Revision of Fees for the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Terminal Market Inspection Services, 49882-49885 [05-16863]
Download as PDF
49882
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
Vol. 70, No. 164
Thursday, August 25, 2005
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains notices to the public of the proposed
issuance of rules and regulations. The
purpose of these notices is to give interested
persons an opportunity to participate in the
rule making prior to the adoption of the final
rules.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Part 51
[Docket Number FV–04–310]
RIN# 0581–AC46
Revision of Fees for the Fresh Fruit
and Vegetable Terminal Market
Inspection Services
Agricultural Marketing Service,
USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This proposed rule revises
regulations governing the inspection
and certification for fresh fruits,
vegetables and other products by
increasing by approximately 15 percent
certain fees charged for the inspection of
these products at destination markets.
These revisions are necessary in order to
recover, as nearly as practicable, the
costs of performing inspection services
at destination markets.
DATES: Comments must be postmarked,
courier dated, or sent via the Internet on
or before September 26, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are
invited to submit written comments
concerning this proposal. Comments
can be sent to: (1) U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing
Service, Fruit and Vegetable Programs,
Fresh Products Branch, 1400
Independence Ave., SW., Room 0640–S,
Washington, DC 20250–0295; (2) faxed
to (202) 720–5136; (3) via e-mail to
FPB.DocketClerk@usda.gov.; or (4)
Internet: https://www.regulations.gov.
Comments should make reference to the
date and page number of this issue of
the Federal Register and will be made
available for public inspection in the
above office during regular business
hours.
Rita
Bibbs-Booth, USDA, 1400 Independence
Ave., SW., Room 0640–S, Washington,
DC 20250–0295, or call (202) 720–0391.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:46 Aug 24, 2005
Jkt 205001
Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory
Flexibility Act
This rule has been determined to be
‘‘non-significant’’ for the purposes of
Executive Order 12866, and therefore,
has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget.
Also, pursuant to the requirement set
forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA), AMS has considered the
economic impact of this action on small
entities. Accordingly, AMS proposes
this initial regulatory flexibility
analysis.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit
regulatory actions to the scale of
businesses subject to such actions in
order that small businesses will not be
unduly or disproportionately burdened.
The proposed action described herein is
being taken for several reasons,
including that additional user fee
revenues are needed to cover the costs
or: (1) Providing current program
operations and services: (2) improving
the timeliness in which inspection
services are provided; and (3) improving
the work environment.
AMS regularly reviews its user-fee
financed programs to determine if the
fees are adequate. The Fresh Products
Branch (FPB) has and will continue to
seek out cost saving opportunities and
implement appropriate changes to
reduce its costs. Such actions can
provide alternatives to fee increases.
However, even with these efforts, FPB’s
existing fee schedule will not generate
sufficient revenue to cover program
costs while maintaining the Agency
mandated reserve balance. Current
revenue projections for FPB’s
destination market inspection work
during FY 2005 are $14.6 million with
costs projected at $20.9 million and an
end-of-year reserve balance of $16.4
million. However, this reserve balance
is due to appropriated funding received
in October 2001, for infrastructure,
workplace, and technological
improvements. FPB’s costs of operating
the destination market program are
expected to increase to approximately
$22.4 million during FY–06 and $23.1
million during FY–07. The current fee
structure with the infusion of the
appropriated funding is expected to
fund the terminal market inspection
program until FY–2008, when FPB will
fall below the Agency’s mandated fourmonth reserve level.
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
This proposed fee increase should
result in an estimated $1.8 million in
additional revenues per year (effective
in FY–2006, if the fees are implemented
by October 1, 2005). This will not cover
all of FPB’s costs. FPB will need to
continue to increase fees in order to
cover the program’s operating cost and
maintain the required reserve balance.
FPB believes that increasing fees
incrementally is appropriate at this
time. Additional fee increases beyond
FY–2006 will be needed to sustain the
program in the future.
Employee salaries and benefits are
major program costs that account for
approximately 80 percent of FPB’s total
operating budget. A general and locality
salary increase for Federal employees,
ranging from 3.71 to 4.87 percent
depending on locality, effective January
2005, has significantly increased
program costs. In addition, general and
locality salary increases for Federal
employees ranging from 3.90% to 4.92%
depending on locality, effective from
January 2004, also significantly
increased program costs. This salary
adjustment will increase FPB’s costs by
over $700,000 per year. Increases in
health and life insurance premiums,
along with workers compensation will
also increase program costs. In addition,
inflation also impacts FPB’s non-salary
costs. These factors have increased
FPB’s costs of operating this program by
over $600,000 per year.
Additional funds of approximately
$155,000 are necessary in order for FPB
to continue to cover the costs associated
with additional staff and to maintain
office space and equipment. Additional
revenues are also necessary to improve
the work environment by providing
training and purchasing needed
equipment. In addition, FPB began in
2001, developing (with appropriated
funds) the Fresh Electronic Inspection
Reporting/Resource System (FEIRS) to
replace its manual paper and pen
inspection reporting process. FEIRS was
implemented in 2004. This system has
been put in place to enhance and
streamline FPB’s fruit and vegetable
inspection process, however additional
revenue is required to maintain FEIRS.
This proposed rule should increase
user fee revenue generated under the
destination market program by
approximately 15 percent. This action is
authorized under the Agricultural
Marketing Act of 1946 (AMA of 1946)
E:\FR\FM\25AUP1.SGM
25AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 164 / Thursday, August 25, 2005 / Proposed Rules
49883
Executive Order 12988
This proposed rule has been reviewed
under Executive Order 12988, Civil
Justice Reform. This action is not
intended to have retroactive effect. This
rule will not preempt any state or local
laws, regulations or policies, unless they
present an irreconcilable conflict with
this rule. There are no administrative
procedures which must be exhausted
prior to any judicial challenge to the
provisions of this rule.
Proposed Action
The AMA of 1946 authorizes official
inspection, grading, and certification, on
a user-fee basis, of fresh fruits,
vegetables and other products such as
raw nuts, Christmas trees and flowers.
The AMA of 1946 provides that
reasonable fees be collected from the
users of the services to cover, as nearly
as practicable, the cost of the services
rendered. This proposed rule would
amend the schedule for fees and charges
for inspection services rendered to the
fresh fruit and vegetable industry to
reflect the costs necessary to operate the
program.
The Agricultural Marketing Service
(AMS) regularly reviews its user-fee
programs to determine if the fees are
adequate. While the Fresh Products
Branch (FPB) of the Fruit and Vegetable
Programs, AMS, continues to search for
opportunities to reduce its costs, the
existing fee schedule will not generate
sufficient revenues to cover program
costs while maintaining the Agency
mandated reserve balance. Current
revenue projections for destination
market inspection work during FY–05
are $14.6 million with costs projected at
$20.9 million and an end-of-year reserve
of $17.9 million. However, this reserve
balance is due to appropriated funding
received from Congress in October of
2001. These funds were established to
build up the terminal market inspection
reserve fund and for infrastructure
improvements including development
and maintenance of the inspector
training center, workplace and
technological improvements, including
digital imaging and automation of the
inspection process. However, by FY–08,
without increasing fees, FPB’s trust fund
balance for this program will be below
the agency mandated four-months of
operating reserve (approximately $4.6
million) deemed necessary to provide
an adequate reserve balance in light of
increasing program costs. Further, FPB’s
costs of operating the destination market
program are expected to increase to
approximately $22 million in FY–06
and to approximately $22.8 million
during FY–07. These cost increases
(which are outlined below) will result
from inflationary increases with regard
to current FPB operations and services
(primarily salaries and benefit),
increased inspection demands, and the
acquisition and maintenance of
computer technology (i.e. FEIRS).
Employee salaries and benefits are
major program costs that account for
approximately 80 percent of FPB’s total
operating budget. A general and locality
salary increase for Federal employees,
ranging from 3.71 to 4.87 percent
depending on locality, effective January
2005, has significantly increased
program costs. In addition, general and
locality salary increases for Federal
employees ranging from 3.90% to 4.92%
depending on locality, effective from
January 2004, also significantly
increased program costs. This salary
adjustment will increase FPB’s costs by
over $700,000 per year. Increases in
health and life insurance premiums,
along with workers compensation will
also increase program costs. In addition,
inflation also impacts FPB’s non-costs.
These factors have increased FPB’s costs
of operating this program by over
$600,000 per year.
Additional revenues (approximately
$155,000) are necessary in order for FPB
to continue to cover the costs associated
with additional staff and to maintain
office space and equipment. Additional
revenues are also necessary to continue
to improve the work environment by
providing training and purchasing
needed equipment. In addition, FPB
began in 2001, developing (with
appropriate funds) an automated system
known as FEIRS, to replace its manual
paper and pen inspection reporting
process. Approximately $10,000 in
additional revenue per month will be
needed to maintain the system. This
system has been put in place to enhance
FPB’s fruit and vegetable inspection
processes.
Based on the aforementioned analysis
of this program’s increasing costs, AMS
proposes to increase the fees for
destination market inspection services.
The following table compares current
fees and charges with the proposed fees
and charges for fresh fruit and vegetable
inspection as found in 7 CFR 51.38.
Unless otherwise provided for by
regulation or written agreement between
the applicant and the Administrator, the
charge in the schedule of fees as found
in § 51.38 are:
1 Section 8e of the Agriculture Marketing
Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601–
674), requires that whatever the Secretary of
Agriculture issues grade, size, quality or maturity
regulations under domestic marketing orders for
certain commodities, the same or comparable
regulations on imports of those commodities must
be issued. Import regulations apply during those
periods when domestic marketing order
commodities must be issued. Import regulations
apply during those periods when domestic
marketing order regulations are in effect. Section
1308 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act
of 2002 (Pub. L. 107–171), 7 U.S.C. 7958, requires
USDA among other things to develop new peanut
quality and handling standards for imported
peanuts marketing in the United States.
Currently, there are 14 commodities subject to 8e
import regulations: avocados, dates (other than
dates for processing), filberts, grapefruits, kiwifruit,
olives (other than Spanish-style green olives),
onions, oranges, potatoes, prunes, raisins, table
grapes, tomatoes and walnuts. A current listing of
the regulated commodities can be found under 7
CFR parts 944, 980, 996, and 999.
(See 7 U.S.C. 1622(h)), which provides
that the Secretary of Agriculture may
assess and collect ‘‘such fees as will be
reasonable and as nearly as may be to
cover the costs of services rendered
* * *’’ There are more than 2,000 users
of FPB’s destination market grading
services (including applicants who must
meet import requirements 1—
inspections which amount to under 2.5
percent of all lot inspections
performed). A small portion of these
users are small entities under the
criteria established by the Small
Business Administration (13 CFR
121.201). There would be no additional
reporting, recordkeeping, or other
compliance requirements imposed upon
small entities as a result of this
proposed rule. In compliance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. Chapter 35), the information
collection and recordkeeping
requirements in part 51 have been
approved previously by OMB and
assigned OMB No. 0581–0125. FPB has
not identified any other Federal rules
which may duplicate, overlap or
conflict with this proposed rule.
The destination market grading
services are voluntary (except when
required for imported commodities) and
the fees charged to users of these
services vary with usage. However, the
impact on all businesses, including
small entities, is very similar. Further,
even though fees will be raised, the
increase is not excessive and should not
significantly affect these entities.
Finally, except for those persons who
are required to obtain inspections, most
of these businesses are typically under
no obligation to use these inspection
services, and, therefore, any decision on
their part to discontinue the use of the
services should not prevent them from
marketing their products.
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:46 Aug 24, 2005
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\25AUP1.SGM
25AUP1
49884
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 164 / Thursday, August 25, 2005 / Proposed Rules
Service
Current
Quality and condition inspections of products each in quantities of 51 or more packages and unloaded from
the same land or air conveyance:
—Over a half carlot equivalent of each product ..........................................................................................
—Half carlot equivalent or less of each product ..........................................................................................
—For each additional lot of the same product .............................................................................................
Condition only inspections of products each in quantities of 51 or more packages and unloaded from the
same land or air conveyance:
—Over a half carlot equivalent of each product ..........................................................................................
—Half carlot equivalent or less of each product ..........................................................................................
—For each additional lot of the same product .............................................................................................
Quality and condition and condition only inspections of products each in quantities of 50 or less packages
unloaded from the same land or air conveyance:
—For each product .......................................................................................................................................
—For each additional lot of any of the same product .................................................................................
—Lots in excess of carlot equivalents will be charged proportionally by the quarter carlot .......................
Dock side inspections of an individual product unloaded directly from the same ship:
—For each package weighing less than 30 pounds ....................................................................................
—For each package weighing 30 or more pounds ......................................................................................
—Minimum charge per individual product ....................................................................................................
—Minimum charge for each additional lot of the same product ..................................................................
Hourly rate for inspections performed for other purposes during the grader’s regularly scheduled work week
—Hourly rate for other work performed during the grader’s regular scheduled work week will be
charged at a reasonable rate ...................................................................................................................
Audit based services ...........................................................................................................................................
Overtime or holiday premium rate (per hour additional) for all inspections performed outside the grader’s
regularly scheduled work week ........................................................................................................................
Hourly rate for inspections performed under 40 hour contracts during the grader’s regularly scheduled work
week .................................................................................................................................................................
Rate for billable mileage ......................................................................................................................................
Proposed
$99.00
83.00
45.00
$114.00
95.00
52.00
83.00
76.00
45.00
95.00
87.00
52.00
45.00
45.00
..........................
52.00
52.00
..........................
1 2.5
1 2.9
1 3.8
1 4.4
99.00
45.00
49.00
114.00
52.00
56.00
..........................
..........................
..........................
75.00
25.00
29.00
49.00
1.00
56.00
1.00
1 Cents.
A thirty day comment period is
provided for interested persons to
comment on this proposed action.
Thirty days is deemed appropriate
because it is preferable to have any fee
increase, if adopted, to be in place as
close as possible to the beginning of the
fiscal year, October 1, 2005.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 51
Agricultural commodities, Food
grades and standards, Fruits, Nuts,
Reporting and record keeping
requirements, Trees, Vegetables.
For reasons set forth in the preamble,
7 CFR part 51 is proposed to be
amended as follows:
PART 51—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR
part 51 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1621–1627.
2. Section 51.38 is revised to read as
follows:
§ 51.38
Basis for fees and rates.
(a) When performing inspections of
product unloaded directly from land or
air transportation, the charges shall be
determined on the following basis:
(1) Quality and condition inspections
of products in quantities of 51 or more
packages and unloaded from the same
air or land conveyance:
(i) $114 for over a half carlot
equivalent of an individual product;
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:46 Aug 24, 2005
Jkt 205001
(ii) $95 for a half carlot equivalent or
less of an individual product;
(iii) $52 for each additional lot of the
same product.
(2) Condition only inspection of
products each in quantities of 51 or
more packages and unloaded from the
same land or air conveyance:
(i) $95 for over a half carlot equivalent
of an individual product;
(ii) $87 for a half carlot equivalent or
less of an individual product;
(iii) $52 for each additional lot of the
same product.
(3) For quality and condition
inspection and condition only
inspection of products in quantities of
50 or less packages unloaded from the
same conveyance:
(i) $52 for each individual product;
(ii) $52 for each additional lot of any
of the same product. Lots in excess of
carlot equivalents will be charged
proportionally by the quarter carlot.
(b) When performing inspections of
palletized products unloaded directly
from sea transportation or when
palletized product is first offered for
inspection before being transported
from the dock-side facility, charges shall
be determined on the following basis:
(1) Dock side inspections of an
individual product unloaded directly
from the same ship:
(i) 2.9 cents per package weighing less
than 30 pounds;
(ii) 4.4 cents per package weighing 30
or more pounds;
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
(iii) Minimum charge of $114 per
individual product;
(iv) Minimum charge of $52 for each
additional lot of the same product.
(2) [Reserved].
(c) When performing inspections of
products from sea containers unloaded
directly from sea transportation or when
palletized products unloaded directly
from sea transportation are not offered
for inspection at dock-side, the carlot
fees in paragraph (a) of this section shall
apply.
(d) When performing inspections for
Government agencies, or for purposes
other than those prescribed in
paragraphs (a) through (c) of this
section, including weight-only and
freezing-only inspections, fees for
inspections shall be based on the time
consumed by the grader in connection
with such inspections, computed at a
rate of $56 per hour: Provided, That:
(1) Charges for time shall be rounded
to the nearest half hour.
(2) The minimum fee shall be two
hours for weight-only inspections, and
one-half hour for other inspections.
(3) When weight certification is
provided in addition to quality and/or
condition inspection, a one hour charge
shall be added to the carlot fee.
(4) When inspections are performed to
certify product compliance for Defense
Personnel Support Centers, the daily or
weekly charge shall be determined by
multiplying the total hours consumed to
E:\FR\FM\25AUP1.SGM
25AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 164 / Thursday, August 25, 2005 / Proposed Rules
conduct inspections by the hourly rate.
The daily or weekly charge shall be
prorated among applicants by
multiplying the daily or weekly charge
by the percentage of product passed
and/or failed for each applicant during
that day or week. Waiting time and
overtime charges shall be charged
directly to the applicant responsible for
their incurrence.
(e) When performing inspections at
the request of the applicant during
periods which are outside the grader’s
regularly scheduled work week, a
charge for overtime or holiday work
shall be made at the rate of $29.00 per
hour or portion thereof in addition to
the carlot equivalent fee, package
charge, or hourly charge specified in
this subpart. Overtime or holiday
charges for time shall be rounded to the
nearest half hour.
(f) When an inspection is delayed
because product is not available or
readily accessible, a charge for waiting
time shall be made at the prevailing
hourly rate in addition to the carlot
equivalent fee, package charge, or
hourly charge specified in this subpart.
Waiting time shall be rounded to the
nearest half hour.
Dated: August 18, 2005.
Kenneth C. Clayton,
Associate Administrator, Agricultural
Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 05–16863 Filed 8–24–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–02–P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Part 983
[Docket No. FV05–983–2 PR]
Pistachios Grown in California;
Establishment of Additional Inspection
Requirements
Agricultural Marketing Service,
USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This rule invites comments
on the establishment of additional
inspection requirements authorized
under the California pistachio marketing
order (order). The order regulates the
handling of pistachios grown in
California and is administered locally
by the Administrative Committee for
Pistachios (Committee). This rule would
modify sampling procedures for darkstained pistachios which are intended to
be dyed or color-coated. It would also
establish reinspection requirements for
lots of pistachios, which are materially
changed after meeting initial aflatoxin,
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:46 Aug 24, 2005
Jkt 205001
quality, and size requirements. This
action is expected to assure the quality
of pistachios, improve the marketability
of pistachios, and provide handlers
more marketing flexibility. The benefits
of this action are expected to offset the
increased inspection costs.
DATES: Comments must be received by
September 1, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are
invited to submit written comments
concerning this proposal. Comments
must be sent to the Docket Clerk,
Marketing Order Administration
Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs,
AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence
Avenue SW, STOP 0237, Washington,
DC 20250–0237; Fax: (202) 720–8938, or
E-mail: moab.docketclerk@usda.gov, or
Internet: https://www.regulations.gov. All
comments should reference the docket
number and the date and page number
of this issue of the Federal Register and
will be made available for public
inspection in the Office of the Docket
Clerk during regular business hours, or
can be viewed at: https://
www.ams.usda.gov/fv/moab.html.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rose
Aguayo or Terry Vawter, Marketing
Specialists, California Marketing Field
Office, Marketing Order Administration
Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs,
AMS, USDA; Telephone: (559) 487–
5901, Fax: (559) 487–5906; or George
Kelhart, Technical Advisor, Marketing
Order Administration Branch, Fruit and
Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400
Independence Avenue SW, STOP 0237,
Washington, DC 20250–0237;
Telephone: (202) 720–2491, Fax: (202)
720–8938.
Small businesses may request
information on complying with this
regulation by contacting Jay Guerber,
Marketing Order Administration
Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs,
AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence
Avenue SW, STOP 0237, Washington,
DC 20250–0237; Telephone: (202) 720–
2491, Fax: (202) 720–8938, or E-mail:
Jay.Guerber@usda.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This
proposal is issued under Marketing
Order No. 983 (7 CFR part 983),
regulating the handling of pistachios
grown in California, hereinafter referred
to as the ‘‘order.’’ The order is effective
under the Agricultural Marketing
Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7
U.S.C. 601–674), hereinafter referred to
as the ‘‘Act.’’
The Department of Agriculture
(USDA) is issuing this rule in
conformance with Executive Order
12866.
This proposal has been reviewed
under Executive Order 12988, Civil
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
49885
Justice Reform. This rule is not intended
to have retroactive effect. This proposal
will not preempt any State or local laws,
regulations, or policies, unless they
present an irreconcilable conflict with
this rule.
The Act provides that administrative
proceedings must be exhausted before
parties may file suit in court. Under
section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any
handler subject to an order may file
with USDA a petition stating that the
order, any provision of the order, or any
obligation imposed in connection with
the order is not in accordance with law
and request a modification of the order
or to be exempted therefrom. A handler
is afforded the opportunity for a hearing
on the petition. After the hearing USDA
would rule on the petition. The Act
provides that the district court of the
United States in any district in which
the handler is an inhabitant, or has his
or her principal place of business, has
jurisdiction to review USDA’s ruling on
the petition, provided an action is filed
not later than 20 days after the date of
the entry of the ruling.
This rule would modify sampling
procedures for dark-stained pistachios
which are intended to be dyed or colorcoated. It would also establish
reinspection requirements for lots of
pistachios, which are materially
changed after meeting initial aflatoxin,
quality, and size requirements. This
action is expected to assure the quality
of pistachios, provide handlers more
marketing flexibility, and improve the
marketability of pistachios. The benefits
of this action are expected to offset the
increased inspection costs. For the
purposes of this proposed rule, the
terms ‘‘marketing year’’ and
‘‘production year’’ are synonymous.
Section 983.46 of the order authorizes
the Committee to recommend that the
Secretary modify or suspend the order
provisions contained in §§ 983.38
through 983.45. These sections took
effect August 1, 2005.
Sampling Procedures
Sections 983.38 and 983.39 of the
order specify maximum aflatoxin,
minimum quality and minimum size
requirements, respectively, that must be
met prior to the shipment of pistachios.
Sections 983.38(d)(1) and 983.39(e)(1)
of the order specify that a sample must
be drawn from each lot, and that this lot
sample must be divided into two
samples—one portion for aflatoxin
testing and one for minimum quality
and size testing.
Section 983.39(b)(3)(iv) of the order
currently defines dark stain and
specifies that pistachios that are dyed or
color-coated to improve their marketing
E:\FR\FM\25AUP1.SGM
25AUP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 164 (Thursday, August 25, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 49882-49885]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-16863]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 164 / Thursday, August 25, 2005 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 49882]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Part 51
[Docket Number FV-04-310]
RIN 0581-AC46
Revision of Fees for the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Terminal
Market Inspection Services
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This proposed rule revises regulations governing the
inspection and certification for fresh fruits, vegetables and other
products by increasing by approximately 15 percent certain fees charged
for the inspection of these products at destination markets. These
revisions are necessary in order to recover, as nearly as practicable,
the costs of performing inspection services at destination markets.
DATES: Comments must be postmarked, courier dated, or sent via the
Internet on or before September 26, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments
concerning this proposal. Comments can be sent to: (1) U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service, Fruit and Vegetable
Programs, Fresh Products Branch, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Room
0640-S, Washington, DC 20250-0295; (2) faxed to (202) 720-5136; (3) via
e-mail to FPB.DocketClerk@usda.gov.; or (4) Internet: https://
www.regulations.gov. Comments should make reference to the date and
page number of this issue of the Federal Register and will be made
available for public inspection in the above office during regular
business hours.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rita Bibbs-Booth, USDA, 1400
Independence Ave., SW., Room 0640-S, Washington, DC 20250-0295, or call
(202) 720-0391.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act
This rule has been determined to be ``non-significant'' for the
purposes of Executive Order 12866, and therefore, has not been reviewed
by the Office of Management and Budget.
Also, pursuant to the requirement set forth in the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA), AMS has considered the economic impact of this
action on small entities. Accordingly, AMS proposes this initial
regulatory flexibility analysis.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of
businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will
not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. The proposed action
described herein is being taken for several reasons, including that
additional user fee revenues are needed to cover the costs or: (1)
Providing current program operations and services: (2) improving the
timeliness in which inspection services are provided; and (3) improving
the work environment.
AMS regularly reviews its user-fee financed programs to determine
if the fees are adequate. The Fresh Products Branch (FPB) has and will
continue to seek out cost saving opportunities and implement
appropriate changes to reduce its costs. Such actions can provide
alternatives to fee increases. However, even with these efforts, FPB's
existing fee schedule will not generate sufficient revenue to cover
program costs while maintaining the Agency mandated reserve balance.
Current revenue projections for FPB's destination market inspection
work during FY 2005 are $14.6 million with costs projected at $20.9
million and an end-of-year reserve balance of $16.4 million. However,
this reserve balance is due to appropriated funding received in October
2001, for infrastructure, workplace, and technological improvements.
FPB's costs of operating the destination market program are expected to
increase to approximately $22.4 million during FY-06 and $23.1 million
during FY-07. The current fee structure with the infusion of the
appropriated funding is expected to fund the terminal market inspection
program until FY-2008, when FPB will fall below the Agency's mandated
four-month reserve level.
This proposed fee increase should result in an estimated $1.8
million in additional revenues per year (effective in FY-2006, if the
fees are implemented by October 1, 2005). This will not cover all of
FPB's costs. FPB will need to continue to increase fees in order to
cover the program's operating cost and maintain the required reserve
balance. FPB believes that increasing fees incrementally is appropriate
at this time. Additional fee increases beyond FY-2006 will be needed to
sustain the program in the future.
Employee salaries and benefits are major program costs that account
for approximately 80 percent of FPB's total operating budget. A general
and locality salary increase for Federal employees, ranging from 3.71
to 4.87 percent depending on locality, effective January 2005, has
significantly increased program costs. In addition, general and
locality salary increases for Federal employees ranging from 3.90% to
4.92% depending on locality, effective from January 2004, also
significantly increased program costs. This salary adjustment will
increase FPB's costs by over $700,000 per year. Increases in health and
life insurance premiums, along with workers compensation will also
increase program costs. In addition, inflation also impacts FPB's non-
salary costs. These factors have increased FPB's costs of operating
this program by over $600,000 per year.
Additional funds of approximately $155,000 are necessary in order
for FPB to continue to cover the costs associated with additional staff
and to maintain office space and equipment. Additional revenues are
also necessary to improve the work environment by providing training
and purchasing needed equipment. In addition, FPB began in 2001,
developing (with appropriated funds) the Fresh Electronic Inspection
Reporting/Resource System (FEIRS) to replace its manual paper and pen
inspection reporting process. FEIRS was implemented in 2004. This
system has been put in place to enhance and streamline FPB's fruit and
vegetable inspection process, however additional revenue is required to
maintain FEIRS.
This proposed rule should increase user fee revenue generated under
the destination market program by approximately 15 percent. This action
is authorized under the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (AMA of
1946)
[[Page 49883]]
(See 7 U.S.C. 1622(h)), which provides that the Secretary of
Agriculture may assess and collect ``such fees as will be reasonable
and as nearly as may be to cover the costs of services rendered * * *''
There are more than 2,000 users of FPB's destination market grading
services (including applicants who must meet import requirements \1\--
inspections which amount to under 2.5 percent of all lot inspections
performed). A small portion of these users are small entities under the
criteria established by the Small Business Administration (13 CFR
121.201). There would be no additional reporting, recordkeeping, or
other compliance requirements imposed upon small entities as a result
of this proposed rule. In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the information collection and
recordkeeping requirements in part 51 have been approved previously by
OMB and assigned OMB No. 0581-0125. FPB has not identified any other
Federal rules which may duplicate, overlap or conflict with this
proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Section 8e of the Agriculture Marketing Agreement Act of
1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), requires that whatever the
Secretary of Agriculture issues grade, size, quality or maturity
regulations under domestic marketing orders for certain commodities,
the same or comparable regulations on imports of those commodities
must be issued. Import regulations apply during those periods when
domestic marketing order commodities must be issued. Import
regulations apply during those periods when domestic marketing order
regulations are in effect. Section 1308 of the Farm Security and
Rural Investment Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-171), 7 U.S.C. 7958,
requires USDA among other things to develop new peanut quality and
handling standards for imported peanuts marketing in the United
States.
Currently, there are 14 commodities subject to 8e import
regulations: avocados, dates (other than dates for processing),
filberts, grapefruits, kiwifruit, olives (other than Spanish-style
green olives), onions, oranges, potatoes, prunes, raisins, table
grapes, tomatoes and walnuts. A current listing of the regulated
commodities can be found under 7 CFR parts 944, 980, 996, and 999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The destination market grading services are voluntary (except when
required for imported commodities) and the fees charged to users of
these services vary with usage. However, the impact on all businesses,
including small entities, is very similar. Further, even though fees
will be raised, the increase is not excessive and should not
significantly affect these entities. Finally, except for those persons
who are required to obtain inspections, most of these businesses are
typically under no obligation to use these inspection services, and,
therefore, any decision on their part to discontinue the use of the
services should not prevent them from marketing their products.
Executive Order 12988
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988,
Civil Justice Reform. This action is not intended to have retroactive
effect. This rule will not preempt any state or local laws, regulations
or policies, unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this
rule. There are no administrative procedures which must be exhausted
prior to any judicial challenge to the provisions of this rule.
Proposed Action
The AMA of 1946 authorizes official inspection, grading, and
certification, on a user-fee basis, of fresh fruits, vegetables and
other products such as raw nuts, Christmas trees and flowers. The AMA
of 1946 provides that reasonable fees be collected from the users of
the services to cover, as nearly as practicable, the cost of the
services rendered. This proposed rule would amend the schedule for fees
and charges for inspection services rendered to the fresh fruit and
vegetable industry to reflect the costs necessary to operate the
program.
The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) regularly reviews its
user-fee programs to determine if the fees are adequate. While the
Fresh Products Branch (FPB) of the Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS,
continues to search for opportunities to reduce its costs, the existing
fee schedule will not generate sufficient revenues to cover program
costs while maintaining the Agency mandated reserve balance. Current
revenue projections for destination market inspection work during FY-05
are $14.6 million with costs projected at $20.9 million and an end-of-
year reserve of $17.9 million. However, this reserve balance is due to
appropriated funding received from Congress in October of 2001. These
funds were established to build up the terminal market inspection
reserve fund and for infrastructure improvements including development
and maintenance of the inspector training center, workplace and
technological improvements, including digital imaging and automation of
the inspection process. However, by FY-08, without increasing fees,
FPB's trust fund balance for this program will be below the agency
mandated four-months of operating reserve (approximately $4.6 million)
deemed necessary to provide an adequate reserve balance in light of
increasing program costs. Further, FPB's costs of operating the
destination market program are expected to increase to approximately
$22 million in FY-06 and to approximately $22.8 million during FY-07.
These cost increases (which are outlined below) will result from
inflationary increases with regard to current FPB operations and
services (primarily salaries and benefit), increased inspection
demands, and the acquisition and maintenance of computer technology
(i.e. FEIRS).
Employee salaries and benefits are major program costs that account
for approximately 80 percent of FPB's total operating budget. A general
and locality salary increase for Federal employees, ranging from 3.71
to 4.87 percent depending on locality, effective January 2005, has
significantly increased program costs. In addition, general and
locality salary increases for Federal employees ranging from 3.90% to
4.92% depending on locality, effective from January 2004, also
significantly increased program costs. This salary adjustment will
increase FPB's costs by over $700,000 per year. Increases in health and
life insurance premiums, along with workers compensation will also
increase program costs. In addition, inflation also impacts FPB's non-
costs. These factors have increased FPB's costs of operating this
program by over $600,000 per year.
Additional revenues (approximately $155,000) are necessary in order
for FPB to continue to cover the costs associated with additional staff
and to maintain office space and equipment. Additional revenues are
also necessary to continue to improve the work environment by providing
training and purchasing needed equipment. In addition, FPB began in
2001, developing (with appropriate funds) an automated system known as
FEIRS, to replace its manual paper and pen inspection reporting
process. Approximately $10,000 in additional revenue per month will be
needed to maintain the system. This system has been put in place to
enhance FPB's fruit and vegetable inspection processes.
Based on the aforementioned analysis of this program's increasing
costs, AMS proposes to increase the fees for destination market
inspection services. The following table compares current fees and
charges with the proposed fees and charges for fresh fruit and
vegetable inspection as found in 7 CFR 51.38. Unless otherwise provided
for by regulation or written agreement between the applicant and the
Administrator, the charge in the schedule of fees as found in Sec.
51.38 are:
[[Page 49884]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Service Current Proposed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quality and condition inspections of
products each in quantities of 51 or
more packages and unloaded from the
same land or air conveyance:
--Over a half carlot equivalent of $99.00 $114.00
each product.......................
--Half carlot equivalent or less of 83.00 95.00
each product.......................
--For each additional lot of the 45.00 52.00
same product.......................
Condition only inspections of products
each in quantities of 51 or more
packages and unloaded from the same
land or air conveyance:
--Over a half carlot equivalent of 83.00 95.00
each product.......................
--Half carlot equivalent or less of 76.00 87.00
each product.......................
--For each additional lot of the 45.00 52.00
same product.......................
Quality and condition and condition only
inspections of products each in
quantities of 50 or less packages
unloaded from the same land or air
conveyance:
--For each product.................. 45.00 52.00
--For each additional lot of any of 45.00 52.00
the same product...................
--Lots in excess of carlot .............. ..............
equivalents will be charged
proportionally by the quarter
carlot.............................
Dock side inspections of an individual
product unloaded directly from the same
ship:
--For each package weighing less \1\ 2.5 \1\ 2.9
than 30 pounds.....................
--For each package weighing 30 or \1\ 3.8 \1\ 4.4
more pounds........................
--Minimum charge per individual 99.00 114.00
product............................
--Minimum charge for each additional 45.00 52.00
lot of the same product............
Hourly rate for inspections performed 49.00 56.00
for other purposes during the grader's
regularly scheduled work week..........
--Hourly rate for other work .............. ..............
performed during the grader's
regular scheduled work week will be
charged at a reasonable rate.......
Audit based services.................... .............. 75.00
Overtime or holiday premium rate (per 25.00 29.00
hour additional) for all inspections
performed outside the grader's
regularly scheduled work week..........
Hourly rate for inspections performed 49.00 56.00
under 40 hour contracts during the
grader's regularly scheduled work week.
Rate for billable mileage............... 1.00 1.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Cents.
A thirty day comment period is provided for interested persons to
comment on this proposed action. Thirty days is deemed appropriate
because it is preferable to have any fee increase, if adopted, to be in
place as close as possible to the beginning of the fiscal year, October
1, 2005.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 51
Agricultural commodities, Food grades and standards, Fruits, Nuts,
Reporting and record keeping requirements, Trees, Vegetables.
For reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 51 is proposed to
be amended as follows:
PART 51--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 51 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1621-1627.
2. Section 51.38 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 51.38 Basis for fees and rates.
(a) When performing inspections of product unloaded directly from
land or air transportation, the charges shall be determined on the
following basis:
(1) Quality and condition inspections of products in quantities of
51 or more packages and unloaded from the same air or land conveyance:
(i) $114 for over a half carlot equivalent of an individual
product;
(ii) $95 for a half carlot equivalent or less of an individual
product;
(iii) $52 for each additional lot of the same product.
(2) Condition only inspection of products each in quantities of 51
or more packages and unloaded from the same land or air conveyance:
(i) $95 for over a half carlot equivalent of an individual product;
(ii) $87 for a half carlot equivalent or less of an individual
product;
(iii) $52 for each additional lot of the same product.
(3) For quality and condition inspection and condition only
inspection of products in quantities of 50 or less packages unloaded
from the same conveyance:
(i) $52 for each individual product;
(ii) $52 for each additional lot of any of the same product. Lots
in excess of carlot equivalents will be charged proportionally by the
quarter carlot.
(b) When performing inspections of palletized products unloaded
directly from sea transportation or when palletized product is first
offered for inspection before being transported from the dock-side
facility, charges shall be determined on the following basis:
(1) Dock side inspections of an individual product unloaded
directly from the same ship:
(i) 2.9 cents per package weighing less than 30 pounds;
(ii) 4.4 cents per package weighing 30 or more pounds;
(iii) Minimum charge of $114 per individual product;
(iv) Minimum charge of $52 for each additional lot of the same
product.
(2) [Reserved].
(c) When performing inspections of products from sea containers
unloaded directly from sea transportation or when palletized products
unloaded directly from sea transportation are not offered for
inspection at dock-side, the carlot fees in paragraph (a) of this
section shall apply.
(d) When performing inspections for Government agencies, or for
purposes other than those prescribed in paragraphs (a) through (c) of
this section, including weight-only and freezing-only inspections, fees
for inspections shall be based on the time consumed by the grader in
connection with such inspections, computed at a rate of $56 per hour:
Provided, That:
(1) Charges for time shall be rounded to the nearest half hour.
(2) The minimum fee shall be two hours for weight-only inspections,
and one-half hour for other inspections.
(3) When weight certification is provided in addition to quality
and/or condition inspection, a one hour charge shall be added to the
carlot fee.
(4) When inspections are performed to certify product compliance
for Defense Personnel Support Centers, the daily or weekly charge shall
be determined by multiplying the total hours consumed to
[[Page 49885]]
conduct inspections by the hourly rate. The daily or weekly charge
shall be prorated among applicants by multiplying the daily or weekly
charge by the percentage of product passed and/or failed for each
applicant during that day or week. Waiting time and overtime charges
shall be charged directly to the applicant responsible for their
incurrence.
(e) When performing inspections at the request of the applicant
during periods which are outside the grader's regularly scheduled work
week, a charge for overtime or holiday work shall be made at the rate
of $29.00 per hour or portion thereof in addition to the carlot
equivalent fee, package charge, or hourly charge specified in this
subpart. Overtime or holiday charges for time shall be rounded to the
nearest half hour.
(f) When an inspection is delayed because product is not available
or readily accessible, a charge for waiting time shall be made at the
prevailing hourly rate in addition to the carlot equivalent fee,
package charge, or hourly charge specified in this subpart. Waiting
time shall be rounded to the nearest half hour.
Dated: August 18, 2005.
Kenneth C. Clayton,
Associate Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 05-16863 Filed 8-24-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P