Comment from Tad Hardy, Louisiana Department of Agriculture & Forestry

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Docket No. APHIS 2006-0137, ?User Fees; Export Certification for Plants and Plant Products.? Clearly there is a need to revisit the ten-year-old fee structure for federal phytosanitary certificate (FPC) issuance. However, there are several points we wish to address: 1. Creating an incremental fee structure that is adjusted, on average, once every two years seems somewhat confusing and unnecessary. This continuing adjustment will increase the need for federal and state paperwork adjustments (printing, tracking, etc.) and will require more extensive, ongoing stakeholder education. It would seem more prudent to select a permanent fee structure that will meet the needs of the program for the next five years and establish it now. 2. While there may be adequate justification for implementing the fee adjustments as proposed for FPCs issued by federal personnel, there is not adequate justification offered for imposing the additional user fee for FPCs issued by state and county cooperators. USDA lists three reasons to justify the additional fee: Printing of FPCs: The number of FPCs printed by the federal government is not a function of federal versus state issuance. In a given year, the number of FPCs issued will remain the same, regardless of which entity issues the certificates. The number of FPCs printed and issued will be based on the number of export shipments requiring FPCs. This is completely independent of who issues them. Printing costs are not an adequate justification for imposing the additional fee. Distribution of FPCs: The number of FPCs distributed by the federal government is not a function of federal versus state issuance. In a given year, the number of FPCs distributed will remain the same, regardless of which entity issues the certificates. FPCs must be distributed to sites where issuance occurs, whether federal or state. The cost associated with distributing FPCs to state sites verses federal sites is minimal at most. Distribution costs are not an adequate justification for imposing the additional fee. Tracking of FPCs: The number of FPCs tracked by the federal government is not a function of federal versus state issuance. In a given year, the number of FPCs issued will remain the same, regardless of which entity issues the certificates. The number of FPCs tracked will be based on the number of export shipments requiring FPCs. The Export Certification Specialist (ECS) positions were created to assist in the FPC tracking efforts, and the number of FPCs tracked annually by ECS personnel is independent of which entity issues them. Tracking costs are not an adequate justification for imposing the additional fee. Elimination of the above three reasons offered by USDA as justification for the additional user fee eliminates the need for such an additional fee. A supplemental fee for state- or county-issued FPCs is unjustified and ill-advised. For states that cannot utilize the PCIT payment structure, this proposed additional user fee imposes additional work on the state (to track the fee from the exporter and to re- issue the fee to USDA) to collect a fee to which the state has no claim. This proposal increases state workload and state costs while providing no financial support to the state from USDA. States and counties issue FPCs as a service to exporters, typically in instances or at sites where issuance is not feasible for USDA personnel. This proposal penalizes both exporters and state / county cooperators for performing this service. The additional user fee for state- or county-issued FPCs should not be imposed. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this issue. Sincerely, Tad Hardy, Admin. Coordinator Quarantine Programs LDAF