[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 19 (Monday, January 29, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 2660-2665]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-1506]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
7 CFR Part 354
[Docket No. 94-074-2]
RIN 0579-AA68
User Fees--Commercial Aircraft and Vessels; Phytosanitary
Certificates
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are amending the user fee regulations by lowering the fees
charged for certain agricultural quarantine and inspection services we
provide in connection with the arrival of an international commercial
aircraft at a port in the customs territory of the United States. We
are also amending the user fee regulations by raising the fees charged
for export certification of plants and plant products. We have
determined, based on a review of our user fees, that the fees must be
adjusted to reflect the actual cost of providing these services. In
addition, we are amending the user fee regulations to clarify the
exemption for certain vessels which sail only between the United States
and Canada.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 1, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning program
operations, contact Mr. Don Thompson, Staff Officer, Port Operations,
PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 136, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236, (301)
734-8295.
For information concerning rate development, contact Ms. Donna
Ford, PPQ User Fees Section Head, FSSB, BAD, APHIS, 4700 River Road,
Unit 54, Riverdale, MD 20737-1232, (301) 734-5901.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The regulations in 7 CFR 354.3 (referred to below as the
``regulations'') contain provisions for the collection of user fees for
certain international services provided by the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service (APHIS). Among the services covered by these user
fees are: (1) Servicing international commercial aircraft and vessels
arriving at ports in the customs territory of the United States; and
(2) certifying plants and plant products for export.
On May 24, 1995, we published a document in the Federal Register
(60 FR 27437-27441, Docket 94-074-1) proposing various changes to these
regulations.
We solicited comments concerning our proposal for 30 days ending
June 23, 1995. We received 45 comments by that date from trade
associations connected with the air travel industry, trade associations
representing various sectors of the lumber industry, producers in the
lumber, flower, and other plant or plant-related industries, members of
Congress, and private individuals. The comments are discussed below by
topic.
International Commercial Aircraft
We proposed to amend the user fee for agricultural quarantine and
inspection (AQI) services provided by APHIS in connection with the
arrival of an international commercial aircraft at a port in the
customs territory of the United States. (The customs territory of the
United States is defined in the regulations as the 50 States, the
District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.) the current user fee for
services for international commercial aircraft is $61. We proposed to
lower this user fee from $61 to $53 for each arrival. We determined the
proposed fee based on a review of user fees collected in FY 1993 and FY
1994 and a projection of our cost and revenue for FY 1995. As stated in
our proposal, the lower fee is necessary to avoid collecting more
revenue than needed to cover the costs of the services we provide.
Only three comments directly addressed the proposed fee reduction.
One commenter expressed no ``specific objection'' to lowering the fee,
but ``[took] exception to * * * lowering the fee charged * * * while
overlooking the inadequate passenger inspection staffing levels.'' A
second commenter stated that ``it is almost impossible to reconcile
this proposed reduction with the current levels of service provided by
APHIS * * *''. The third commenter expressed displeasure with our
collecting user fees both from air passengers and from airlines, and
suggested that the passenger fee alone should be adequate to cover all
costs.
We are not making any changes based on these comments. The
inspection service provided to airline passengers is different than the
inspection service provided for aircraft. We therefore charge separate
user fees for these services. Aircraft user fees are paid by the
airlines, passenger user fees are paid by the individual passengers,
and the amount of each fee is based on the cost of providing each
service.
All government agencies are currently under mandate to reduce staff
year ceilings, i.e. the number of employees. We have no plans to reduce
the staff year ceilings in the AQI program and we are considering ways
to increase such staff year ceilings. However, we would have to review
any increases carefully to ensure sufficient staffing in other APHIS
and U.S. Department of Agriculture programs.
One commenter stated that the commercial aircraft inspection fee is
``contrary to and inconsistent with the international obligations of
the United States, and thus must be withdrawn.'' The comment suggested
that this APHIS user fee violates the Convention on International Civil
Aviation (``Chicago Convention'') and certain specified bilateral air
transport service agreements and treaties, such as the U.S. Air
Transport Agreement with Italy. The comment stated that this issue has
been raised in previous rulemakings on APHIS user fees.
Although we have never previously specifically addressed the U.S.
Air Transport Agreement with Italy, we believe our previous discussions
of these issues are also pertinent to this agreement. Its language is
similar, if not identical, to the many bilateral Air Transport Services
Agreements to which the United States is a party, and which we have
addressed in previous Federal Register documents.
[[Page 2661]]
On April 12, 1991, we discussed this subject in a final rule
published in the Federal Register (56 FR 14837-14846, Docket No. 91-
028; see pages 14840 and 14841), and concluded that APHIS complied with
the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the Caribbean Basin
Economic Recovery Act, the U.S. Air Transport Agreement with Austria,
the U.S.-Jamaican Bilateral Aviation Agreement of 1969, and that the
International Civil Aviation Convention (ICAO) does not apply to APHIS.
Again, on January 9, 1992, in a final rule published in the Federal
Register (57 FR 755-773, Docket No. 91-135, see pp. 762-763), we
responded to the same or similar concerns. At that time, we addressed:
(1) The Chicago Convention; (2) bilateral air transport agreements with
Switzerland and the United Kingdom; (3) the United States-Japan Treaty
of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation; (4) GATT; and (5) ICAO. We
continue to believe that the Chicago Convention and ICOA are
inapplicable to APHIS and that the user fees are in compliance with the
bilateral air transport agreements as well as the United States-Japan
Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation, and GATT.
International Commercial Vessels
The May 24, 1995 proposal also sought to clarify the exemption from
user fees for any vessel which sails only between United States and
Canadian ports. To aid the identification of vessels eligible for this
exemption, we proposed to require the Masters of such vessels to state
in their General Declaration, Customs Form 1301, that the vessel has
sailed solely between the United States and Canada for the previous 2
years.
None of the comments specifically addressed the proposal to clarify
this exemption. One commenter, however, stated that the exemption is
inequitable and should be abolished because it allows these ships to be
inspected without payment of any user fees, and the result is that
those who pay user fees for other APHIS services subsidize vessel
inspections.
These vessels were originally exempt from paying the user fee
because they pose little animal or plant disease or pest risk to United
States agriculture, and APHIS does not provide agricultural quarantine
inspection services for them (see 56 FR 8150). There has been no change
in the animal or plant risk posed by these vessels and we still do not
provide inspection services to them. Therefore, we are not making any
change in our proposal based on this comment.
Phytosanitary Certificates
The May 24, 1995, proposed rule also proposed to raise user fees
for certifying plants and plant products for export. APHIS inspectors
and designated State employees issue phytosanitary certificates in
accordance with the International Plant Protection Convention and
regulations in 7 CFR part 353, certifying that agricultural products
being exported from the United States are free from injurious insects
and diseases.
Virtually all of the comments we received addressed these user
fees. With one exception, the commenters were opposed to any fee
increase. The comments raised the following issues:
1. Economic Impact/Benefit to User
Many commenters stated that the fees are unfair or too high, and
raise the cost of doing business because they cannot be passed on. Some
commenters were particularly concerned that small businesses will be
harmed by the proposed increases in user fees.
APHIS sympathizes with these commenters and has attempted to
minimize the cost of the services, thereby keeping the user fees at the
lowest possible level for all users. Also, APHIS previously established
a user fee category for low value commercial shipments in an attempt to
minimize the impact on small businesses.
However, when Congress authorized APHIS to prescribe and collect
user fees to recover the costs of inspecting plants and plant products
for export, it specifically reduced APHIS' appropriation by the
estimated amount of providing such services. Currently, APHIS is not
appropriated funds to cover the cost of providing these services.
Therefore, APHIS must charge user fees which recover the full cost of
providing the service. For this reason, APHIS cannot exempt certain
classes of users, such as small businesses, from the user fees, and
cannot charge user fees which recover less than the full cost of
providing the service.
Another commenter stated that there is no benefit to the user that
``caused'' the fee increase. We believe the commenter's intended
meaning was that there is no benefit to the user which justifies the
fee increase.
We disagree. The proposed user fees are designed to recover the
cost of providing phytosanitary certificates. These certificates are
not required by APHIS or any other agency of the Federal Government.
They are required by foreign countries importing the plant or plant
products and are provided to the exporters solely for their benefit.
The exporters could not import their plant and plant products into most
foreign countries without such a certificate.
2. Eliminate Phytosanitary Certificate Requirements
Several commenters suggested that phytosanitary certificates should
not or need not be required for certain products. As discussed above,
phytosanitary certificates are required by the country importing the
plant or plant product; they are not required by APHIS, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, or any other agency or organization within
the Federal Government. Therefore, we are unable to eliminate
certificate requirements. However, on August 16, 1995, we published a
proposal in the Federal Register (60 FR 42472-42479, Docket No. 90-117-
1, see p. 72474) to allow, under an agreement with the European Union,
approved producers in the United States to complete their own
certificates for kiln-dried lumber and other plant products. The
certificate requirement would not be eliminated, but obtaining a
certificate would be much simpler and less time consuming for the
recipient. We will continue to work with other countries for
improvements such as these.
3. Relationship of User Fee to Time Spent Providing Service
Several comments suggested that we adjust our user fees to take
into account how long it takes to provide the service or whether we
conduct an on-site inspection.
After carefully considering this comment we have determined not to
make any changes in the proposed regulation. The time spent by APHIS
employees is only part of the cost that we must recover through user
fees. Supplies, overhead, equipment, telephone, and numerous support
costs must be included. A service may be provided faster in one
instance than another; however, our proposed user fees reflect the
average cost of providing particular services on a nationwide basis. To
adjust the fee on the basis of the time it takes to provide the service
would increase the cost of the fees by the additional time and expense
involved in customizing the fee for each individual inspection and
issuance of a phytosanitary certificate. We believe such a system would
be expensive to administer and the additional expenses of such a system
would, in turn, have to be included in the fee, raising it further.
[[Page 2662]]
4. Competitiveness
Many comments stated that our proposed user fees would make it
difficult or impossible for U.S. products to compete in the
international marketplace, especially as some foreign countries,
including Canada, do not charge for phytosanitary certificates. Some
comments also stated that our proposed user fees are anti-competitive
because some countries do not require certificates from exporters in
certain other countries. Comments also stated that our proposed user
fees contradict efforts to increase U.S. exports and will inhibit
exports.
We have carefully considered these comments, but are not making any
changes based on them. Although some countries do not currently charge
for issuing phytosanitary certificates, user fees for this service are
being adopted by more and more countries. In fact, as of May 17, 1995,
Canada charges a user fee for all export phytosanitary certificates
(see May 17, 1995, Canada Gazette Part II, Vol. 129, No. 10, SOR/DORS/
95-218). Other countries, including New Zealand, France, Australia,
Belgium and The Netherlands, also charge user fees for export
phytosanitary certificates. U.S. exporters are therefore not at a
competitive disadvantage compared with exporters in other countries.
To the best of our knowledge, there are no countries which do not
require phytosanitary certificates. However, some countries do not
enforce their requirements in all cases. Also, some countries have
negotiated with individual trading partners and agreed to adjust
certain specific requirements, such as, for example, who fills out the
form and who conducts the inspection, to make certificates easier or
cheaper to obtain. For example, as mentioned elsewhere in this
document, we proposed to allow, under an agreement with the European
Union, approved producers in the United States to complete their own
certificates for kiln-dried lumber and certain other plant products.
Because APHIS inspectors would not inspect each export shipment, costs
would be reduced for both APHIS and the exporter. In this situation the
certificate requirement would not be eliminated, but obtaining a
certificate would be simpler and less time consuming.
5. APHIS Costs and Procedures
Several comments suggested that APHIS should keep its costs as low
as possible, to keep user fees as low as possible. Other comments, many
of which made specific suggestions, stated that APHIS should improve
its service. The suggestions included changes in procedures and
paperwork.
We are always trying to reduce our costs and operate as efficiently
as possible to maintain APHIS user fees at the lowest possible level.
All of the suggestions made by commenters will be carefully considered.
If we determine that changes in procedures and paperwork requirements
are practical and desirable, we will publish proposed changes for
public comment in the Federal Register.
6. Effective Date
One comment suggested that we delay the effective date of any final
rule until January 1996. We understand the commenter's desire to make
business plans and not have business already settled affected by
increases in our user fees. This rule will not take effect until 30
days after the date it is published in the Federal Register. This delay
should give the commenter and others time to prepare.
7. Calculations
One comment objected that a disproportionate share of APHIS costs
is allocated to agricultural exports. The comment appears to say that
APHIS is recovering 21 percent of the total cost for our agricultural
quarantine and inspection (AQI) program through user fees for
phytosanitary certificates. The comment also compares aircraft user
fees with phytosanitary certificate fees and states that each aircraft
fee covers up to 300 individual passenger inspections.
Neither of these statements is correct. User fees for phytosanitary
certificates recover only that portion of the total costs of the AQI
program attributable to phytosanitary certificate issuance.
Phytosanitary certificates actually account for less than 5 percent of
total AQI program costs. More than 95 percent of total AQI program
costs is recovered through other user fees or through appropriated
funds. Among the other user fees is a fee for international commercial
aircraft. The user fee for international commercial aircraft recovers
only the portion of total AQI program costs attributable to
international commercial aircraft inspections. It does not cover
inspection of aircraft passengers. Passengers on international
commercial aircraft pay a separate user fee for inspection services.
This user fee recovers only that portion of total AQI program costs
attributable to international commercial aircraft passenger
inspections. Therefore, we are making no changes based on these
comments.
8. State-Issued Phytosanitary Certificates
A couple of comments addressed the fact that phytosanitary
certificates are issued by some States, and those State-issued
certificates often cost less than federally-issued certificates. The
commenters were concerned that APHIS is ``losing business'' to States.
The commenters were also concerned that recipients of State-issued
certificates are not paying any fee to APHIS, although the certificates
themselves are provided by APHIS, which must also maintain files, track
certificates, and otherwise manage the program.
APHIS provides a service to the public and is not ``in business''
as such. Because APHIS seeks to provide efficient and economical
service, designated State officials are permitted to issue
phytosanitary certificates. Users have the option of obtaining a
phytosanitary certificate from a designated State official, which is
often more convenient, and saves substantial time and transportation
costs.
The commenters are correct that APHIS provides certificates to
States and provides oversight of State programs. Although we have
decided not to make any changes in the proposed regulations at this
time, we will analyze the issue to determine if further adjustments in
the user fees are warranted. If we determine that changes are
desirable, we will publish proposed changes for comment in the Federal
Register.
9. New Fee
One comment suggested that we establish a new category of user fee
for issuing phytosanitary certificates for the reexport of
noncommercial shipments. We are not aware of the need for such an
additional category of user fee at this time. However, we will keep
this suggestion in mind as we continue to review the user fee program.
If we determine that there is a demand for this type of certificate, we
will publish a proposed fee for public comment in the Federal Register.
10. Miscellaneous
One commenter asked who pays for other services. We have user fees
for other services, where appropriate, and the users of those services
pay for them. We do not have user fees for domestic programs. User fees
apply only to import and export services.
The same commenter asked why we ``encourage foreign airlines.''
This comment was apparently prompted by our proposal to lower the user
fee for international commercial aircraft. This
[[Page 2663]]
user fee applies to all commercial aircraft arriving in the customs
territory of the United States. Ownership of the aircraft--foreign or
domestic--is irrelevant. The user fee is designed to recover the cost
of inspection services provided to each aircraft. The fact that we
proposed to lower the user fee only reflects the fact that the costs of
providing this service were lower than anticipated.
Another commenter stated that there is a double charge for State
certificates which are then endorsed by APHIS. We believe the commenter
has misunderstood the system for issuing Federal phytosanitary
certificates. Federal phytosanitary certificates are issued only by
APHIS officials or, in some States which cooperate with APHIS, by
designated State officials. Users pay only one fee for a Federal
phytosanitary certificate, although the certificate may be obtained
from a State or APHIS official.
Some States require a State phytosanitary certificate before
allowing plants or plant products to be moved into their territory from
other parts of the United States. State phytosanitary certificates are
generally not valid for exports to another country.\1\ If a shipper
obtains, and pays for, a State phytosanitary certificate to ship a
commodity interstate, and the shipper then decides to export the plant
or plant products instead, then the shipper must obtain a Federal
certificate either from the State, if it issues Federal phytosanitary
certificates, or from APHIS. If the shipper obtains a certificate from
APHIS, the user fee due for APHIS' certification is not a double
charge: The Federal phytosanitary certificate is a separate document
issued for a different purpose.
\1\ For certain products from certain States, some countries may
accept a State phytosanitary certificate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are two ways to obtain a federally-issued phytosanitary
certificate for plants regulated under the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The exporter has a choice--
he or she can either obtain a State phytosanitary certificate and
forward it to certain designated APHIS offices, which will issue a
Federal phytosanitary certificate to the exporter by mail; or the
exporter can bring the plants to the nearest designated APHIS office
and APHIS personnel will issue the Federal phytosanitary certificate
directly to the exporter. Which method to use is up to the exporter. If
the exporter chooses to obtain a State phytosanitary certificate and
forward it to APHIS, there will be two fees--one for the State
phytosanitary certificate and one for the Federal phytosanitary
certificate. However, the exporter would save the cost of transporting
the plants to the designated APHIS office.
One commenter stated that he could not figure out in advance what
the user fee would be for a phytosanitary certificate and did not
understand how to obtain a refund of overpayments. This situation only
results when a prospective exporter buys a block of phytosanitary
certificates from APHIS, paying a fixed amount per certificate. Because
the user fee varies for different types of certificates, the actual
user fee due for a particular phytosanitary certificate is not known
until the certificate is complete. For example, the user fee due for a
low value commercial shipment may be less than the user fee already
paid for the certificate. Under these circumstances, the user is
entitled to a refund from APHIS. We have an established refund system.
The user should contact the APHIS office where the block of
certificates was purchased to arrange for a refund.
One commenter also stated that APHIS no longer issues phytosanitary
certificates for as many different plant and plant products as the
agency once did. This is correct. Because importing countries have
stopped requiring phytosanitary certificates for some plants and plant
products, APHIS has stopped issuing phytosanitary certificates for
these plants and plant products.
11. Regulatory Impact Analysis
One comment stated that we have not conducted an economic analysis
of the proposed phytosanitary certificate fees. This is incorrect. Our
analysis was included in the proposed regulations at 60 FR 27439-27440.
An updated analysis, using the most current data available at the time
this was written, is a part of this document.
One comment stated that if we raise the user fees for phytosanitary
certificates, the number of certificates APHIS issues will decline. The
commenter may be correct. However, we do not have data to show how much
of a decline might occur. Regardless, we are required to recover the
cost of providing the service. Therefore, it is necessary to increase
our fees for issuing phytosanitary certificates.
Another comment questioned our statement that $3 billion in exports
was certified during 1993, and suggested it should be much higher. We
have rechecked all of our figures and find that the commenter is
correct. In fact, approximately $39 billion in agricultural exports was
certified in 1993. Our original figure included only fruits and
vegetables; major exports such as lumber and wood products and grain
and cereals were not included. We have revised our Regulatory
Flexibility Act analysis to reflect the correct figure.
Four comments disagreed with our conclusion that the proposed fees
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. One stated that we should compare the total user fees
paid by the affected industry with the profit generated by that
industry, rather than comparing user fee costs with overall value of
exports. Another stated that our analysis was valid only as to large
wholesale agriculture shipments.
We have carefully reviewed our analysis. Based on the data
available to us, we continue to believe the proposed fees will not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. We would have compared the amount of proposed user fees with
business profits if this were possible. However, information on profits
from sales is proprietary for many small entities and not part of the
public record. In order to minimize any potential impact from increased
user fees, small exporters could work through brokers to combine
shipments.
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, without change.
Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. The rule
has been determined to be significant for the purposes of Executive
Order 12866 and, therefore, has been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget.
This rule will increase the user fees for phytosanitary
certificates to recover the cost to APHIS of providing export
certification services for plants and plant products. This rule will
also reduce the user fee for international commercial aircraft to
correspond with the cost to APHIS of providing services. Amendments to
user fees are necessary to adjust for changes in service volume and
service costs.
Federal phytosanitary certificates must be issued by APHIS or, as
explained earlier, by designated State employees in States that
cooperate with APHIS, to be accepted in international commerce. Federal
phytosanitary certificates must accompany the majority of agricultural
commodities (except livestock products) traded. Traded commodities
generally include
[[Page 2664]]
cereals and grains (such as soybeans, wheat, and corn), fruits and
vegetables, other nursery and horticultural products, and lumber and
wood products. In 1993, the value of exported agricultural products
requiring phytosanitary certificates was estimated at $39 billion.
Current user fees for phytosanitary certificates do not fully
recover APHIS' costs for services performed. In fiscal year 1994, the
total cost of providing phytosanitary certificate services was
$4,314,000, while total fee collections amounted only to $3,015,000
when the fees were $30 for commercial certificates and $19 for
noncommercial certificates. The reason for the discrepancy is that we
overestimated the number of certificates and underestimated the time to
issue a certificate, thereby underestimating the cost of issuing each
certificate. The total program cost for the 1995 fiscal year, which we
should have recovered through user fees, was estimated at $4,707,000.
This amount includes costs associated with the direct charges for
program delivery and associated allocations for program direction and
support, agency support, departmental charges, and Office of the
General Counsel services. If the proposed fee increases are adopted,
estimated collections would rise to $4,717,947 annually.
Exporters of agricultural commodities will be affected by this
rule. The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires APHIS to address the
economic impact of imposing user fees on ``small'' entities. The Small
Business Administration (SBA) criteria for a small wholesale business
engaged in the trading of fresh fruits and vegetables is that the
business have 100 or fewer employees. SBA criteria for a small crop
production business is that it have annual revenues up to $500,000.
Approximately 98,387 federally-issued phytosanitary certificates
were issued in 1994. Certificates for commercial shipments are issued
to wholesale businesses engaged in the trading of cereals and grains,
fresh fruits and vegetables, other nursery and horticultural products,
and lumber and wood products. Certificates are also issued to export
brokers who handle shipments of produce from various sources. The
proportion of exporters in this group which may qualify as small is
unknown. It is likely that a large number of these brokers employ fewer
than 100 workers.
The value of an average commercial shipment greatly exceeds the
increase in the $30 user fee up to the $50 user fee. The total value of
agricultural products requiring phytosanitary certificates exported in
1993, estimated at $39 billion, is sufficiently large to incorporate
the 0.012 percent ($4.7 million) in total user fee collection;
consequently, the impact on U.S. producers and exporters is expected to
be very small.
Phytosanitary certificates for noncommercial exporters are
generally issued to individuals and to exporters of low value
commodities. The user fee for this category of phytosanitary
certificate will increase from $19 to $23, an increase of 21 percent.
Although user fees represent a proportionately larger share of the
total value of noncommercial and low value exports, these small exports
may possess a much higher value in the foreign country than in the
United States. Moreover, exports by individuals may be gift items with
nonmonetary values offsetting some of the effect of the fee increase.
SBA criteria for a small airline is that it have 1,500 or fewer
employees. Data from the 1988 Census indicates that there were 67
domestic and international airline operators employing a total of
481,000 employees. Although the size distribution of air carriers that
enter the customs territory of the United States is unknown, the effect
of the proposed user fee change, regardless of carrier size, is
positive--we are proposing a 13 percent user fee reduction, from $61 to
$53 per aircraft. The lower fee is sufficient to recover the full cost
of providing aircraft inspection services, without collecting more
revenue than needed to recover costs. The estimated cost to provide
inspection services for international commercial aircraft in FY 1995 is
$18 million. At the proposed user fee of $53 per aircraft and a
projected FY 1995 commercial aircraft volume of 346,204, total
collections would amount to $18.3 million.
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 12372
This program/activity is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance under No. 10.025 and is subject to Executive Order 12372,
which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local
officials. (See 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V.)
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 approved by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB), and there are no new requirements. The assigned OMB
control number is 1515-0062.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 354
Exports, Government employees, Imports, Plant diseases and pests,
Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Travel and
transportation expenses.
Accordingly, 7 CFR part 354 is amended as follows:
PART 354--OVERTIME SERVICES RELATING TO IMPORTS AND EXPORTS; AND
USER FEES
1. The authority citation for part 354 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 2260; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 49 U.S.C.
1741; 7 CFR 2.17, 2.51, and 371.2(c).
Sec. 354.3 [Amended]
2. Section 354.3 is amended as follows:
a. By revising paragraph (b)(2)(vi) to read as set forth below.
b. In paragraph (e)(1), the last sentence, by removing ``$61.00''
and adding ``$53'' in its place.
c. In paragraph (g)(5)(i)(A), by removing ``$30'' and adding
``$50'' in its place.
d. In paragraph (g)(5)(i)(B), by removing ``$19'' and adding
``$23'' in its place.
e. In paragraph (g)(5)(ii), by removing ``$19'' and adding ``$23''
in its place.
f. In paragraph (g)(5)(iii)(A), by removing ``$30'' and adding
``$50'' in its place.
g. In paragraph (g)(5)(iii)(B), by removing ``$19'' and adding
``$23'' in its place.
h. In paragraph (g)(5)(iv), by removing ``$30'' and adding ``$50''
in its place.
i. In paragraph (g)(5)(v), by removing ``$6'' and adding ``$7'' in
its place.
j. In paragraph (h)(2), by removing ``$6'' and adding ``$7'' in its
place.
k. By adding at the end of the section the following: ``(Approved
by the Office of Management and Budget under control numbers 1515-0062,
0579-0094, or 0579-0052)''.
[[Page 2665]]
Sec. 354.3 User fees for certain international services.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(vi) Any vessel which sails only between United States and Canadian
ports, when the Master of such vessel arriving from Canada certifies,
in the ``Remarks'' block of the General Declaration, Customs Form 1301,
that the vessel has sailed solely between the United States and Canada
for the previous 2 years.
* * * * *
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
numbers 1515-0062, 0579-0094, or 0579-0052)
Done in Washington, DC, this 24th day of January 1996.
Lonnie J. King,
Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 96-1506 Filed 1-26-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
