# Proposed Rule for Recognition of CSF

- low

risk Region in Mexico

Environmental Assessment January 2014 United States Department of Agriculture

# P roposed Rule for Recognition of CSF

- low

- risk Region in Mexico

Environmental Assessment January 2014

Agency Contact: Gary S. Colgrove, DVM Regionalization Evaluation Services National Import and Export Services Veterinary Services Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service United States Department of Agriculture 4700 River Road, Unit 38 Riverdale MD 20 737Non

- Discrimination Policy

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination against its customers, employees, and applicants for employment on the bases of race, color, national origin, age, disability, sex, gender identity, religion, reprisal, and where applicable , political beliefs, marital status, familial or parental status, sexual orientation, or all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program, or protected genetic information in employment or in any program or activity condu cted or funded by the Department. (Not all prohibited bases will apply to all programs and/or employment activities.)

To File an Employment Complaint

If you wish to file an employment complaint, you must contact your agency's EEO Counselor (PDF)
withi n 45 days of the date of the alleged discriminatory act, event, or in the case of a personnel action. Additional information can be found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_file.html.

To File a Program Complaint

If you wish to file a Civil Rights program complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form (PDF), found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html, or at any USDA office, or call (866) 632

- 9992 to request the form. You ma y also write a letter containing all of the information requested in the form. Send your completed complaint form or letter to us by mail at U.S. Department of Agriculture, Director, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250

- 9410, by fax (202) 690

- 7442 or email at program.intake@usda.gov.

Persons With Disabilities

Individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing, or have speech disabilities and you wish to file either an EEO or program complaint please contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877

- 8339 or (800)
845

- 6136 (in Spanish).

Persons with disabilities who wish to file a program complaint, please see information above on how to contact us by mail directly or by email. If you require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape , etc.) please contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202)
720

- 2600 (voice and TDD).

M en tion o f c o m pan ies o r c o mm er c ial produ c ts in t h i s repor t do e s no t i m p ly re c o m m enda t ion o r endor s e m e n t b y USDA o v e r o t her s no t me n t i oned

. U S D A ne i t he r guaran t ee s no r w arran ts t h e st andar d o f

an y produ ct m en tio ned

. Produ c t n a m e s ar e me n t i one d to repor t f a ct

ua lly on a v a il ab le da ta an d to pro v ide

s p e c i fic inf o r

matio n

.

This pub l i c a tion repor ts re s ear ch i n v o l v i n g pe sti ci d e s. All u s e s o f p e st i cid e s m u s t b e reg i st ere d b y
appropr i a te St a te an d / o r F edera l agen ci e s be f or e t he y c a n b e r e c o m m ended.

C A U TIO N : P e s t i c id e s c a n b e in j u r

io u s to h u m a n s, d o m e st i c an i m a l s , de sir a b le p la n t s , an d f i sh and o t he r

w

il d l i f e

— if t he y ar e no t hand led o r app li e d prope r l y

. U se a ll pe s t i cid e s s e le ct i ve ly an d c are f u ll y . Foll o w

re c o mme nde d label p r a ct i c e s f o r t h e use and d i s p o s a l o f pe s ti c i d e s an d pe s t i cide c o n t a in er s

.

## Table of Contents

I. Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action

................................ ................................ ........ 1

II. Alternatives

................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 2

A. No Action

................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 3

B. Proposed Action

................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 3

III. Poten tial Environmental Impacts

................................ ................................ ..................... 3

A. No Action

................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 4

B. Proposed Action

................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 4

1. Animal Health

................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 4

2. Public He alth

................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 7

3. Physical Environment

................................ ................................ ................................ .. 7

4. Additional Environmental Considerations

................................ ................................ ..... 8

5. Summary of Risk

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 11

IV. Age ncies or Persons Contacted

................................ ................................ ........................ 12

V. References

................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 13

## I. Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) regulates the importation of animals and animal products into the United States to guard against the introduction of animal diseases. APHIS’ regulations allow for the importation of live swine, swine semen, pork, and pork products from regions considered as free of classical swine fever (CSF ). APHIS currently considers all of Mexico except the States of Baja California, Baja California Sur, Campeche, Chihuahua, Nayarit, Quintana Roo, Sinaloa, Sonora, and Yucatan to be affected with CSF. It therefore prohibits the importation of swine and restricts the importation of pork and pork pr oducts from the CSF

- affected region of Mexico to
the United States.

CSF is a disease listed by the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) Terrestrial Animal
Health Code ( OIE, 2012 ) . Domestic and wild swine are the only species susceptible to CSF. Transmission is generally from pig to pig, and t he virus is most commonly transmitted through direct contact with saliva, nasal secretions, urine, and feces. Products including fresh, frozen, or cured pork also can infect other pigs when ingested as a result of the practice of swill feeding ( feeding food scraps or waste material to pigs). Trade with infected pigs is one of the most frequent sources of secondary outbreaks ( Fritzemeier et al., 2000 )

. Indirect transmission can occur via movement of people, vehicles, or other animals ( USDA APHIS, 2013 )

.

In November 2007, the Government of Mexico submitted a request to APHIS seeking recognition of CSF

- free status of the States of Aguascalientes, Colima, Guanajuato, Jalisco, Michoacán, Querétaro, San Luis Potosí, and Zacatecas (collectively known as the Cen tral Western Region) to allo w export of fresh pork and pork products originating in these States to
the United States. Mexico had declared these States CSF

- free in July 2006 after conducting a
CSF eradicat ion campaign. In September 2008, the Government o f Mexico expanded its request
to include evaluation of the State of Puebla, which Mexico declared as CSF

- free in December
2006. In 2009, Mexico expanded its request to include all Mexican territories after its
declaration on January 30, 2009 that the enti re country was CSF

- free.

The purpose of the proposed action is to recognize a CSF

- low

- risk region in Mexico to allow the importation of fresh pork and pork products originating from additional regions in Mexico under specific conditions. APHIS analyzed the potential disease risks and environmental effects of pork and pork product importation from Mexico into the United States in “ APHIS Evaluation of the Classical Swine Fever Status of a Region in Mexico ” ( USDA APHIS, 2013 )

. APHIS’ evaluation of Mexico’s CSF surveillance program identified risk factors associated with the program and the importation of pork and pork products f rom a CSF

- low

- risk region in Mexico

. APHIS concludes that proposed mitigations will minimize t he likelihood that pork and pork

1products originating from a CSF

- low

- risk region in Mexico may be infected with or contaminated by the C SF virus

.

The Animal Health Protection Act authorizes the USDA Secretary to prohibit or restrict the importation of animals, animal products, or other articles only when necessary to prevent the introduction or dissemination of diseases, like CSF, or pest s of livest ock. The proposed action
would remove the CSF restrictions allowing importation of pork or pork products from a region of Mexico ( effectively allowing importation of pork and pork products from all of Mexico except the State of Chiapas) , but would not remove restrictions currently in force for other animal
diseases of concern. The proposed action is needed to allow the importation of pork and pork products under the World Trade Organization Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosan itary
Measures wit h the least restrictive measures consistent with ensuring sanitary security.

This Environmental Assessment (EA) addresses potential environmental impacts related to the amendment of APHIS’ regulations by revising paragraphs in 9 Code of Federal Regulation s ( CFR ) Part 94 .9 and 94.10 recognizing a CSF

- low

- risk region in Mexico and adding paragraphs
in a new section 94.34 allowing importation of fresh pork and pork products from this region under conditions that mitigate the risk of introducing CSF into the United States. APHIS also proposes to revise the list of regions in Mexico, as described in 9 CFR 94.15 (b) and (b)(2), to include all of Mexico except the State of Chiapas as a region f rom which pork is allowed to transit the United States under the conditions as specified therein. A s a Federal Government agency subject to compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42
United States Code 4321

- 4337), APHIS prepa red this EA in accordance with the applicable implementing and administrative regulations (40 CFR §§ 1500

- 1508; 7 CFR §§ 1b, 372).

In accordance with requirements under APHIS’ NEPA Implementing Procedures, APHIS is making this document available to the pub lic for comment through the Federal Register

. Providing public notice of an environmental document to interested or affected persons and agencies is consis tent with requirements under the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and APHIS NEPA regulations (40 CFR § 1506.6(b) and 7 CFR §§ 1b, 372, respectively).



## II. Alternatives

The CEQ’s NEPA regulations (40 CFR §§ 1500

- 1508) require Federal agencies to consider in their environmental documents other reasonable courses of actions ( alternatives) to any proposed
action. In addition to the proposed action, a “no action” alternative is always an alternative to consider, representing the baseline or the current situation in the absence of the proposed action.

2This EA considers two poss ible alternatives for further analysis: (1) No Action , and (2) the Proposed Action

— APHIS would amend current regulations , allowing importation of fresh pork and pork products from a CSF

- low

- risk region in Mexico under specific conditions

.

APHIS eliminated a lternatives differing from those mentioned above from consideration because changes in the requirements either would not mitigate the potential risk from the region or would place excessive restrictions on th e imports that would serve as a barrier to tra de

.



### A. No Action

The No Action Alternative would leave the current importation regulations unchanged. Under this alternative, APHIS would not allow importation of fresh pork and pork products from any additional territory of Mexico. The States of Baja California, Baja California Sur, Campeche, Chihuahua, Nayarit, Quintana Roo, Sinaloa, Sonora, and Yucatan would continue to be the on ly
States considered CSF

- free.



### B. Proposed Action

The Proposed Action Alternative wou ld amend 9 CFR Part 94 .9 and 94.10 to recognize a CSF

low

- risk region in Mexico and insert a new section 94.34 allow ing importation of fresh pork and pork products from this region if conditions that mitigate the risk of introducing CSF into the
United States are f ollowed. The Proposed Action Alternative would revise the list of regions in Mexico, as described in 9 CFR 94.15 (b) and (b)(2), to include all of Mexico except the State of Chiapas as a region from which pork is allowed to transit the United States under the conditions as specified therein.



## III. Potential Environmental Impacts

CSF, also known as hog cholera, is a highly contag ious swine disease caused by a P estivirus that can be spread directly and indirectly

. Acute symptoms of CSF in clude fever, huddling behavior, loss of appetite, weakness, conjunctivitis, constipation followed by diarrhea, an unsteady gait, and purplish discoloration on the ears, abdomen, and inner thighs. Animals with the acute form
of CSF die within 1

- 2 weeks ( OIE, 2011 )

. Chronic form symptoms include dullness, ruffled appearance, and growth retardation. Swine with the chronic form often appear to recover but

eve ntually relapse and die within a few months ( OIE, 2009 )

. The incubation period is 2 to 14 days. Vaccines can be used to prevent the spread of disease ; however, it is unlikely to eliminate the infection from a population ( OIE, 2009 )

.

3The CSF virus can survive for months or years when pork is refrigerated or frozen. Some virus
strains are partially resistant to moderate heat but are rapidly inactivated at pH <3.0 or pH >11.0.
The virus also is in activated by chlorine

- based disinfectants, detergents, lipid solvents, and proteases (enzymes that break proteins into fragments) ( OIE, 2009 )

.



### A. No Action

Under the No Action Alternative, APHIS would continue to consider all of Mexico except the States of Baja California, Baja California Sur, Campeche, Chihuahua, Nayarit, Quintana Roo, Sinaloa, Sonora, and Yucatan to be affected with CSF. It therefore prohibits the importation of swine and restricts the importation of po rk and pork products from the CSF

- affected region of
Mexico to those treated in a manner known to inactivate CSF virus. This alternative would have no potential effect on animal health, public health, or the physical environment. This alternative,
howeve r, does not satisfy APHIS’ commitment under the World Trade Organization Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures to allow the importation of animal products under the least restrictive measures consistent with ensuring sanitary security.



### B. Proposed Action

The Proposed Action Alternative is to amend APHIS’ regulations to recognize a CSF

- low

- risk region in Mexico allowing the importation of live swine, swine semen, pork, and pork products
from a CSF

- low

- risk region in Mexico according to specific requirements designed to prevent the introduction of CSF into the United States. Any potential for impacts to the human
environment as a result of this rule amendment would be from lack of adherence to the mitigations designed to reduce the risk of exposure to the virus. Animal health, public health, and the physical environment are components of the human environment that could be impacted if CSF were introduced to the United States as a result of this Proposed Action Alterna tive. These components, in addition to other environmental review consideration s, are addressed
below

.

1. Animal Health

APHIS determined that the most likely pathway of exposure of domestic swine to the CSF virus in pork and pork products is through feeding of contaminated food waste to swine ( USDA APHIS, 2001 )

. However, the prohibition of feeding swine unprocessed plate waste from
restaurants and institutions has contributed to the reduction of waste

- feeding to swine. Additionally, w aste

- feeder operations must be licensed and insp ected regularly by USDA inspectors (9 CFR § 166). The licensing process r equires that producer s adequately cook the

4waste fed to swine using methods designed to destroy foreign animal disease agents. Therefore,
APHIS concludes that susceptible swine in the United States are unlikely to be exposed to the
CSF virus via waste feeding ( USDA APHIS, 2013 )

.

APHIS proposes additional mitigation measures to prevent CSF introduction or spread from a CSF

- low

- risk region in Mexico into the United States. These mitigation measures include:

• Restrict imports of pork and pork products originating in and imported from a CSF

- low

risk region in Mexico into the United States by requiring pork be derived from swine
raised on farms that operate under a high level of biosecurity and where CSF antigen exposure has not been detected.

• Require pork or pork products originating in and imported from a CSF

- low

- risk region in
Mexico be derived from swine that have not commingled wit h swine not originating from
herds operating under the required sanitary standards.

• Require pork or pork products originating in and imported from a CSF

- low

- risk region in
Mexico not be in contact with pork or pork products derived from swine not originati ng from herds not reared under the required level of sanitary standards.

• The pork or pork products were derived from swine that were born, raised, and have lived only in the United States or in a region listed under § 94.9 as CSF

- free or low

- risk for CSF, and were slaughtered in such a region at a federally inspected slaughter plant that is under the direct supervision of a full

- time salaried veterinarian of the national government of that region and that is eligible to have its products imported into the United States under the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) and the regulations in § 327.2 of this title.

• Require the establishment that is slaughtering swine intended for export to the U nited
States to allow periodic onsite evaluation and subsequent inspection of its facilities, records, and operations by an APHIS representative.

• The pork or pork products have not been in contact with pork or pork products that have been in a region, other than the United States, that is not classified under § 94.9 as CSF

free or low

- risk for CSF.

• The pork or pork products have not transited through a region, other than the United States, that is not classified under § 94.9 as CSF

- free or low

- risk for CSF unless moved directly through the region to their destination in a sealed means of conveyance with the seal intact upon arrival at the point of destination.

• If processed, the pork or pork products were processed in a region classified under § 94.9
as CSF

- free or low

- risk for CSF in a federally inspected processing plant that is under the direct supervision of a full

- time salaried veterinary official of the national government of that region.

• The pork or pork products must be accompanied by a certification issued by a full

- time salaried veterinary officer of Mexico. Upon arrival of the pork or pork products in the United States, the certification must be presented to an authorized inspector at the port of

5arrival. The certification must identify the exporting region of the pork or pork products as being par t of the APHIS

- defined Mexican CSF Region as listed under § 94.34 at the time the pork or pork products were in the region and must state that the applicable provisions of § 94.34 have been met.

Specifically

, APHIS proposes that Servicio Nacional de Sanidad, Inocuidad y Calidad Agroalimentaria ( SENASICA ; National Service of Health, Safety and Quality Agrofood) certify pork and pork products originating from a CSF

- low

- risk region in Mexico as derived from swine reared on premises meeting the following standards for sanitary conditions and biosecurity and not commingled with swine reared under less stringent standards: 1. Herd is tested annually for CSF and the results show absence of antibodies to CSF. The sampling protocol includes:

a. Serologic testing of the herd, using a testing protocol that allows differentiation
between CSF antibodies and cross

- reactions with antibodi es to other P estiviruses. Sample size should be adequate to detect 5 percent prevalence at a 95 percent
confidence level.
b. Samples from th e herd may be collected at the slaughterhouse or the farm

.
c. Any sick pigs showing clinical signs con sistent with CSF are sampled and tested for CSF antigen at any time. Any freshly dead pigs or pigs needing to be euthanized are necropsied and complete diagn ostics for CSF performed.
2. Biosecurity measures include:

a. Containment of domestic pigs to prevent exposure to other swine, wildlife or swine products.
b. Cleaning, disinfection, and control of movement of vehicles entering farms or transporting swine.

c. Control o f personnel entering the farm and keeping a written visitors’ log.
d. Training of personnel and farm veterinarians in awareness of risk of fomite spread and clinical signs of CSF.

e. Recordkeeping of animal movements into and out of the farm (including species o ther than swine).
f. Prohibition of swill feeding on the farm.

g. Documentation of adequate pest control on the farm.
h. Prohibition of farm personnel from owning or working with other swine or in swine slaughter facilities.
3. Replacement stock and swine semen are so urced only from herds of equivalent sanitary status not located in regions considered by APHIS to be CSF

- affected or that have tested negative for CSF while being quarantined before introduction to the farm.
4. Herds are not epidemiologically linked to CSF ou tbreaks and have not been located within protection and surveillance zones established in response to CSF outbreaks within the previous 12 months.

65. Herds are inspected annually by SENASICA, which verifies compliance with the above
conditions.

APHIS concludes that the mitigations described here will greatly reduce th e likelihood that pork and pork products originating in and imported from a CSF

- low

- risk region in M exico might be
infected with or contaminated by the CSF virus ( ( USDA APHIS, 2013 )

.

2. Public Health

There is no recognized risk to human health from CSF because humans are not susceptible to
CSF infection ( CFSPH, 2009 ; OIE, 2011 ; USAHA, 2008 ) . While there was at least one report of
human infections ( Tenbroeck, 1920 ; USDA APHIS, 2013 ) , the World Health Organization does
not consider CSF to be a zoonotic threat to humans ( World Health Organization, 2013 ) . Pigs (including domestic pigs and wild boar) are the only natural host reservoir for the CFS virus, a member of the genus Pestivirus of the family Flaviviridae ( OIE, 2009 ; USAHA, 2008 ) . For these reasons, CSF infection does not have direct physical health consequences.

If CSF is detected in the United States, disease control and eradication measures would include depopulation of infected and exposed swine, disposal of contaminated carcasses and materials, and cleaning and disinfection of contaminated facilities and equipment. A substanti al CSF outbreak could be associated with severe psychological effects on mental health of farmers and farming communities. Farmers and their families could suffer psychological symptoms including: a) grief over the loss of animals, b) feelings of isolatio n and the loss of control, c) fear of new outbreaks, d) disruptions in community life, e) loss of trust in authority, e) stress over their financial future, and g) depression or post

- traumatic stress disorder. These symptoms were
documented for farmers de aling with mass fatalities from foot and mouth disease ( USDA APHIS, 2013 ) , and are possible following a large CFS outbreak. Animal health emergency responders could also suffer stress reactions and distress from participating in, or witnessing, the culling of animals and working with distraught animal owners ( USDA APHIS, 2013 )

.

3. Physical Environment

Impacts to the physical environment from the intro duction of CSF to U.S. swine could potentially occur from carcass disposal due to mass depopulations and deaths or from the use of
disinfectants if used to sanitize slaughter, transportation, and disposal facilities. Disposal methods are of particular concern because the ease of contamination increases with diff erent soil types and proximity to water sources including underground aquifers. Disposal methods normally employed include incineration, rendering, and burial. Disposal, if not handled properly, provides a pathway for the CSF virus to enter into the soil, air, and water and potentially spread to other areas. In humid and semi

- humid conditions infiltration through

7landfills poses the threat of having leachate re ach underlying aquifers and contaminating groundwater (MacFarlane et. al 1983)

. Several factors contribute to the efficacy of the virus establishing itsel f such as weather, climate, geographic features (soil type and water bodies present) , and type of dis posal method

. The disposal method implemented is chosen based on cost, materials available, and personnel needed in order to dispose of the swine.

As part of an eradication program, measures that could be used to prevent the spread of the CSF
virus invol ve controlling, cleaning, and disinfecting all surfaces with close proximity to infected swine including slaughter house s, incinerati on and rendering facilities, holding facilities , as well as all vehicles entering farms and vehicles involved in the transp ortation of swine

. All chemicals used in sanitation would be subject to the approval of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and used according to their registration requirements. Label instructions for disinfectants would be provided to ensure the p roper use of the chemical.

4. Additional Environmental Considerations

Potential impacts of implem enting the Proposed Action Alternative have be en considered regarding elements of the human envir onment that have been identified as vulnerable, including endangered or threatened species and critical habitat, tribal lands, historic and other sensitive sites, U.S. minority and low

- income communities and children, and geographic areas and populations outside U.S. authority. No adverse effects to the human en vironment are anticipated as a result of carrying out program activities and their associated mitigations. Analysis of pertinent acts, regulations , and directives is below.

**a. Executive Order 12114, Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions** 

Fed eral agencies are required by Executive Order 12114, Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions , to take into consideration the potential environmental effects of major Federal action outside the geographic borders of the United States, its terr itories and possessions. This includes potential impacts on foreign nations, whether or not directly involved with the action, and on the global commons outside the jurisdiction of any nation (e.g. the oceans or Antarctica). The Proposed Action Alternati ve has been designed to prevent the spread of CSF along with other potentially adverse environmental effects, from point of origin ( a CSF

- low

- risk region in Mexico ) to final destination (mainland U.S. ports, processing plants, distribution hubs,
and consum er markets). Based on findings in the 2013 risk analysis ( USDA APHIS, 2013 ) , we expect that increasing the export region in Mexico will remove unnecessary trade barriers and may have a beneficial socioeconomic impact on Mexican farmers and pork producers, and the general population. Mexican States are expected to benefit from im proved oversight and more standardized regulation, and the regulatory requirements have been designed to be both feasible

8and cost

- effective. The ability of more regions in Mexico to export fresh pork and pork products is not expected to result in (1) ina bility of Mexican authorities and infrastructure to handle the additional workload, (2) substantial changes to U.S. imports, or (3) unbalanced competition with other nations trying to export similar products to the United States. The United States currentl y receives the majority (77%) of its pork imports from Canada ( USDA ERS, 2013 ) . The increased transp ortation of pork and pork products from a CSF

- low

- risk region in Mexico is not expected to appreciably change greenhouse gas emissions and will not contribute cumulatively to global

c limate change. If the Proposed Action Alternative and its associated mit igations are implemented and continue as proposed, no substantial adverse impacts are expected to affect the human environment outside of the United States, its territories and possessions.

**b. Executive Order**  **12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in**  **Minority Populations and Low**

**- Income Populations** 

Federal agencies are required by Executive Order 12858, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low

- Income Populations , to take into
consideration the environmental justice of major Federal actions regarding certain U.S. populations. Environmental justice as defined by USDA is achieved when

“To the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, all populations are provided the opportunity to comment before decisions are rendered on, are allowed to share in the benefits of, are not excluded from, and are not affected in a disproportionately high and adverse manner by government programs and activities affecting the environment and its impa ct on human h ealth” ( USDA, 2012 )

. APHIS is committed to achieving environmental justice throughout every community that may be affected by agency ac tions. The Propo sed Action Alternative has been designed to prevent adverse or disproportional effects on all sectors of the U.S. human population by preventing the introduction of CSF via the importation of fresh pork and pork products from additional regions
in Mexico.

**c. Executive Order**  **13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks** 

Federal agencies are required by Executive Order 13405, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks , to identify and address pote ntially disproportionate risks and adverse impacts that major Federal actions may have on the Nation’s children. Proper implementat ion of the Proposed Action Alternative and associated mitigations is designed to protect children from adverse impacts resulting from CSF introduction to the United States from
a CSF

- low

- risk region in Mexico. U.S. children are not likely to be exposed as a result of this

9rulemaking to unsafe animals and pork products, hazardous living or working conditions, anti

CSF chemical treatments, or criminal activity.

**d. Review of considerations for Relevant Executive Orders** 

Some Executive O rders, such as Executive Order 12898 and Executive Order 1304 5, as well as some departmental and/or agency directives, call for special environmental reviews in certain circumstances. No circumstance that would trigger the need for special environmental reviews has been identified in terms of implem enting the Propo sed Action Alternative

. Implementat ion of the Proposed Action Alternative and mitigations is not expected to pose any disproportionate adverse impacts to U.S. children, minority populations, low

- income or tribal populations compared to potential impacts t o the general population. Where program activities may potentially affect non

- English

- speaking U.S. populations or an area in the United States without universal access to news media, advance notice of such activity and information about potential exposur e hazards will be translated and/or communicated directly by program officials.

APHIS has designed certain requirements and restrictions for Mexico to follow in order to mitigate the risk of release of CSF virus via fresh pork and pork products originating in and imported from a CSF

- low

- risk region in Mexico. Although the biological and socioeconomic consequences of a CSF outbreak in the United States would be serious, based on the findings of the release and exposure assessments APHIS believes the propose d mitigations will significantly
lower the risk of CSF

- infected pork or pork products entering the United States from a CSF

- low

risk region in Mexico and exposing U.S. sw ine to the disease ( USDA APHIS, 2013 )

. Annual U.S. domestic supply of pork and pork products for 2010

- 2012 had a total value of about $12.47
billion ( USDA NASS, 2012 )

. The annual value of U.S. imports of pork and pork products from
Mexico over the same three year period averaged about $31 million , or less than 0.3 percent of U.S. domestic supply ( USDA ERS, 2013 )

. Therefore, t he quantity of pork and pork products imported from a CSF

- low

- risk region in Mexico is not expected to affect the cost of food for
low

- income populations, and the income to minority and sma ll business producers in the United
States is not expected to be affected.

**e. Endangered**  **Species Act**

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and its implementing regulations require Federal agencies to ensure that their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or threatened species or result in the destructi on or adverse modification of critical habitat. APHIS has considered the potential effects of the proposed rule amendment on endangered and threatened species and designated critical habitat in the United States. CSF is
host

- specific, and there are no kn own federally listed or proposed endangered or threatened species in the United States that are susceptible to CSF; therefore, APHIS has determined that

10the proposed rule amendment to import fresh pork and pork products from a CSF

- low

- risk region
in Mexico will have no effect on endangered and threatened species or critical habitat in the
United States.

5. Summary of Risk

APHIS prepared a risk analysis ( USDA APHIS, 2013 ) supported by documentation from SAGARPA and Mexican State governments, observations from two APHIS technical teams during site visits in May 2008, April 2012, and December 2012, peer

- reviewed articles, and data
from OIE

. APHIS ’ conclusion from the risk analysis is that although the biological and economic consequences of a CSF outbreak in the United States could be substantial, based on the findings of the release and exposure assessm ents, APHIS believes its proposed mitigations will significantly lower the risk of CSF

- infected pork or pork products entering the United States
from a CSF

- low

- risk region in Mexico and exposing U.S. swine to the disease. APHIS identified
risk factors associated with importing Mexican

- origin pork and pork products into the United
States from a CSF

- low

- risk region in Mexico and proposed mitigations to address these factors.
APHIS considers that with mitigations, the risk from a CSF

- low

- risk region in Mexico would be
low.

11

## IV. Agencies or Persons Contacted

This EA was prepared by APHIS. The addresses of participating APHIS units are below.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Policy and Program Development
Environme ntal and Risk Analysis Services 4700 River Road, Unit 149 Riverdale, MD 20737

U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Regio nalization Evaluation Services
National Import and Export Services
V eterinary Services
4700 River Road, Unit 38 Riverdale, MD 20737

12

## V. References

CFSPH. (2009). Classical Swine Fever

- Hog Cholera, Swine Fever, Peste du Porc, Colera Porcina, Virusschweinepest (pp. 5). Iowa State University: College of Veterinary Medicine.

Fritzemeier, J., Teuffert, J., Greiser

- Wilke, I., Staubach, C., Schlüter, H., & Moennig, V. (2000). Epidemiology of Classical Swine Fever in Germany in 1990s. Vet Microbiol, 77 (1

- 2), 29

- 41.

OIE. (2009). Classical Swine Fever Technical Disease Card (pp. 5)

.

OIE. (2011). Classical Swine Fever (pp. 6).

OIE. (2012). Terrestrial Animal Health Code. Retrieved 6/28/13, from http://www.oie.int/en/international

- st andard

- setting/terrestrial

- code/access

- online/

Tenbroeck, Carl. (1920). Bacilli of the Hog

- Cholera Group (Bacillus Cholera Suis) in Man. The Journal of Experimental Medicine, 32 (1), 33

- 40.

USAHA. (2008). Foreign Animal Diseases

.

USDA. (2012). Environmenta l Justice Strategic Plan: 2012

- 2014 . Washington, DC: Retrieved from http://www.dm.usda.gov/emd/responserestoration/docs/Final%20USDA%20EJ%20STR AT% 20Scan_1.pdf

.

USDA APHIS. (2001). Pathway Assessment of Foot

- and

- Mouth Disease (FMD) Risk to the United States: An Evaluation in Response to International FMD Outbreaks in 2001

. Center for Epidemiology and Animal Health.

USDA APHIS. (2013). APHIS Evaluati on of the Classical Swine Fever Status of a Region in Mexico

.

USDA ERS. (2013). Pork: Monthly U.S. Trade. In Livestock and Meat International Trade Data (Ed.), U.S. Census Bureau

.

13USDA NASS. (2012). National Statistics for Hogs. Retrieved 9/25/2013 http://www.nass.usda.gov/

World Health Organization. (2013). Global Early Warning System for Major Animal Diseases, including Zoonoses (GLEWS).

14