Llamas and Alpacas

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

9 CFR Parts 92 and 94

[Docket No. 92-107-3]

RIN 0579-AA62

Llamas and Alpacas

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are removing from the regulations certain health

certification requirements and requirements concerning quarantine upon

arrival in the United States for llamas and alpacas from Chile and all

other countries declared free of foot-and-mouth disease and rinderpest

on or after September 28, 1990. This action appears warranted to

relieve unnecessary and burdensome restrictions.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 16, 1994.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Michael David, Senior Staff

Veterinarian, Import-Export Animals Staff, National Center for Import-

Export, Veterinary Services, APHIS, USDA, room 761, Federal Building,

6505 Belcrest Road, Hyattsville, MD 20782, (301) 436-7511.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The regulations in 9 CFR part 92 and 94 (referred to below as the

regulations) impose restrictions on the importation into the United

States of specified animals and animal products to prevent the

introduction of various livestock and poultry diseases into the United

States.

The regulations in Sec. 92.435 set forth health certification and

quarantine requirements for llamas and alpacas imported into the United

States from Chile and any other country where foot-and-mouth disease

(FMD) or rinderpest has been known to exist and that was declared free

of those diseases on or after September 28, 1990. These countries--

Austria, Belgium, Chile, France, Germany, Hungary, The Netherlands,

Poland, Republic of Korea, and Spain--are listed in Sec. 94.1(d)(1).

Section 92.435 includes the requirements that llamas and alpacas from

countries listed in Sec. 94.1(d)(1) undergo quarantine-upon-arrival for

at least 40 days at the high-security Harry S Truman Animal Import

Center (HSTAIC).

On August 5, 1993, we published in the Federal Register (58 FR

41643-41645, Docket No. 92-107-1) a proposal to amend the regulations

by removing Sec. 92.435, ``Llamas and alpacas,'' and by deleting

Sec. 94.1(d) and the related cross-references throughout part 92.

We solicited comments concerning our proposal for a 60-day period

ending October 4, 1993. In response to a number of comments, we

published a notice in the Federal Register on September 28, 1993 (58 FR

50527-50528, Docket No. 92-107-2) extending the comment period to

November 18, 1993. We received 413 comments by that date. They were

from llama breeders and associations, veterinarians, State departments

of agriculture, and members of Congress. Of these, 355 comments were

opposed to the proposed rule, and 58 supported the proposed rule. All

of the comments received in opposition to the proposal concerned the

importation of llamas and alpacas from Chile; none of the comments

addressed any concern with llamas or alpacas imported from other

countries listed in Sec. 94.1(d)(1) of the regulations. We considered

all of the comments we received. They are discussed below by topic.

One of the most common concerns of commenters was that this rule

would allow the indiscriminate importation of llamas and alpacas from

Chile without certification, testing, or quarantine, thus risking

exposure of U.S. livestock not only to FMD, but to tuberculosis,

brucellosis, Johne's disease, bluetongue, vesicular stomatitis, and

other viral and parasitic diseases.

As stated above, under Sec. 92.435, llamas and alpacas from Chile

and other countries listed in Sec. 94.1(d)(1) have been required to

undergo a preembarkation quarantine, testing for a variety of livestock

diseases, and postentry quarantine in the United States at the Harry S

Truman Animal Import Center (HSTAIC). This final rule removes

Sec. 92.435 from the regulations.

However, the absence of Sec. 92.435 in the regulations does not

mean that llamas and alpacas will be imported into the United States

indiscriminately. Currently, other ruminants, except ruminants from

Canada and Mexico, undergo a 60-day isolation period in their country

of origin prior to export, to ensure that the animals are free of

disease and are not exposed to disease within those 60 days. Llamas and

alpacas imported from Chile and other countries listed in

Sec. 94.1(d)(1) will likewise undergo quarantine in the country of

origin for 60 days prior to export. In accordance with Sec. 92.411,

which contains the requirements for quarantine of ruminants upon their

arrival in the United States, the llamas and alpacas will be

quarantined upon arrival at the port of entry. Ports designated for the

importation of ruminants requiring quarantine upon arrival are listed

in Sec. 92.403. Paragraph (b) of Sec. 92.411 requires that quarantine

of llamas and alpacas must be for a minimum of 15 days, counting from

the date of arrival at the port of entry in the United States.

Currently, llamas and alpacas that are not imported through HSTAIC are

quarantined for 30 days upon arrival in the United States. Llamas and

alpacas imported from Chile and other countries listed in

Sec. 94.1(d)(1) will also undergo the same 30-day quarantine.

APHIS will also continue to test llamas and alpacas imported from

countries that have been listed in Sec. 94.1(d)(1) for diseases of

concern and will continue to require treatment for endo- and ecto-

parasites. Section 92.404 of the regulations, ``Import permits for

ruminants and for ruminant specimens for diagnostic purposes; and

reservation fees for space at quarantine facilities maintained by

APHIS,'' provides that in order to import a ruminant, an importer must

apply for and obtain an APHIS import permit stating certain

information, such as the number of ruminants to be imported, the

country of origin, individual ruminant identification, and the proposed

date of arrival. Section 92.404 further provides that ``(a)dditional

information may be required in the form of certificates concerning

specific diseases to which the ruminants are susceptible, as well as

vaccinations or other precautionary treatments to which the ruminants

or ruminant test specimens have been subjected. Notice of any such

requirement will be given to the applicant in each case.''

Accordingly, APHIS requires ruminants that are to be imported into

the United States to be tested for certain diseases, according to the

specific disease concerns in the animals' country of origin. Llamas and

alpacas imported from countries that have been listed in

Sec. 94.1(d)(1) will be governed by this same provision. Documentation

of test results and treatments will have to be included on a

certificate, which is required to accompany the llamas and alpacas (see

Sec. 92.405, ``Certificate for ruminants.''). APHIS does not list in

the regulations all the tests required for importation of ruminants

because disease concerns vary by country and species.

In short, APHIS is committed to preventing the introduction of

communicable diseases of livestock into the United States. Given the

FMD-free status of Chile and other countries that have been listed in

Sec. 94.1(d)(1), we have determined that post-entry quarantine at

HSTAIC for llamas and alpacas from these countries is not necessary.

However, under the regulations in part 92, subpart D, llamas and

alpacas imported from Chile and other countries that have been listed

in Sec. 94.1(d)(1) will continue to be quarantined, and will be tested

for all diseases of concern. Removing Sec. 92.435 from the regulations

enables importers to import llamas and alpacas under conditions

appropriate to the disease status of the animals' country of origin.

Another concern of commenters was that Chile is surrounded by

countries where FMD exists. Commenters contended that Chile has no

reliable veterinary infrastructure to prevent the illegal movement of

animals into the country, and, therefore, passage of this rule will

encourage smuggling of llamas and alpacas from neighboring Bolivia and

Peru (both countries in which FMD exists) into Chile, for subsequent

importation into the United States.

We believe that Chile has demonstrated its ability and willingness

to prevent such smuggling. In 1989, a team from APHIS visited Chile to

evaluate its veterinary infrastructure, border controls, laboratory

capabilities, and surveillance and reporting system. Based on this

first-hand observation, the team found Chile's veterinary and animal

health systems to be sound. As a result, APHIS declared Chile free from

FMD in 1990. Chile's FMD-free status has been recognized by the Office

of International Epizootics (OIE) since 1988, as well. Chile has

remained FMD-free for over 7 years, despite the fact that neighboring

countries continue to experience difficulties with controlling the

disease. Chile could not remain FMD free under these circumstances if

Chile did not have an effective veterinary infrastructure and

surveillance system.

While no country's borders are completely impenetrable, Chile has

demonstrated the effectiveness of its program to control the movement

of animals across its borders with neighboring Argentina, Bolivia, and

Peru. Surveillance along Chile's borders is a cooperative effort

between Chile's national veterinary service, the Federal police,

customs officials, and international police. Chile prohibits the

importation of FMD-susceptible animals from countries where FMD exists.

Any animal found crossing the border from Argentina, Bolivia, or Peru

(all countries in which FMD exists) is shot and buried on-site. In

addition to its border control system, Chile also maintains a series of

internal checkpoints along its roadways and highways. Recent FMD

outbreaks in Peru and Argentina have not spilled over into Chile,

demonstrating the success of Chile's efforts against incursion of FMD

from its neighbors.

Some commenters suggested that Chile should be regionalized and

llamas and alpacas should be imported into the United States only from

areas south of the Atacama desert. As previously discussed in this

rulemaking document, many commenters were concerned that it is

difficult to control the movement of llamas and alpacas from

neighboring countries across Chile's borders. According to commenters,

the Atacama desert, located in north-central Chile and covering most of

the Antofagasta region, would serve as a natural barrier through which

movement of animals would be more easily controlled than on the borders

shared by Chile, Bolivia, and Peru.

APHIS will take no action based on this comment because the entire

country of Chile is free from FMD and, therefore, we see no reason to

establish regionalization within Chile. Before recognizing Chile's FMD-

free status, we observed Chile's internal monitoring system as well as

border controls, and found them to be effective in preventing the

introduction of FMD from neighboring countries.

Many commenters criticized the APHIS-funded research project which

was conducted in Argentina and which was cited in the proposal to this

rule as being part of the basis for the proposed rule change. Some

commenters believe that the results of the FMD study conducted in

Argentina are not convincing because reliable tests for detecting FMD

in llamas are lacking. We disagree with this comment. The serological

tests used in the study were the virus infection associated antigen

(VIAA) test and the virus neutralization (VN) test. These tests, which

are internationally recognized, are the best tests available for

detection of FMD antibodies in any susceptible animal species. In all

cases where experimental infection of llamas or alpacas with the FMD

virus has been achieved, we have been able to detect the antibody using

these tests.

One commenter was concerned that the Argentine study did not deal

with the issue of silent carriers. An FMD carrier animal is an

apparently healthy animal that has recovered from FMD infection but

that continues to carry the FMD virus in its oesophageal-pharyngeal

(OP) region for periods longer than 28 days, making it possible for the

animal to potentially spread the disease to other animals. We stated in

the proposal that a primary reason for retaining the HSTAIC quarantine

requirement for llamas and alpacas from Chile and other countries

listed in Sec. 94.1(d)(1) had been our concern about the possible

existence of a carrier state in llamas and alpacas. Therefore, one of

the purposes of the study in Argentina was to determine the ability of

llamas and alpacas, whether infected by or exposed to livestock

actively shedding FMD virus, to become FMD carriers. From the results

of this study, it was concluded that llamas have a high degree of

resistance to infection with the FMD virus, that FMD infected llamas

will be detected using the VIAA and VN tests, and that, unlike cattle

and some other livestock, infected llamas only carry the FMD virus for

a short time.

One commenter stated that too few llamas were infected in the

Argentine study to properly evaluate their ability to be FMD carriers.

In the clinical trial portion of the study, the FMD virus was isolated

from only 2 of the 60 exposed llamas. The clinical trial was designed

to evaluate what would occur in field conditions. Under natural

conditions, an animal must become infected by way of exposure to FMD

before it can be a carrier. To artificially generate a larger number of

carriers (by way of injection) would not have demonstrated what can be

expected to occur under natural conditions.

Another commenter noted that, while all llamas examined in the

field survey portion of the Argentine study tested seronegative to FMD,

so did all sheep tested in the field survey. Since sheep are

susceptible to FMD, the commenter felt that this result suggests the

llamas on the farms selected for the study may not have been exposed to

the disease. Further, the commenter states that all OP samples taken

from llamas and from a few selected cattle and sheep during the field

survey were negative to FMD virus, again suggesting that the llamas may

not have been exposed to FMD virus.

The commenter's observations are valid. However, the field survey

was conducted on nine farms. Only five of these farms reported having

had an outbreak of FMD in the previous 12-24 months, and only one farm

reported having had a recent outbreak of FMD. The sheep that were

tested were from the three remaining farms, which had no reported

occurrence of FMD. Farms with documented outbreaks of FMD either did

not have sheep or, if they did, the sheep from these farms were not

sampled. Further, although the OP samples taken from a few selected

cattle were negative to FMD, the FMD antibody was detected in the

cattle using the VIAA and the VN tests.

A few commenters cited the fact that the FMD virus is species

adaptable and claim that this fact is not accounted for in the

Argentine study. One commenter stated that, if the study had used a

virus that was specifically adapted to llamas, more llamas would have

become infected in the study and more llamas would have become

carriers. We acknowledge that FMD viruses do tend to adapt to species.

However, this tendency has not manifested itself with llamas and

alpacas--there is no evidence that a llama/alpaca-adapted FMD virus

exists. The use of an artificially created llama/alpaca-adapted FMD

virus would not reflect actual conditions to which llamas and alpacas

are exposed in the field.

Some commenters referred to a study done on Plum Island concerning

FMD in llamas, claiming that the study had results which conflict with

those of the Argentine study. The study referred to by commenters was

published in 1990 by Lubroth, et al., and was conducted in 1987 at the

Foreign Animal Disease Diagnostic Laboratory (FADDL) on Plum Island.

None of the results of the FADDL study conflict with the Argentine

study. In particular, the FADDL study concluded that llamas have a high

degree of resistance to FMD virus. Further, researchers in the FADDL

study were unable to isolate the FMD virus in infected llamas beyond

either the first week after inoculation or the first week after

exposure to an inoculated animal. These results are consistent with the

findings from the Argentine study.

One commenter also referred to an unpublished study on FMD in

llamas which the commenter claims came to different conclusions than

the Argentine study. The study to which this commenter refers was

conducted by the Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of

Agriculture, simultaneously with the FADDL study, also on Plum Island.

The results of this study were never published because they were very

similar to those of the FADDL study and because the FADDL study was

more comprehensive. This study also had no results which conflict with

the Argentine study.

Another commenter stated that the Argentine study should not serve

as the basis for our rulemaking because it was not peer reviewed and

was conducted in Argentina with minimal USDA-APHIS involvement. The

study in Argentina was, in fact, planned and conducted as a cooperative

effort between APHIS and the National Institute of Agricultural

Technology in Argentina. Although the study has not been peer reviewed,

the results of the study were presented at the 1993 annual conference

of the United States Animal Health Association (USAHA), and a report of

the study appears in the 1993 USAHA Proceedings.

Some commenters stated that APHIS should not permit increased

numbers of llamas or alpacas to be imported from Chile because llama

owners visiting Chile have reported a high incidence of genetic defects

and a very limited supply of quality llamas available in Chile.

However, the regulations in 9 CFR parts 92 and 94 are established

pursuant to animal quarantine and related laws that generally provide

authority to take action to prevent the introduction or dissemination

of certain diseases. These laws do not provide authority to establish

regulations based merely on factors related to genetics.

One commenter stated that a limited supply of quality llamas in

Chile would mean that most llamas imported from Chile would probably be

llamas that had previously been smuggled from Bolivia into Chile. New

Zealand's experience importing Chilean llamas and alpacas contradicts

this conclusion. New Zealand has imported more than 2,000 llamas and

alpacas from Chile since 1988. There is no evidence that the movement

of llamas and alpacas to New Zealand has encouraged the smuggling of

llamas and alpacas from neighboring countries into Chile for

exportation to New Zealand, and New Zealand has reported no problems

with the quality of Chilean llamas or alpacas. This experience,

combined with our determination that Chile's border control and

surveillance has been adequate to prevent smuggling from neighboring

countries, leads us to conclude that the commenter's concerns are

unfounded.

Some commenters said that this rule should be considered a ``major

rule'' (having an impact of more than $100 million annually), and

stated that an initial regulatory flexibility analysis should be

prepared because they believe the rule will have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small entities. Several commenters

offered scenarios resulting from this rule which would cause

significant economic impact on llama breeders, most of which are small

entities. For example, one commenter offered that, if there are 75,000

llamas currently in the United States, the rule crosses the impact

threshold if the value of each llama is diminished on average by only

$1,333. According to the commenter, adoption of this rule, with its

prospect of unlimited importations of llamas and alpacas, could easily

cause a drop in llama prices equivalent to an average of $1,333 per

head.

The perception that this rule will lead to unlimited imports with a

resulting decline in llama and alpaca values is not supported by our

current information. As previously discussed in this rulemaking

document, llamas and alpacas from Chile will undergo a quarantine of at

least 30 days at an APHIS quarantine facility at a port listed in

Sec. 92.403. While allowing these animals to enter though a facility

other than HSTAIC could allow greater numbers of llama and alpaca

imports from Chile, this rule will not permit unlimited imports.

Currently, the only animal import center that would be able to

accommodate more than a few llamas and alpacas at a time is the New

York Animal Import Center (NYAIC) in Newburgh, New York. Realistically,

NYAIC could handle at most 1,200 llamas and alpacas per year. Keeping

in mind that there are already over 70,000 llamas in the United States,

we do not believe that the addition of 1,200 llamas per year would

cause such a rapid decline in U.S. llama and alpaca prices as to have a

significant adverse effect on the U.S. market.

Our research shows that import demands favor and will continue to

favor high-quality llamas and alpacas. The U.S. llama and alpaca market

has been in decline since about 1989. The market volatility exhibited

by the U.S. llama industry, including extraordinarily high prices as

well as dramatic price declines, is characteristic of a new and growing

industry. However, the 1993 auction year saw solid prices and some very

strong sales. In the Spring Celebration Sale, which was reported to

have the highest averages for any consignment sale, the females

averaged $9,185 and the males averaged $6,485.\1\ Also, it was reported

that, at a 1993 auction of llamas from Peru, the highest quality llamas

were sold within 60 seconds. These reports, and others, indicate the

growing ability of U.S. llama breeders to discern between superior and

inferior animals. They also indicate the increase in market maturity

and greater selectivity on the part of breeders, resulting in firmer

price levels. In short, according to market reports, prices seem to be

stabilizing of their own accord. We expect that the long-term impact of

importing more foreign breeding stock, which will increase selection

and improve the domestic herd, will help stabilize and ultimately

enhance llama and alpaca prices--not depress them.

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

\1\Llama Life, Winter 1993-94, Number 28, pp. 1 and 34.

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

One commenter noted that the proposal's regulatory flexibility

analysis appears to relate solely to llamas, but that llama and alpaca

statistics on number of animals, breeders, prices, and imports are very

different. Our research indicates that the U.S. alpaca industry is in

much the same position as the U.S. llama industry was in several years

ago--a new and growing industry. The U.S. alpaca herd is considerably

smaller than the U.S. llama herd, and alpacas command higher prices

than llamas. However, we do not believe the impact of this rule on the

U.S. alpaca industry will differ significantly from the impact on the

U.S. llama industry for the reasons previously discussed in this

rulemaking document. Most alpaca owners will be purchasing additional

alpacas for breeding purposes, and the availability of high quality

imported alpacas will benefit the industry by improving the domestic

herd.

One commenter asked for a restriction which would limit the number

of llamas and alpacas imported from Chile each year to 100 animals per

importation and only two importations per year. The commenter suggested

that this restriction be in effect for 5 years, after which time the

economic stability of the U.S. llama industry could be reevaluated to

determine if the market can handle an influx of Chilean llamas.

As stated previously in this rulemaking document, we do not expect

this rule to result in importations of llamas and alpacas from Chile on

a scale that would flood the U.S. market. Although we consider the

economic impact of our regulations in accordance with Executive Order

12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, we do not have statutory

authority to establish regulations for the purpose of stabilizing the

U.S. market for llamas and alpacas.

A few commenters disputed APHIS' assertion that the regulations

concerning use of HSTAIC are excessively burdensome. Among the

requirements for importing animals through HSTAIC (found in

Secs. 92.430 and 92.522), an importer must participate in a lottery to

allocate space in the facility for each calendar year. In the past, we

have received approximately 230 applications to use HSTAIC during a

particular calendar year. Of the total number of applicants, only two

or three may actually be able to use HSTAIC in a given year. Further,

use of HSTAIC is expensive--it generally costs $1,092 per head for an

importation of llamas or alpacas through HSTAIC. As cited in the

proposed rule, importers will save approximately $700 per head by

shipping llamas and alpacas though a U.S. animal import center other

than HSTAIC.

The requirements for use of HSTAIC are not excessively burdensome

when disease concerns warrant the high security quarantine offered

there. However, given the FMD-free status of Chile and the other

countries listed in Sec. 94.1(d)(1), and given the findings of the

Argentine study on FMD in llamas and alpacas, the requirements are in

excess of those that are necessary to prevent the introduction of

communicable diseases of livestock into the United States.

One commenter cited a recent revision of the rules regarding the

use of HSTAIC, and suggested that these revisions may ameliorate any

perceived logistical difficulty. The revision cited was published in

the Federal Register as a final rule on March 1, 1994 (59 FR 9617-622,

Docket No. 91-65-2), with an effective date of August 31, 1994. The

final rule amended the regulations (1) To require a $32,000 deposit for

each lottery application; (2) by changing the application and lottery

dates; (3) by requiring lottery winners to pay the costs of maintaining

HSTAIC for certain periods when it is reserved for the lottery winner

and not available to other importers; (4) to state that APHIS will not

accept applications for the lottery from persons with outstanding debts

to APHIS; and (5) to discontinue the practice of ``tiering'' the

lottery that previously gave certain animals priority to use HSTAIC.

These changes were promulgated to discourage frivolous applications, to

help ensure that there is adequate time to assemble necessary

information prior to each lottery, and to minimize financial losses

incurred by APHIS. However, the basic conditions for the use of HSTAIC

remain unchanged--importers must apply for space in HSTAIC, space is

very limited, only a small percentage of applicants are granted use of

the facilities, and use of HSTAIC is expensive. In contrast, other U.S.

animal import centers such as NYAIC can handle multiple importations at

one time, do not require importers to go through a lottery in order to

reserve space, and are not as expensive as HSTAIC.

One commenter suggested that regulations concerning the importation

of llamas and alpacas should be placed in a separate subpart in 9 CFR

part 92, so that llamas and alpacas could be regulated separately from

other ruminants. We have made no changes based on this comment. All

research conducted by APHIS or reviewed by APHIS indicates that, at

this time, there is no reason to regulate llamas and alpacas separately

from other ruminants.

Another commenter said that APHIS should have conducted a

quantitative risk assessment in deciding whether to remove the

requirement for quarantine at HSTAIC. The commenter also requested that

APHIS promulgate the risk assessment criteria it plans to follow so

that interested parties would have an opportunity to supply relevant

information to APHIS for consideration. A risk assessment was prepared

for this rule. It focuses on the risk of FMD being introduced into the

United States by llamas or alpacas imported from Chile under this rule.

The risk assessment indicates that there is a negligible risk of FMD

being introduced into the United States under this rule.

One commenter determined that under the National Environmental

Policy Act (NEPA) an environmental impact statement should be prepared

for this rule. In response to this comment, APHIS has prepared an

environmental assessment, which resulted in a finding of no significant

impact concerning the provisions of this rule change. Specifically, the

finding of no significant impact concluded that ``(i)mplementation of

the proposed action should not increase the likelihood of introduction

of FMD into the United States or have any significant impact on human

health and safety or the health of domestic animals or wildlife.''

Therefore, based on the rationale set forth in the proposed rule

and in this document, we are adopting the provisions of the proposal as

a final rule.

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act

This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. This

rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of

Executive Order 12866, and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the

Office of Management and Budget.

Current regulations require llamas and alpacas from Austria,

Belgium, Chile, France, Germany, Hungary, The Netherlands, Poland,

Republic of Korea, and Spain to enter the United States through HSTAIC,

where they must remain quarantined for at least 40 days. Costs depend

on the size of the shipment, but are generally $1,092 per head.

Competition for the quarantine space at HSTAIC is intense. Import

requests are awarded on a lottery basis. Since 1990, when this lottery

system became effective, three importations of llamas and alpacas have

occurred.

The greater ease of importing could attract persons into the

business of importing llamas and alpacas from Chile into the United

States. (We are not aware of any llamas and alpacas in other countries

declared free from FMD on or after September 28, 1990, that are

available for export.) Based on past requests for the use of HSTAIC,

imports could reach 900 llamas and alpacas per year, although we

consider half that number more realistic. This rule will save importers

of Chilean llamas and alpacas at least $592,488 for a shipment of 900

animals and $296,244 for a shipment of 450. For purposes of this

analysis, savings are calculated using shipments of 450 animals because

HSTAIC can accommodate no more than 450 llamas and alpacas per

shipment. The rule will be beneficial to importers of Chilean llama and

alpacas, who will save approximately $700 per llama or alpaca imported

through an animal import center other than HSTAIC. The decreases in

price and quarantine time, along with greater access to quarantine

facilities, will remove some barriers to entry into the import market.

We estimate between 15 and 20 importers, all small entities, could be

affected by this rule.

The potential effect on breeders of llamas and alpacas in the

United States depends on the demand elasticity of the market.

Independent of this rulemaking, the domestic price for llamas and

alpacas has been decreasing during the past few years, and we expect

prices to continue to fall. Current market values for females range

from $5,000 to $8,000, but have gone as low as $2,000. These prices are

down from the 1989 values of $7,500 to $10,000. Prices for males used

as pets or pack animals have remained relatively steady at $500 to

$1,500. Prices for stud-quality males were not available. Current

figures are not available, but in 1989 approximately 99 percent of the

llama and alpaca breeders in the United States were believed to be

small entities. With prices decreasing and llama and alpaca births

rising annually in the United States as a result of forces unrelated to

the regulatory changes made in this document, we do not expect our rule

to significantly affect a substantial number of breeders.

Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and

Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action will

not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small

entities.

Executive Order 12778

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12778, Civil

Justice Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts all State and local laws and

regulations 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.

Paperwork Reduction Act

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq.), the information collection or recordkeeping requirements

included in this rule have been submitted for approval to the Office of

Management and Budget.

List of Subjects

9 CFR Part 92

Animal diseases, Imports, Livestock, Poultry and poultry products,

Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

9 CFR Part 94

Animal diseases, Imports, Livestock, Meat and meat products, Milk,

Poultry and poultry products, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Accordingly, 9 CFR parts 92 and 94 are amended as follows:

PART 92--IMPORTATION OF CERTAIN ANIMALS AND POULTRY AND CERTAIN

ANIMAL AND POULTRY PRODUCTS; INSPECTION AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS FOR

CERTAIN MEANS OF CONVEYANCE AND SHIPPING CONTAINERS THEREON

1. The authority citation for part 92 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1622; 19 U.S.C. 1306; 21 U.S.C. 102-105,

111, 114a, 134a, 134b, 134c, 134d, 134f, 135, 136, and 136a; 31

U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.17, 2.51, and 371.2(d).

Sec. 92.405 [Amended]

2. In Sec. 92.405, paragraph (a), the phrase ``, and 92.435 of this

part'' is removed.

Sec. 92.411 [Amended]

3. In Sec. 92.411, paragraph (b)(1), the first sentence, the phrase

``other than llamas and alpacas from countries listed in Sec. 94.1(d)

of this chapter, and'' is removed.

4. In paragraph (b)(2) of Sec. 92.411, the last sentence is

removed.

Sec. 92.435 [Amended]

5. Section 92.435 is removed.

PART 94--RINDERPEST, FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE, FOWL PEST (FOWL

PLAGUE), VELOGENIC VISCEROTROPIC NEWCASTLE DISEASE, AFRICAN SWINE

FEVER, HOG CHOLERA, AND BOVINE SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY:

PROHIBITED AND RESTRICTED IMPORTATIONS

6. 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, 4332; 7 CFR 2.17, 2.51, and 371.2(d).

Sec. 94.1 [Amended]

7. In Sec. 94.1, paragraph (d) is removed.

Done in Washington, DC, this 11th day of October 1994.

Lonnie J. King,

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.

[FR Doc. 94-25612 Filed 10-14-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-34-P