[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 90 (Friday, May 9, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 25439-25443]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-12162]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

9 CFR Part 94

[Docket No. 94-106-6]
RIN 0579-AA71


Importation of Pork from Sonora, Mexico

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We are amending the regulations concerning the importation of 
animal products to allow, under certain conditions, the importation of 
fresh, chilled or frozen pork from the State of Sonora, Mexico. This 
change is warranted because it removes unnecessary restrictions on the 
importation of pork from Sonora, Mexico, into the United States.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 8, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Gary Colgrove, Chief Staff 
Veterinarian, National Center for Import and Export, VS, APHIS, 4700 
River Road Unit 38, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231, (301) 734-8590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), United 
States Department of Agriculture (USDA), has promulgated regulations 
regarding the importation of animals and animal products in order to 
guard against the introduction into the United States of animal 
diseases not currently present or prevalent in this country. These 
regulations are set forth in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 
title 9, chapter I, subchapter D.
    On April 18, 1996, we published in the Federal Register a proposed 
rule (61 FR 16978-17105, Docket No. 94-106-1) to revise the regulations 
in six different parts of 9 CFR to establish importation criteria for 
certain animals and animal products based on the level of disease risk 
in specified geographical regions. In proposing the amendments to the 
regulations, we stated that we considered the proposed regulatory 
changes to be consistent with and to meet the requirements of 
international trade agreements that had recently been entered into by 
the United States.
    We solicited comments concerning our proposal for 90 days ending 
July 17, 1996. During the comment period, several commenters requested 
that we extend the period during which we would accept comments. In 
response to these requests, on July 11, 1996, we published in the 
Federal Register a notice that we would consider comments on the 
proposed rule for an additional 60 days ending September 16, 1996 (61 
FR 36520, Docket No. 94-106-4). During the comment period, we conducted 
four public hearings at which we accepted oral and written comments 
from the public. These public hearings (announced in the Federal 
Register on May 6 and May 29, 1996, 61 FR 20190-20191 and 26849-26850, 
Docket Nos. 94-106-2 and 94-106-3, respectively) were held in 
Riverdale, MD; Atlanta, GA; Kansas City, MO; and Denver, CO.
    We received 113 comments on the proposed rule on or before 
September 16, 1996. These comments came from representatives of State 
and foreign governments, international economic and political 
organizations, veterinary associations, State departments of 
agriculture, livestock industry associations and other agricultural 
organizations, importing and exporting associations, members of 
academia and the research community, brokerage firms, exhibitors, 
animal welfare organizations, and other members of the public.
    Based on our review of the comments received on our proposed rule, 
it is clear that drafting a final rule in response to recommendations 
submitted by commenters will require close analysis of numerous and 
complex issues. However, it is also clear to us that there are a 
limited number of provisions within the proposal that we can make final 
at this time. Where these provisions involve trade, we believe that 
delaying their implementation is unwarranted and not in the best 
interests of trade relations with other countries. In this final rule 
we are establishing provisions based on the importation procedures set 
forth in our proposed rule, described below, to allow the importation, 
under certain conditions, of fresh, chilled or frozen pork from the 
State of Sonora, Mexico.
    Under the regulations prior to the effective date of this final 
rule (9 CFR 94.9), the entire country of Mexico was considered to be a 
country in which hog cholera existed. As part of our proposed rule, we 
proposed to classify the State of Sonora, Mexico, as a region that 
presents only a slight risk of introducing hog cholera into the United 
States. In meeting the criteria for the proposed classification of a 
``slight risk'' for hog cholera, Sonora also met all of the criteria 
currently used to designate countries free of hog cholera, as discussed 
below. However, due to additional factors, such as the disease status 
of surrounding regions, we determined that the region of Sonora posed 
more than a negligible risk of introducing hog cholera into the United 
States if mitigating measures were not applied to the importation of 
fresh, chilled or frozen pork from that region. These measures included 
the requirements that the pork come from swine that were raised and 
slaughtered in Sonora, and that an authorized official of Mexico 
certify as to the origin of the pork. Additionally, an authorized 
official of Mexico would need to certify that the pork had not been in 
contact

[[Page 25440]]

with pork from areas of greater risk than Sonora for hog cholera.
    Of the comments we received on our proposed rule, a small number 
addressed our proposed classification of Sonora, Mexico, and mitigating 
measures for animal products from that region. Commenters on these 
issues included United States State departments of agriculture, foreign 
governmental representatives, foreign industry associations, and other 
members of the public.
    One commenter opposed allowing the importation of fresh pork 
products from Sonora, stating that the potential danger of introducing 
hog cholera into the United States would be too great. The commenter 
did not include any supporting information. We are making no changes 
based on this comment. In June 1994, the Department received a request 
from the Chief Animal Health Official in Mexico for recognition of the 
State of Sonora as a region free of hog cholera under the sanitary and 
phytosanitary provisions of the North American Free Trade Agreement 
(NAFTA) and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). A team 
of APHIS personnel reviewed this request and conducted a site visit in 
October 1994, which confirmed the facts of the request from the Mexican 
government. Based on this site visit and our analysis of data provided 
to APHIS by Mexico, we consider it appropriate to classify Sonora, 
Mexico, as a region from which fresh, chilled or frozen pork can be 
imported with negligible risk, provided the mitigating measures 
described above are applied.
    Several commenters supported the proposed classification of Sonora. 
Several other commenters stated that the proposed classification of 
Sonora does not include the final risk analysis necessary for 
considering Sonora a region of slight risk for hog cholera, and that 
such information should be published in the regulations. In this final 
rule, we are allowing the importation of fresh, chilled or frozen pork 
from Sonora, Mexico. In our proposed rule, we published the criteria we 
considered in classifying Sonora as a region from which fresh pork 
could be imported with negligible risk under specified conditions.
    Our decision to consider Sonora such a region, made following a 
1994 site visit to Sonora and elsewhere in Mexico, was based on 
analysis of the following factors: (1) That hog cholera virus has not 
been diagnosed in Sonora, Mexico, since 1985; (2) that there are 
currently no reported outbreaks of hog cholera in any of the States of 
Mexico or the United States that adjoin the State of Sonora, Mexico 
(the last reported outbreak in any of these States occurred in 1990); 
(3) that vaccination for hog cholera has been prohibited in Sonora 
since 1989; (4) that adjacent States of Mexico are separated by natural 
physical barriers or manmade fences; (5) that all border access points 
from adjacent States of Mexico are controlled to prevent movement of 
swine or swine products into the State of Sonora; (6) that movements of 
swine and swine products into the State of Sonora from other States of 
Mexico are effectively restricted; (7) that the State of Sonora 
maintains effective passive and active surveillance systems; and (8) 
that the laws, regulations, policies, and infrastructure in the State 
of Sonora and the country of Mexico have been reviewed by the 
Administrator and have been determined to be adequate to detect and 
rapidly eradicate hog cholera in the event of an outbreak. By meeting 
the criteria described above in this paragraph in points (1), (2), (6), 
(7), and (8), Sonora also met the criteria we use under the current 
regulations to determine a country to be free from hog cholera.
    In order to reduce from a slight level to a negligible level the 
risk of the introduction of hog cholera from Sonora, we proposed to 
require that fresh pork imported from Sonora not have been in contact 
with pork from any region classified as having more than a slight risk 
for hog cholera, and that this be certified to by an authorized 
official of the Mexican government. This requirement ensures that only 
fresh pork from Sonora that has not been in contact with pork from 
regions with a higher risk for hog cholera is imported into the United 
States. The details of the 1994 on-site evaluation are available by 
contacting the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    One commenter stated that although the proposed classification of 
Sonora appears to be valid using qualitative criteria, it is not clear 
whether the risk classification did or will include a quantitative risk 
analysis. The commenter stated that because the classification of 
Sonora was included in the proposed rule, a quantitative risk 
assessment should not be necessary. In our proposed rule, we based the 
proposed provisions regarding Sonora on the fact that it met the 
proposed qualitative criteria as a ``slight risk'' region for hog 
cholera. Therefore, fresh, chilled or frozen pork could be exported 
from that region with negligible risk of introducing hog cholera into 
the United States, provided mitigating measures were met. We are basing 
the provisions of this final rule on that assessment.
    Some commenters objected to our proposal to apply mitigating 
measures to importations of fresh pork from Sonora. The commenters 
recommended instead that Sonora be treated simply as a region in which 
hog cholera is not known to exist. We are making no changes based on 
these comments. Although, as proposed, we would consider Sonora a 
region where there is only a a slight risk of introducing hog cholera, 
we stated that other factors, including vaccination history and 
adjacency to higher risk areas, require adding certain mitigating 
measures on fresh pork importations from Sonora. We consider the fact 
that Sonora is adjacent to other regions of Mexico not considered to be 
free of hog cholera to create a slight risk of the introduction of hog 
cholera from fresh pork from Sonora, unless mitigating measures are 
applied. The slight risk of hog cholera from unmitigated importation of 
fresh, chilled or frozen pork from Sonora is reduced to a negligible 
level if an authorized official certifies that the pork came from swine 
raised and slaughtered in Sonora and that it has not been in contact 
with pork from areas of greater risk for hog cholera.
    One commenter stated that the proposed requirements for the 
importation of animal products under part 94 do not allow for the 
importing countries to apply different, but equivalent, risk mitigation 
measures. The commenter stated that such an omission is contrary to the 
equivalence principle under the World Trade Organization Agreement on 
the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, established 
under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. We are making no 
changes based on this comment at this time. In our proposal, we 
proposed quantitative risk assessment options that would allow 
different risk mitigation measures. We are currently reviewing the 
comments we received on these options and will address them in future 
rulemaking. Additionally, should alternative risk mitigation measures 
be submitted to APHIS, we will review them carefully and, when 
appropriate, we will propose changes in the future with regard to the 
regulatory assessment of their use.

Change to Section 94.15

    In Sec. 94.15(b) of the existing regulations, provisions are set 
forth to allow fresh pork and pork products to transit through the 
United States for immediate export, even though such pork and pork 
products are not otherwise allowed entry into the United States. This 
transiting must take place

[[Page 25441]]

under specified conditions, including sealing of the container carrying 
the pork and pork products with APHIS-approved seals in the region of 
origin, and movement through the United States under Customs bond. 
Under the existing regulations, the only fresh pork and pork products 
that may transit the United States under these conditions must be from 
either Chihuahua, Sonora, or Yucatan, Mexico. Under this final rule, 
pork from Sonora that could previously only transit the United States 
for export under Sec. 94.15 may now also be entered into the United 
States if the conditions of Sec. 94.20 are met.

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. The rule 
has been determined to be significant for purposes of Executive Order 
12866 and, therefore, has been reviewed by the Office of Management and 
Budget. The analyses required by Executive Order 12866 and the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act are set forth below.
    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), we are 
required to include in our Regulatory Flexibility Analysis a 
description of significant alternatives to this rule. In developing 
this rule, APHIS considered either (1) taking no action on the proposed 
requirements for the importation of fresh, chilled or frozen pork from 
Sonora, Mexico, (2) allowing the importation of fresh, chilled or 
frozen pork from Sonora under conditions different from those proposed, 
or (3) adopting the proposed conditions.
    We rejected the first alternative, because it would retain the 
restrictions on the importation of fresh, chilled and frozen pork from 
the entire country of Mexico that are set forth in the existing 
regulations. Because fresh, chilled, or frozen pork can be imported 
under specified conditions from Sonora with negligible hog cholera 
risk, taking no action would not be scientifically defensible and would 
be contrary to trade agreements entered into by the United States. We 
also rejected the second alternative, which would allow the importation 
of fresh, chilled, or frozen pork from Sonora under conditions other 
than those proposed. In developing the proposed criteria for the 
importation of such pork, we determined that criteria and mitigating 
measures less stringent than those proposed would increase the risk of 
the introduction of hog cholera into the United States to more than a 
negligible level, and that more stringent conditions would be 
unnecessarily restrictive. We consider the proposed conditions to be 
both effective and necessary in reducing to a negligible level the risk 
of the introduction of hog cholera because of fresh pork imports from 
Sonora.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 604, we are also required to include in this 
analysis an assessment of comments received on our Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis. When we proposed the conditions for the 
importation of fresh pork from Sonora, Mexico, we did so based on the 
information available to us from Mexico, USDA sources, an APHIS site 
visit to Mexico, and scientific literature. We requested comments on 
the proposed conditions for such importation of fresh pork, along with 
the rest of the proposed rule. We received and considered comments on 
the proposed conditions, and discuss our responses to these comments in 
the ``Supplementary Information'' section, above. After reviewing the 
comments received, we continue to consider the proposed conditions for 
the importation of fresh pork from Sonora, Mexico, to be effective in 
reducing the risk of the introduction of hog cholera to a negligible 
level, and have determined that it is neither warranted nor necessary 
to revise those conditions in this final rule.

Anticipated Economic Impacts

    Under this rule, fresh, chilled and frozen pork may be imported 
from Sonora, Mexico. Under the regulations already in effect, pork 
processed by cooking or curing is allowed to be imported from Mexico 
under specified conditions. Pork that has not been processed 
sufficiently to meet the conditions of the existing regulations is 
considered fresh. Fresh pork is customarily shipped chilled or frozen. 
This rule change could significantly alter current fresh pork 
production and exports from Sonora over time, because commercial 
production in that region is relatively new, and because the United 
States has imposed restrictions on the importation of swine and fresh 
pork products from Mexico for over 20 years. Both of these factors make 
it difficult to make projections on possible future fresh pork 
production and trade from Sonora. However, based on various 
assumptions, we expect that fresh pork products from Sonora will be 
exported to the United States. The most important of these assumptions 
are the following:
    1. Production of live hogs in Sonora will be maintained at the 
current 1.2 million head level;
    2. Thirty-five percent of total hog production will continue to be 
shipped live out of the region for slaughter and processing elsewhere 
(currently most of these live animal shipments go to Mexico City, some 
1,500 miles away);
    3. The remaining 65 percent of hog production will be processed in 
Sonora, with 14 percent going as specialized pork cuts to Japan; the 
remaining 86 percent will be available for use in Mexico or shipment to 
the United States;
    4. The U.S. base year is assumed to be 1994. United States 
marketings of 95.697 million head of slaughter hogs were registered in 
that year at the average price of $40.03 per hundred weight (CWT), 
liveweight equivalent (LWE);
    5. A low-impact scenario assumes that fresh pork imports from 
Sonora will represent products from about 67,000 hogs. This level of 
imports would represent about 10 percent of the pork production of 
Sonora. Imported Sonora fresh pork would be assumed to substitute 
perfectly for U.S. pork and displace it. The low-impact scenario also 
assumes that U.S. hog supply elasticity in the United States is 0.15. 
Hog demand elasticity is assumed to hold at -0.44 in both the low 
impact and the high impact scenarios;
    6. A high-impact scenario assumes that fresh pork imports from 
Sonora will represent products from 134,160 hogs. This level of imports 
would represent about 20 percent of the pork production in Sonora. The 
high impact scenario assumes that U.S. supply elasticity is 0.075, one-
half of the U.S. hog supply elasticity assumed in the low impact 
scenario. Again, imported fresh pork products would be assumed to 
substitute perfectly for U.S. pork and displace it.
    The future economic impact on U.S. swine producers will depend on 
demand-side factors, such as consumer acceptance of Mexican fresh pork, 
but probably most heavily on two supply-side factors: (1) Increases in 
total Mexican fresh pork production, and (2) the composition of fresh 
pork shipped from Sonora, Mexico. Mexican export pork supply will also 
be heavily affected by the long-term exchange rate between the United 
States and Mexico.
    The impact of fresh pork imports is difficult to forecast because 
of the uncertainty as to how they will substitute for current foreign 
and/or domestic fresh pork products. For example, certain Mexican fresh 
pork imports may not affect U.S. producers at all, i.e., they may not 
substitute for similar U.S.-produced pork, but, rather, completely 
substitute for and displace similar fresh pork products currently 
imported from another country. In this analysis, we are assuming that 
Mexican fresh pork from Sonora will displace a

[[Page 25442]]

similar U.S. product, causing U.S. farm prices to decrease by .05 cents 
to .11 cents per pound, liveweight. This small price decline elicits a 
corresponding small U.S. producer cutback in production. It is 
estimated that this cutback could represent .018 to .02 percent of U.S. 
production.
    Impact on U.S. Consumers: Assuming Mexican producers find it in 
their interest to ship fresh pork from Sonora to the United States, 
consumer welfare gains of $10.7 million (low impact scenario) to $24.5 
million (high impact scenario) annually are possible depending on the 
volume of fresh pork imports from Sonora and the sensitivity of U.S. 
pork product supply and demand to Mexican imports. This volume of pork 
imports could range from 7 million to 15 million pounds of additional 
retail pork available to U.S. consumers.
    Impact on U.S. Livestock Sector: Primary producers of livestock and 
swine products would be detrimentally affected by fresh pork imports. 
Producer losses would nearly offset net gains to consumers. A breakdown 
of the anticipated potential impact on the U.S. livestock sector 
follows:
    1. Impact on Farrow-to-Finish Swine Operators: Imports under the 
low-impact scenario are assumed to represent pork from about 67,000 
hogs per year. Barrow and gilt slaughter hog prices would be expected 
to decrease by about 5 cents per CWT LWE. This lower price would elicit 
a cut in total U.S. hog production of between 10,000 and 17,000 hogs 
per year (depending on the supply elasticity assumed). The lower 
production level at a slightly lower price would reduce producer 
receipts and nearly offset net gains to consumers.
    Under the high-impact scenario, increased imports would be expected 
to represent pork from about 134,000 hogs per year. Barrow and gilt 
slaughter hog prices would be expected to decrease by about 11 cents 
per CWT LWE. This lower price would elicit a cut in total U.S. hog 
production in the range of 20,000 to 34,000 hogs per year. This lower 
production level--along with a lower price--would reduce producer 
receipts by about $24.5 million per year.
    Although the aggregate potential producer welfare losses appear 
substantial, total industry sales and the large number of swine 
operations would make the per farm producer losses relatively small. In 
1992, there were about 191,347 hog and pig farms in the United States, 
of which it is estimated that about 96.4 percent would be considered 
``small'' entities (annual sales of less than $0.5 million, according 
to Small Business Administration (SBA) size criteria).1 
Total value of hog inventories in December 1992 exceeded $4.147 
billion, producing $9.9 billion in sales 2. Small hog and 
pig entities maintain over 70 percent of these hog and pig inventories. 
Historical U.S. data show declining farm numbers (but almost stable 
production) and persistent competitive pressure on producers to adopt 
as many ``least-cost'' production methods as possible. Dividing the 
adjusted aggregate economic impact generated under the two scenarios 
listed above (low- and high-impact scenarios) by the number of small 
swine operations would produce drops in net annual farm income of 
almost $67 and $143, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Source: 1992 Census of Agriculture, Part 51, ``United States 
Summary and State Data'', Table 50, Pg. 123.
    \2\ Source: Agricultural Statistics, 1994, USDA, Tables 399 (pg. 
238) and 392 (pg. 233).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Impact on Live-Hog Dealers/Transporters: Under either the low-
impact scenario or the high-impact scenario, the effect on live-hog 
dealers/transporters is expected to be minimal. Reductions in 
transporting trips of U.S. hogs would be expected to decline by 86 or 
125 trips, respectively, based on either low impact or high 
impact.3 The reduction in activity in the high-impact 
scenario is slight in relation to the estimated 500,000 hauls of U.S. 
hog shipments in 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ This estimate is based on livestock requirements reported in 
Livestock Conservation Institute, Colorado State University. This 
reference states that trucks measuring 44 feet long, 92 inches wide 
and 8 feet high, should be able to handle about 200 head of 
slaughter hogs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Most dealers/transporters are considered ``small'' according to SBA 
guidelines (that is, sales of less than $12.5 million and employment of 
fewer than 500 employees). Firms in this industry are assumed to be 
classified in the general Census category of ``motor freight 
transportation and warehousing'' (``Standard Industry Classification'' 
(SIC) 4212 and 4213), with over 10,600 firms in 1992.4 In 
SIC 4212 (other local trucking (without storage) of agricultural 
products), there are 6,203 establishments with $2.197 billion in 
revenue in 1992 and employment of 26,897 employees. The average firm 
revenue was $354,183, with employment of 4 to 5 workers. Thus, the 
average firm in the industry would fall under the SBA category of 
``small,'' with sales of less than $12.5 million and fewer than 500 
employees. In SIC 4213 (trucking, except local, of agricultural 
products), there are 4,483 establishments with $3.3 billion in revenue 
in 1992 and employment of 30,518 employees. The average firm revenue 
was $736,114, with employment of 6 to 7 workers. Thus, the average firm 
in the industry would fall under the SBA category of ``small,'' with 
sales of less than $12.5 million and employment of fewer than 500 
employees. More detailed data on the actual distribution of firms by 
size are not available at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\  Census information was obtained from Mr. Dennis Shoemaker, 
Agricultural Statistician, Bureau of the Census, March 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Estimation of the potential impact of this rule on the live-hog 
dealer/transporter sub-sector is not possible given the available data. 
Census data on transporters is in a general category with other 
agricultural product shipments. Thus, it is unclear how important 
livestock transportation is to a particular ``small'' firm's business. 
Additional data are also needed on average miles traveled and net 
returns per trip. The relatively small anticipated reduction in trips 
suggests that the economic impact on this sub-sector will probably be 
very small. Further, if we assume that these reductions will fall 
evenly across all firms, this reduced level of economic activity is not 
expected to drive any one small livestock dealer/transporter out of 
business.
    3. Impact on Hog Processing Plants: As discussed, the reduction in 
swine marketings is expected to be very small in relation to current 
marketings. The loss of processing activity generated by the 
displacement of 17,000 to 34,000 hogs (depending on the assumed levels 
of imports) would be slight compared with slaughter levels of almost 96 
million head in 1994.
    The size distribution of firms in this sub-sector makes it 
difficult to allocate the small losses estimated above across large and 
small firms. In the past, the desire to cut transportation costs of 
livestock and livestock products, to gain economies of scale in plant 
operations, and to shift to newer plants (without existing labor 
contracts) have led to increased industry concentration in this U.S. 
sub-sector. The exit of many older, smaller plants and companies has 
also contributed to increased market concentration. Most firms have 
multimillion dollar operations made up of new, large, state-of-the-art 
slaughter and packing plants. In 1992, there were 1,385 meat packing 
establishments in the United States, down from 1,434 such 
establishments in 1987 5. The 1987 data indicate that 88 
pork-slaughter companies had more than 20 employees. These companies 
had

[[Page 25443]]

34,300 employees in all, with a payroll of $713.8 million and shipments 
of pork valued at $11.6 billion.6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Source: 1992 Census of Manufacturers, MC92-SUM-1(P), 
Preliminary Report, Summary Series, pg. 9.
    \6\ Source: Agricultural Input and Processing Industries, Iowa 
State University, RD-05, April 1992, pg. 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Summary

    Allowing the importation of fresh, chilled or frozen pork from 
Sonora, Mexico, could lead to some changes in Mexican fresh pork 
production and trade. Assuming stable production and a relatively 
``neutral'' currency regime, diversion of current Mexican fresh pork 
trade would allow Mexico to make some minor inroads into the U.S. fresh 
pork market, especially in the U.S. Southwest. Two scenarios examined--
a low-impact and a high-impact situation-- could produce annual 
consumer welfare gains of .07 cents to .16 cents per pound retail 
weight, and producer losses of .05 cents to .11 cents per pound, 
liveweight. These consumer welfare gains and producer welfare losses 
will depend mainly on the amount of fresh pork imported, but also on 
how consumers react to Mexican fresh pork product imports.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996

    This rule has been designated by the Administrator, Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, as 
a major rule under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness 
Act of 1996 (SBREFA) (Pub. L. 104-121, 5 U.S.C. 801-808). Therefore, it 
has been submitted for a 60-day Congressional review in accordance with 
that Act, and will not become effective until that review period ends.

Executive Order 12988

    This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil 
Justice Reform. This rule (1) preempts all State and local laws that 
are inconsistent with this rule; (2) has no retroactive effect; and (3) 
does not require administrative proceedings before parties may file 
suit in court challenging this rule.

National Environmental Policy Act

    An environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact 
have been prepared for this rule. The assessment provides a basis for 
the conclusion that the actions required or authorized by this rule 
will not present a significant risk of introducing or disseminating hog 
cholera disease agents into the United States and will not have a 
significant impact on the quality of the human environment. Based on 
the finding of no significant impact, the Administrator of the Animal 
and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that an 
environmental impact statement need not be prepared.
    The environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact 
were prepared in accordance with: (1) The National Environmental Policy 
Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), (2) Regulations of the 
Council on Environmental Quality for implementing the procedural 
provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), (3) USDA regulations 
implementing NEPA (7 CFR part 1b), and (4) APHIS' NEPA Implementing 
Procedures (7 CFR part 372).
    Copies of the environmental assessment and finding of no 
significant impact are available for public inspection at USDA, room 
1141, South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW, 
Washington, between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except 
holidays. Persons wishing to inspect copies are requested to call ahead 
on (202) 690-2817 to facilitate entry into the reading room. In 
addition, copies may be obtained by writing to the individual listed 
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 
3501 et seq.), the information collection or recordkeeping requirements 
included in this final rule have been approved by the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB). The assigned OMB control number is 0579-
0015.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub. 
L. 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, 
APHIS generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-
benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal 
mandates'' that may result in expenditures by State, local, or tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 
million or more in any one year. When such a statement is needed for a 
rule, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires APHIS to identify and 
consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the 
least costly, more cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that 
achieves the objectives of the rule.
    This rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory 
provisions of Title II of the UMRA) that may result in expenditures by 
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the 
private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Thus, this 
rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the 
UMRA.

List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 94

    Animal diseases, Imports, Livestock, Meat and meat products, Milk, 
Poultry and poultry products, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Accordingly, 9 CFR part 94 is amended as follows:

PART 94--RINDERPEST, FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE, FOWL PEST (FOWL 
PLAGUE), EXOTIC NEWCASTLE DISEASE, AFRICAN SWINE FEVER, HOG 
CHOLERA, AND BOVINE SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY: PROHIBITED AND 
RESTRICTED IMPORTATIONS

    1. The authority citation for part 94 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 147a, 150ee, 161, 162, and 450; 19 U.S.C. 
1306; 21 U.S.C. 111, 114a, 134a, 134b, 134c, 134f, 136, and 136a; 31 
U.S.C. 9701; 42 U.S.C. 4331 and 4332; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 
371.2(d).

    2. A new Sec. 94.20 is added to read as follows:


Sec. 94.20  Importation of pork from Sonora, Mexico.

    Notwithstanding any other provisions of this part, fresh, chilled 
or frozen pork from the State of Sonora, Mexico, may be imported into 
the United States under the following conditions:
    (a) The pork is meat from swine that have been raised and 
slaughtered in Sonora;
    (b) The pork has not been in contact with pork from countries other 
than those listed in Sec. 94.9(a) as countries where hog cholera is not 
known to exist; and
    (c) An authorized official of Mexico certifies on the foreign meat 
inspection certificate required by Sec. 327.4 of this title that the 
above conditions have been met.

    Done in Washington, DC, this 5th day of May 1997.
Terry L. Medley,
Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 97-12162 Filed 5-8-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P