[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 199 (Monday, October 17, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-25612]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: October 17, 1994]


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


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