[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
