Proposed Rule for 

Recognition of CSF-lowrisk Region in Mexico

Environmental Assessment

January 2014

United States 

Department of 

Agriculture
Proposed 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 20737
Non-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 conducted 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) 

within 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 may 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). 

Mention of companies or commercial productsin this report does not imply recommendation or 

endorsement by USDA over others not mentioned. USDA neither guarantees nor warrants the standard of

any product mentioned. Product names are mentioned to report factually on available data and to provide

specific information.

This publication reports research involving pesticides. All uses of pesticides must be registered by

appropriate State and/or Federal agencies before they can be recommended.

CAUTION: Pesticides can be injurious to humans, domestic animals, desirable plants, and fish and other

wildlife—if they are not handled or applied properly. Use all pesticides selectively and carefully. Follow

recommended label practices for the use and disposal of pesticides and pesticide containers.
Table of Contents

I. Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action ........................................................................ 1

II. Alternatives ......................................................................................................................... 2

A. No Action......................................................................................................................... 3

B. Proposed Action.............................................................................................................. 3

III. Potential Environmental Impacts ..................................................................................... 3

A. No Action......................................................................................................................... 4

B. Proposed Action.............................................................................................................. 4

1. Animal Health .............................................................................................................. 4

2. Public Health................................................................................................................ 7

3. Physical Environment .................................................................................................. 7

4. Additional Environmental Considerations..................................................................... 8

5. Summary of Risk ........................................................................................................11

IV. Agencies 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 products 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 the 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 Central 

Western Region) to allow 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 eradication campaign. In September 2008, the Government of 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 entire 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 from a CSF-low-risk region in Mexico. 

APHIS concludes that proposed mitigations will minimize the likelihood that pork and pork 

1
products originating from a CSF-low-risk region in Mexico may be infected with or 

contaminated by the CSF 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 pests of livestock. 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 Phytosanitary 

Measures with 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 Regulations 

(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 from which pork is allowed to 

transit the United States under the conditions as specified therein. As a Federal Government 

agency subject to compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 

United States Code 4321-4337), APHIS prepared 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 public for comment through the Federal Register. 

Providing public notice of an environmental document to interested or affected persons and 

agencies is consistent 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. 

2
This EA considers two possible 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 alternatives 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 the imports that would serve as a barrier to trade. 

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 only 

States considered CSF-free. 

B. Proposed Action

The Proposed Action Alternative would amend 9 CFR Part 94.9 and 94.10 to recognize a CSFlow-risk region in Mexico and insert a new section 94.34 allowing importation of fresh pork and 

pork products from this region if conditions that mitigate the risk of introducing CSF into the 

United States are followed. 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 contagious swine disease caused by a Pestivirus that 

can be spread directly and indirectly. Acute symptoms of CSF include 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 

eventually 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).

3
The 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 inactivated 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 pork 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, 

however, 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 Alternative. 

These components, in addition to other environmental review considerations, 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, waste-feeder operations must be licensed and inspected regularly by USDA

inspectors (9 CFR § 166). The licensing process requires that producers adequately cook the 

4
waste 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-lowrisk 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 with 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 originating 

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 United 

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 CSFfree 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 

5
arrival. The certification must identify the exporting region of the pork or pork products 

as being part 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 antibodies to other Pestiviruses. 

Sample size should be adequate to detect 5 percent prevalence at a 95 percent 

confidence level.

b. Samples from the herd may be collected at the slaughterhouse or the farm.

c. Any sick pigs showing clinical signs consistent 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 diagnostics 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 of 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 other 

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 sourced 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 outbreaks and have not been located 

within protection and surveillance zones established in response to CSF outbreaks within 

the previous 12 months.

6
5. Herds are inspected annually by SENASICA, which verifies compliance with the above 

conditions.

APHIS concludes that the mitigations described here will greatly reduce the likelihood that pork 

and pork products originating in and imported from a CSF-low-risk region in Mexico 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 substantial 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 isolation 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 dealing 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 introduction 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 different 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 

7
landfills poses the threat of having leachate reach underlying aquifers and contaminating 

groundwater (MacFarlane et. al 1983). Several factors contribute to the efficacy of the virus 

establishing itself such as weather, climate, geographic features (soil type and water bodies 

present), and type of disposal 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 involve controlling, cleaning, and disinfecting all surfaces with close proximity to infected

swine including slaughter houses, incineration and rendering facilities, holding facilities, as well 

as all vehicles entering farms and vehicles involved in the transportation 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 proper use of the chemical.

4. Additional Environmental Considerations

Potential impacts of implementing the Proposed Action Alternative have been considered 

regarding elements of the human environment 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 environment 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

Federal 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 territories 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 Alternative 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 consumer 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 improved oversight and more 

standardized regulation, and the regulatory requirements have been designed to be both feasible 

8
and cost-effective. The ability of more regions in Mexico to export fresh pork and pork products 

is not expected to result in (1) inability 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 currently 

receives the majority (77%) of its pork imports from Canada (USDA ERS, 2013). The increased 

transportation 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 

climate change. If the Proposed Action Alternative and its associated mitigations 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 impact on human health” 

(USDA, 2012).

APHIS is committed to achieving environmental justice throughout every community that may 

be affected by agency actions. The Proposed 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 potentially disproportionate 

risks and adverse impacts that major Federal actions may have on the Nation’s children. Proper 

implementation 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 

9
rulemaking to unsafe animals and pork products, hazardous living or working conditions, antiCSF chemical treatments, or criminal activity. 

d. Review of considerations for Relevant Executive Orders

Some Executive Orders, such as Executive Order 12898 and Executive Order 13045, 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 implementing the Proposed Action Alternative. 

Implementation 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 to 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 exposure 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 proposed mitigations will significantly 

lower the risk of CSF-infected pork or pork products entering the United States from a CSF-lowrisk region in Mexico and exposing U.S. swine 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, the 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 small 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 destruction 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 known federally listed or proposed endangered or threatened 

species in the United States that are susceptible to CSF; therefore, APHIS has determined that 

10
the 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 assessments, 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 

Environmental and Risk Analysis Services

4700 River Road, Unit 149

Riverdale, MD 20737

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

Regionalization Evaluation Services

National Import and Export Services

Veterinary 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-standard-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). Environmental 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 Evaluation 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.

13
USDA 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