s total production (261 MT).

In all three scenarios, consumer welfare gains outweigh producer welfare losses. Even in 

the third scenario in which we assume Panama would export 261 MT to the United States, the 

decline in producer welfare represents about 0.05 percent of revenue received from the sale of 

domestically produced fresh pepper.8 The price decline in this third scenario is less than 0.03

percent. The price and welfare effects are likely to be even smaller than are indicated by the 

three scenarios, to the extent that pepper imports from Panama displace pepper imports from 

other countries.

 

8

$354,000 divided by $680 million equals 0.052 percent.
8

Potential Impact on Small Entities

The Small Business Administration (SBA) has established guidelines for determining 

which firms are to be considered small under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. This rule could 

affect U.S. producers of fresh peppers (classified under Other Vegetable (except Potato) and 

Melon Farming, NAICS 111219) and some importers of peppers. Vegetable-producing 

establishments are classified as small if their annual receipts are not more than $750,000.9 

According to the 2007 Census of Agriculture (most recent data on farm sizes), there were 15,696 

farms producing peppers in the United States. About 74 percent of these farms had less than one 

acre in peppers. Overall, 15,480 farms (98.6 percent) had a total of 25,292 acres in peppers 

(about 25.4 percent of the total planted area) and are considered small, with an average of about 

1.6 acres and an average annual income of about $12,960 in 2007. The remaining 1.4 percent of 

the farms planted a total of 74,444 acres in peppers (74.6 percent of the planted area). They

averaged 345 acres, with an average annual income of about $2.2 million. As shown in table 3, 

the impact of potential pepper imports on U.S. small-entity producers as a result of this rule 

would be small. The annual decrease in producer welfare per small entity is estimated to be 

about $5.00, or about 0.04 percent of average annual sales by small entities, when we assume 

that 261 MT of peppers (the third scenario shown in table 2) would be exported to the United 

States because of this rule. The dollar decrease in welfare for most small pepper producers 

would be even smaller, given that the majority planted less than an acre in peppers. 

 

9

SBA, Small business size standards matched to the North American Industry Classification System 2007, Effective 

August 22, 2008 (www.sba.gov/size/sizetable2002.html).
9

Table 3: The Economic Impact of Potential Pepper Imports from Panama on U.S. Small Entities, 

assuming Annual Exports of 261 Metric Tons to the United States 

Total decline in producer welfare1-$318,216

Decrease in welfare incurred by small entities2-$80,827

Average decrease per acre, small entities3-$3.20

Average decrease per small entity4-$5.12

Average decrease as % of average sales, small entities5-0.04%

1

From table 2. 

2 Change in producer welfare multiplied by 25.4 percent, the percentage of total 

acreage planted by producers with annual revenues of not more than $750,000, that is, 

small entities. We assume that the change in producer welfare would be proportional 

to acreage share. 

3 Decrease in producer welfare for small entities divided by 25,292, the number of 

acres planted by small entities.

4 Average decrease per acre multiplied by 1.6, the average number of acres per small 

entity.

5 Average decrease per small entity divided by $12,960, the average annual revenue per 

small entity.

The 2007 Census of Agriculture also contains data on certain sub-categories of pepper

operations, namely, small family farms, limited resource farms, and farms having operators who 

belong to socially disadvantaged groups.10 Most farms that produce peppers qualify as small 

family farms (gross farm sales of less than $500,000), and many also qualify as limited resource 

farms (gross farm sales of not more than $100,000 and low household income). Categories of 

socially disadvantaged operators are women, persons of Hispanic origin, American Indian or 

Alaska Native, Asian, African American, and Native Hawaiian or other Pacific. As described 

above for small pepper farms generally, any economic impacts of the rule for operations 

categorized as small family farms, limited resource farms, or farms having operators who belong 

 

10 For definitions and information, see: USDA ERS. Structure and Finances of U.S. Family Farms: Family Farm 

Report, 2007 edition, EIB-24.
10

to socially disadvantaged groups would be insignificant, given the small quantity of peppers 

expected to be imported from Panama compared to domestic production and current imports. 

The rule has no mandatory reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements. 

Any reporting or other requirements would be those normally associated with the regular 

transactions involved in doing business.

Under these circumstances, the Administrator 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.