User Fees for Agricultural Quarantine and Inspection Services, 22895-22908 [2014-09466]
Download as PDF
22895
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 80 / Friday, April 25, 2014 / Proposed Rules
this section, 5 CFR part 551, or 19 CFR
24.16.
*
*
*
*
*
PART 130—USER FEES
5. The authority citation for part 130
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 5542; 7 U.S.C. 1622
and 8301–8317; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 31
U.S.C. 3701, 3716, 3717, 3719, and 3720A; 7
CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.
c. By adding paragraph (b)(3)(iii).
The addition and revision read as
follows:
■
6. Section 130.50 is amended as
follows:
■ a. In paragraph (b)(3) introductory
text, by removing the words ‘‘or (ii)’’
and adding the words ‘‘, (ii), or (iii)’’ in
their place.
■ b. By revising the table in paragraph
(b)(3)(i).
■
§ 130.50
Payment of user fees.
*
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * *
(3) * *
(i) * *
*
*
OVERTIME FOR FLAT RATE USER FEES 1 2
Outside of the
employee’s
normal tour of
duty
Rate for inspection, testing, certification or quarantine of animals,
animal products or other commodities.3
Rate for commercial airline inspection
services.4
Overtime rates (per hour)
[Effective date
of final rule]–
Sept. 30, 2014
Oct. 1, 2014–
Sept. 30, 2015
Oct. 1, 2015–
Sept. 30, 2016
Oct. 1, 2016–
Sept. 30, 2017
Monday–Saturday
and holidays.
Sundays ...............
$74
98
$74
98
$75
99
$75
99
$75
100
Monday–Saturday
and holidays.
Sundays ...............
64
64
64
65
65
84
85
85
86
86
Beginning
Oct. 1, 2017
1 Minimum
charge of 2 hours, unless performed on the employee’s regular workday and performed in direct continuation of the regular workday
or begun within an hour of the regular workday.
2 When the 2-hour minimum applies, you may need to pay commuted travel time. (See § 97.1(b) of this chapter for specific information about
commuted travel time.)
3 See § 97.1(a) of this chapter or 7 CFR 354.3 for details.
4 See § 97.1(a)(3) of this chapter for details.
*
*
*
*
*
(iii) For information on rules
pertaining to the charges associated
with employees of U.S. Customs and
Border Protection performing
agricultural inspection services, please
see 7 CFR 354.1 and 9 CFR 97.1.
*
*
*
*
*
Done in Washington, DC, this 21st day of
April 2014.
Kevin Shea,
Administrator, Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 2014–09463 Filed 4–24–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–34–P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service
7 CFR Part 354
[Docket No. APHIS–2013–0021]
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
RIN 0579–AD77
User Fees for Agricultural Quarantine
and Inspection Services
Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
We are proposing to amend
the user fee regulations by adding new
fee categories and adjusting current fees
charged for certain agricultural
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:09 Apr 24, 2014
Jkt 232001
quarantine and inspection services that
are provided in connection with certain
commercial vessels, commercial trucks,
commercial railroad cars, commercial
aircraft, and international passengers
arriving at ports in the customs territory
of the United States. We are also
proposing to adjust or remove the fee
caps associated with commercial trucks,
commercial vessels, and commercial
railcars. We have determined that
revised user fee categories and revised
user fees are necessary to recover the
costs of the current level of activity, to
account for actual and projected
increases in the cost of doing business,
and to more accurately align fees with
the costs associated with each fee
service.
DATES: We will consider all comments
that we receive on or before June 24,
2014.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by either of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov/
#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2013-0021.
• Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery:
Send your comment to Docket No.
APHIS–2013–0021, Regulatory Analysis
and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station
3A–03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118,
Riverdale, MD 20737–1238.
Supporting documents and any
comments we receive on this docket
may be viewed at https://
www.regulations.gov/
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2013-0021 or
in our reading room, which is located in
room 1141 of the USDA South Building,
14th Street and Independence Avenue
SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading
room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except
holidays. To be sure someone is there to
help you, please call (202) 799–7039
before coming.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
information concerning program
operations, contact Mr. William E.
Thomas, Senior Agriculturist, Office of
the Deputy Administrator, PPQ, APHIS,
4700 River Road Unit 130, Riverdale,
MD 20737 1231; (301) 851–2306. For
information concerning rate
development, contact Mr. Michael
Peranio, Chief, User Fees, Financial
Services Branch, FMD, MRPBS, APHIS,
4700 River Road Unit 55, Riverdale, MD
20737; (301) 851–2852.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 2509(a) of the Food,
Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade
(FACT) Act of 1990 (21 U.S.C. 136a)
authorizes the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service (APHIS) to collect
user fees for certain agricultural
quarantine and inspection (AQI)
services. The FACT Act was amended
on April 4, 1996, and May 13, 2002.
The FACT Act, as amended,
authorizes APHIS to collect user fees for
E:\FR\FM\25APP1.SGM
25APP1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
22896
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 80 / Friday, April 25, 2014 / Proposed Rules
AQI services provided in connection
with the arrival, at a port in the customs
territory of the United States, of
commercial vessels, commercial trucks,
commercial railroad cars, commercial
aircraft, and international passengers.
According to the FACT Act, as
amended, these user fees should recover
the costs of:
• Providing the AQI services for the
conveyances and the passengers listed
above;
• Providing preclearance or
preinspection at a site outside the
customs territory of the United States to
international passengers, commercial
vessels, commercial trucks, commercial
railroad cars, and commercial aircraft;
• Administering the user fee program;
and
• Maintaining a reasonable reserve.
In addition, the FACT Act, as
amended, contains the following
requirements:
• The fees should be commensurate
with the costs with respect to the class
of persons or entities paying the fees.
This is intended to avoid crosssubsidization of AQI services.
• The cost of AQI services with
respect to passengers as a class should
include the cost of related inspections of
the aircraft or other vehicle.
APHIS’ regulations regarding
overtime services and user fees relating
to imports and exports are found in 7
CFR part 354. The user fees for the AQI
activities described above are contained
in § 354.3, ‘‘User fees for certain
international services.’’
In an interim rule published in
Federal Register on December 9, 2004
(69 FR 71660–71683, Docket No. 04–
042–1), and effective on January 1, 2005,
we amended the user fee regulations in
§ 354.3 by adjusting the fees charged for
certain AQI services provided by APHIS
and the Customs and Border Protection
(CBP) bureau of the Department of
Homeland Security in connection with
certain commercial vessels, commercial
trucks, commercial railroad cars,
commercial aircraft, and international
airline passengers arriving at ports in
the customs territory of the United
States. The AQI user fees contained in
that interim rule covered fiscal years
(FY) 2005 through 2010. A final rule
affirming the interim rule without
change was published in the Federal
Register on August 24, 2006 (71 FR
49984–49986, Docket No. 04–042–2).
Those fees are still in effect today. We
published an interim rule to increase
AQI fees 10 percent across the board on
September 28, 2009 (74 FR 49311–
49315, Docket No. APHIS–2009–0048),
but withdrew that interim rule before it
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:16 Apr 24, 2014
Jkt 232001
became effective in order to explore
other regulatory alternatives.
Introduction
The AQI fees have not been adjusted
since FY 2010 and do not reflect the
current cost of providing AQI services.
In addition, the AQI fee reserve account
has decreased because fees collected
have not been sufficient to cover current
costs, in part due to the recent economic
recession. As a result, CBP has relied
more heavily on its appropriated funds
to supplement fee revenue.
APHIS recently conducted a
comprehensive fee review to determine
the current cost of specific AQI services
supported by these fees. That review
determined that the AQI program was
not recovering the full cost of its fee
services, including costs of
administering the user fee program and
maintaining a reasonable reserve in the
fee accounts. Some of this non-recovery
is because most of the current fees do
not accurately reflect the current full
cost of the services related to those fees.
However, some of this non-recovery is
also due to prior APHIS policy
decisions to:
• Cap fees collected for commercial
trucks (with transponders), commercial
vessels, and commercial railroad cars;
• Exempt certain commercial vessels,
commercial trucks, commercial railroad
cars, commercial aircraft, and
international passengers as authorized
in AQI regulations;
• Exempt international passengers
arriving as rail passengers, bus
passengers, in privately owned vehicles
(POV), private aircraft, and private
vessels; and
• Exempt individuals arriving as
pedestrians.
The fee caps refer to current AQI user
fee regulations that limit the number of
times a specific truck (with
transponder), vessel, or railroad car
must pay the AQI fee in a given year.
As part of the AQI fee review, we
reviewed the financial and workload
implications of those caps. We also
considered the financial, workload, and
policy implications of creating new fees
for international passengers arriving by
cruise ship, bus, private vehicle, private
aircraft, and private vessel, and for
pedestrians. We also considered the
financial, workload, and policy
implications of establishing fees for
commodity (plant and plant product)
import permits, pest import permits,
and conducting and monitoring
treatments.
Based on the findings of the AQI user
fee review, we are proposing to amend
the AQI user fee regulations to reflect
the projected cost of providing AQI
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
services, including expected changes in
cost and workload for the period the
revised fees will be in effect.
Specifically, we are proposing to:
• Adjust the fees charged for the
following conveyances or persons to
whom AQI services are provided:
Commercial vessels, commercial trucks,
commercial railroad cars, commercial
aircraft, and international air
passengers. However, because
commercial truck inspections have
separate fees for trucks with and
without decals (transponders), we are
actually proposing to adjust a total of six
current fees.
• Add a new fee to be charged for
international commercial sea (cruise
vessel) passengers, who were previously
funded through fees collected for
commercial vessels. The FACT Act
gives APHIS authority to charge a fee for
all international passengers.
• Add a new fee for conducting and
monitoring treatments, which is a
significant cost that should be paid by
those who use and benefit from these
services.
• Remove the caps for vessels and
railcars.
• Adjust the caps on fees for trucks
with transponders.
These proposed adjustments are
designed to recover the full cost of
providing these AQI services,
commensurate with the class of persons
or entities paying the fees, and are based
on an analysis of our costs for providing
services in FY 2010 and FY 2011, as
well as our best projections of what it
will cost to provide these services in
FYs 2013 through 2016. The proposed
adjustments will also allow us to
maintain the AQI reserve account.
These user fee adjustments are
necessary to recover the costs of the
current level of activity, to account for
actual and projected increases in the
cost of doing business, and to more
accurately align fees with the costs
associated with each fee service.
AQI services are provided by a
combination of APHIS and CBP
personnel. Because of this arrangement,
the AQI user fees collected will be
shared with CBP based on the related
respective costs for each agency.
AQI User Fee Accounting
We maintain all AQI user fees that we
collect in a distinct account. We
carefully monitor the balance in this
account and use these funds to pay for
our actual costs for providing these
distinct AQI services. Any surpluses in
the various AQI accounts carry forward
from year to year. The AQI user fees are
not subject to appropriation by
Congress, although actual collections
E:\FR\FM\25APP1.SGM
25APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 80 / Friday, April 25, 2014 / Proposed Rules
and estimates of future collections are
expressed in each year’s President’s
Budget. Collected funds are available
until expended to fund appropriate AQI
activities.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
AQI Program Costs
For AQI user fee purposes, we are
required to capture the full cost of the
AQI services that we provide. This is
required by:
• The FACT Act;
• Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) Circular A–25, User Charges;
• Statement of Federal Financial
Accounting Standards #4 (SFFAS #4),
Managerial Cost Accounting Standards
and Concepts;
• OMB Circular A–11, Preparation,
Submission, and Execution of the
Budget; and
• The Chief Financial Officers (CFO)
Act.
Full cost includes programmatic costs
and overhead costs as well as imputed
costs, which are costs (such as certain
current benefits costs and future
retirement costs and other postemployment benefits) paid by agencies
other than APHIS and CBP. OMB
Circular A–25 and SFFAS #4 require the
inclusion of imputed costs when
determining the full cost of an output,
such as an AQI service, so that the full
cost to the Federal Government is
recovered. Full cost also includes
depreciation costs related to facilities
and equipment used in delivering AQI
services.
APHIS Costs
AQI program costs incurred by APHIS
include:
• Direct charge costs;
• Program delivery related costs
(known as distributable costs) at the
State level and below, at the regional
and headquarters levels, the APHIS
agency level, and the U.S. Department
of Agriculture (USDA) departmental
level (these costs are described in
greater detail below); and
• Depreciation and other imputed
costs.
As part of our accounting procedures,
we maintain separate accounting codes
to record costs that can be directly
charged to an AQI activity. APHIS
functions that are directly charged to
AQI accounts include salary and
benefits and other costs (e.g., travel,
supplies, rents, and equipment) for
various personnel, including:
• Personnel in plant inspection
stations inspecting propagative
materials (e.g., seeds and bulbs) and
conducting and monitoring treatments;
• Personnel performing pest
identification services (insects,
pathogens, plants);
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:16 Apr 24, 2014
Jkt 232001
• Personnel performing investigative,
enforcement, and smuggling
interdiction and trade compliance
activities;
• Personnel performing risk analysis,
science and technology, policy
development, training, and methods
development activities relating to AQI
work; and
• Personnel performing training of
CBP Agricultural Specialists, CBP
Officers, and CBP Agriculture Specialist
Canine Officers.
Other program delivery related costs
that cannot be directly charged to
individual AQI accounts are charged to
distributable accounts established at the
State, regional, headquarters, agency,
and departmental levels. These costs are
driven to the AQI activities using
staffing level (full time equivalents or
FTE) counts as the cost driver. This then
provides for a ‘‘fully loaded’’ activity
cost. The activity costs are then driven
to program outputs (such as inspections)
based upon work counts.
Distributable accounts typically
contain the following types of costs:
Salaries and benefits, utilities, rent,
telephone, vehicles, office supplies, etc.
The costs in these distributable accounts
are distributed within the APHIS
accounting system to all the programs
and activities that benefit from the
expense. This is based on a formula
under which the costs that are directly
charged to each activity are divided by
the total costs directly charged to each
account. For example, if a work unit
performs work on both domestic
programs and AQI user fee programs,
the distributable account costs are
allocated to each of these programs
based on the percentage of the costs
directly charged to that activity.
Headquarters-level costs include costs
for employees of APHIS’ Plant
Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) and
International Services (IS) programs
who are based at those programs’
headquarters in Riverdale, MD, and
Washington, DC. We incur agency-level
support costs through activities that
support APHIS, such as recruitment and
development; legislative and public
affairs; regulation development;
regulatory enforcement; and budget,
accounting, payroll, purchasing, billing,
and collection services. Departmental
charges are assessed for various AQI
program costs including Federal
telephone service, mail, processing of
payroll and money management,
unemployment compensation, Office of
Workers Compensation Programs, and
central supply for storing and issuing
commonly used supplies and forms.
Because the agency and department
level costs are costs for all of APHIS, we
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
22897
assign a proportional amount to the AQI
program, primarily based on the staffing
level used in the AQI program.
Imputed costs include Office of
Workers’ Compensation costs from the
Department of Labor; costs of employee
leave earned in a prior fiscal year and
used in the current fiscal year;
headquarters space operation and
maintenance costs; Office of Personnel
Management (OPM) and State
Department costs to provide retirement,
health, and life insurance benefits to
employees; unemployment
compensation costs; and Department of
Justice judgment fund costs. Fee
revenue collected that is based on
imputed costs is not retained in the AQI
account but is forwarded to the U.S.
Treasury.
CBP Costs
CBP program costs are similar to those
for APHIS. CBP costs that are directly
charged to AQI activities include
salaries and benefits for CBP Agriculture
Specialists, CBP Officers, CBP
Agriculture Specialist Canine Officers,
supervisors (such as port directors), CBP
Technicians, and mission support staff;
equipment and supplies used in
connection with services subject to AQI
user fees; contracts used for AQI
services; and large supply items such as
uniforms, laboratory and examination
equipment, and non-intrusive
inspection equipment used for AQI
services.
CBP activities that are directly
charged to AQI accounts include
various personnel at ports of entry,
headquarters, and field offices,
including:
• Personnel deployed to international
airports and seaports to perform
regulatory enforcement activities that
include:
• Processing for entry of passengers,
baggage, and personal effects;
• Examination for entry of aircraft,
containers, and vessels;
• Administration of wood packaging
material and regulated garbage
compliance monitoring activities; and
• Examination for entry of
commercial cargo and parcels.
• Personnel deployed to land border
ports of entry to perform regulatory
enforcement activities including
examination for entry of commercial
trucks, railcars, containers, and
commercial cargo and parcels.
• Personnel conducting pre-arrival
analysis, targeting, and selection for
examination of baggage, commodities,
conveyances, packages, etc., that present
a risk to American agriculture and
natural resources; including agricultural
and biological terrorism agents.
E:\FR\FM\25APP1.SGM
25APP1
22898
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 80 / Friday, April 25, 2014 / Proposed Rules
• Personnel providing expert
guidance, training, and technical advice
to CBP Officers, other CBP personnel,
trade, industry, and other stakeholders
on regulatory requirements pertaining to
compliance with agricultural
regulations and the processing of
agriculture-related cargo and material.
• Personnel performing pre- and postacademy training for CBP Agriculture
Specialists, CBP Officers, other CBP
personnel, and the performance of
recruitment and agriculture-related
outreach.
Summary level costs for APHIS and
CBP are shown in table 1 below.
TABLE 1—FY 2011 ESTIMATED COSTS BY CATEGORY AND AGENCY
APHIS
CBP
Total
Direct ............................................................................................................................................
Overhead .....................................................................................................................................
Imputed ........................................................................................................................................
$140,210,651
12,220,530
12,572,451
$418,647,765
223,776,057
53,764,878
$558,858,416
235,996,587
66,337,329
Total ......................................................................................................................................
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Cost category
165,003,632
696,188,700
861,192,332
AQI Cost Analysis
In order to determine the current cost
of AQI services and understand the
potential impact of alternative fee
schedules, we first calculated the costs
of the current AQI program by fee
category, using the activity-basedcosting (ABC) methodology. We were
then able to project volumes and
perform detailed cost analysis for
potential changes to the AQI fee
schedule. This cost modeling effort
included developing historical cost
information using FY 2010 and FY 2011
financial and workload data to provide
the full cost of AQI activities and
outputs. We used the ABC methodology
because it supports the philosophy of
full cost recovery, provides the
functional elements and data for cost
and business process analysis, and
complies with regulatory guidance
regarding full cost recovery.
ABC uses a two-step methodology to
assign an organization’s costs to its work
activities and then to its related outputs.
Costs are those things on which an
organization spends its budget, such as
salaries and benefits for employees,
rent, equipment, etc. Work activities are
the various endeavors that people in the
organization undertake (e.g., air
passenger inspection, pest
identification), and outputs are the
goods or services that the organization
produces through its activities.
In the first step of ABC, we assigned
costs to activities using resource drivers,
which typically represent a cause-andeffect relationship to establish how
much of a resource is consumed by each
activity. For example, if an organization
spends 10 percent of its effort
performing a particular activity, we
assigned 10 percent of certain costs (e.g.,
salary and benefits) to that activity
because the level of effort is a good
indicator of resources consumed. In
support of this step, we conducted an
activity labor survey for APHIS State,
regional, and headquarters organizations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:16 Apr 24, 2014
Jkt 232001
to estimate the level of effort devoted to
AQI activities. We also incorporated
activity cost information for CBP from
their existing cost model.
In the second step, we assigned
APHIS and CBP activity costs to the
outputs produced by performing the
activities. We performed this cost
assignment using activity drivers, again
based on a cause-and-effect relationship.
For example, if an activity is performed
for more than one type of output, we
assigned the cost of the activity to the
outputs proportionately based on the
workload data (volume) associated with
each output. We used workload data
from several APHIS and CBP systems as
the activity drivers.
While our AQI cost model design is
based on the standard ABC
methodology, it also incorporated
several additional cost assignment
layers to provide more transparent cost
assignment and reporting. This included
identifying and costing outputs at levels
that were more detailed than necessary
to capture costs just at current fee
service levels. For example, we
separately determined the cost of APHIS
and CBP outputs and then combined
this information to develop cost
information for overall AQI services.
This then provided us with flexibility
for restructuring the AQI fee schedule.
We also calculated expected future costs
and workload and added those to the
base to estimate the total costs and
workload for the future periods when
the new fees are expected to be in effect.
The data for the AQI cost analysis
came from financial and program
workload information in standard
APHIS and CBP records. The financial
data included direct program costs and
overhead costs previously discussed.
This data was previously captured by
those agencies to comply with other
requirements. CBP already had a
detailed cost model for its activities, and
we used cost data from the CBP cost
model. As noted above, we used a
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
detailed labor survey to determine the
cost of APHIS activities.
Then, in accordance with Office of
Management and Budget Circular, A–25
‘‘User Charges,’’ and OMB Statement of
Federal Financial Accounting
Standards, Number 30, ‘‘Managerial
Cost Accounting Standards and
Concepts,’’ we identified and added an
appropriate amount of imputed costs.
These are costs borne by other Federal
agencies (such as the U.S. Treasury and
the Office of Personnel Management) in
support of the AQI program. We used
employee costs as the basis to identify
the portion of these costs to attribute to
the AQI program.
We calculated APHIS depreciation by
identifying equipment-related
depreciation expenses. For APHISowned buildings where AQI work is
performed, we used an appropriate
portion (based on percent of work done
in the building that was AQI) of the total
depreciation for those buildings. CBP
provided depreciation data for CBPowned facilities and capital equipment
based on similar calculations.
When the AQI cost model was
completed, we were able to determine
the actual costs of each of the current
AQI services, as shown in the table
below. By matching these costs with the
workload volumes for each AQI fee
service, we were also able to calculate
the unit cost of each output. We were
also able to determine the more detailed
costs associated with all classes of
passengers and treatments. Table 2
shows the FY 2011 baseline costs by
service activity that resulted from this
AQI cost analysis.
TABLE 2—AQI FY 2011 BASELINE
COSTS
Fee service activity
Air Passenger ...............
Cruise Ship Passenger
Rail Passenger .............
Bus Passenger .............
E:\FR\FM\25APP1.SGM
25APP1
2011 Actual cost
$291,434,620
20,205,868
1,630,302
23,091,799
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 80 / Friday, April 25, 2014 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 2—AQI FY 2011 BASELINE
COSTS—Continued
Fee service activity
2011 Actual cost
POV Passenger ............
Pedestrian .....................
Commercial Aircraft ......
Commercial Maritime
Cargo Vessel ............
Commercial Truck ........
Commercial Cargo Railcar .............................
Private Aircraft ..............
Private Maritime Vessel
Treatments ....................
Military Clearance Operations .........................
129,489,305
34,664,442
156,242,180
Total .......................
861,192,332
91,152,480
73,529,394
5,150,585
11,371,965
4,940,099
14,324,472
3,964,821
To project costs beyond FY 2011, we
considered two changes to these
baseline costs. The first change was any
initiative which would increase APHIS
or CBP costs in those years. Both APHIS
and CBP have implemented various
initiatives aimed at reducing
redundancy in data input requirements
for importers, increasing transparency,
reducing wait times or expediting
inspections, and eliminating or
changing treatment requirements. The
APHIS initiatives are:
• A Web-based permit system that
allows users to submit permit
applications, track applications, apply
for renewals and amendments, and
receive copies of their import/interstate
movement/transit/release permits.
• AQI outreach, an effort to provide
information and education to travelers
and importers in order to reduce the risk
of bringing prohibited agricultural items
into the United States.
• Critical upgrades to plant
inspection station equipment that will
enable us to do plant inspections more
effectively.
• A more robust risk assessment
capacity that will enable APHIS to
increase its capacity to perform risk
assessments through increasing the
quality and reliability of its data.
• Development of new treatment
techniques by APHIS scientists that can
be used on agricultural products coming
into the United States. These methods
can save cost and time as well as reduce
the risk of invasive pests entering the
country.
The CBP initiatives are:
22899
• Border security supplemental,
which is related to a FY 2010 law
intended to bolster border security,
specifically along the U.S./Mexican
border, and represents the AQI cost
associated with the law. The initiative
funding supports Federal agents, judges,
courts, and other various agencies.
• Increase in the journeyman grade
for CBP Officers, CBP Agriculture
Specialists, and Border Patrol Agents to
account for increasing scope of
responsibilities of officers and agents
and to bring parity across Federal
agencies. The AQI fee review
incorporated journeyman upgrade costs
specifically related to AQI.
• National Targeting Center that
filters advanced information on people
and products to identify threats and
risks and allows CBP to target higher
risk trade and travelers for detailed
inspection prior to their arrival at a U.S.
port of entry.
• Address increased activity at ports
of entry by hiring additional personnel.
The data for these initiatives came
from APHIS and CBP budget offices and
is shown in Table 3.
TABLE 3—APHIS AND CBP INITIATIVES
Future initiatives
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
APHIS
Web-based permits system .................................................
AQI outreach ........................................................................
Plant inspection station equipment ......................................
Risk assessment capacity ...................................................
Treatment development .......................................................
$1,200,000
5,000,000
23,600
120,000
180,000
$1,204,680
5,019,500
23,692
120,468
180,702
$1,226,364
5,109,851
24,118
122,636
183,955
$1,237,279
5,155,329
24,333
123,728
185,592
$1,248,291
5,201,211
24,550
124,829
187,244
CBP
5,676,640
38,550,379
6,895,000
7,752,437
5,676,640
38,550,379
6,919,133
7,752,437
5,773,143
39,205,735
7,042,985
7,884,228
5,802,009
39,401,764
7,102,850
7,923,649
5,831,019
39,598,773
7,163,225
7,963,267
Totals ............................................................................
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Border security supplemental ..............................................
Journeyman increase ...........................................................
National Targeting Center ....................................................
Port of entry staff expansion ................................................
65,398,056
65,447,630
66,573,016
66,956,533
67,342,408
The second change that we
considered in calculating future costs
was projected cost growth. Table 4
shows the growth rates used to project
future cost increases. These growth rates
represent guidance provided by OMB
for use in developing budgets and other
forecasts of future costs. They are
broken out by payroll and non-payroll
costs, and we applied them accordingly
to the baseline costs and initiatives.
TABLE 4—GROWTH RATES
Fiscal year
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Payroll
(percent)
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
0.0
0.0
1.7
0.5
0.5
Non-payroll
(percent)
Based on these growth rates, we
projected the costs shown in Table 5 for
FYs 2014 through 2016.
1.3
1.6
2.1
2.1
2.1
TABLE 5—PROJECTED COSTS FYS 2014 THROUGH 2016
Fee service activity
2014
2015
2016
Air passenger ...............................................................................................................................
$322,591,452
$324,996,118
$327,426,378
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:16 Apr 24, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\25APP1.SGM
25APP1
22900
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 80 / Friday, April 25, 2014 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 5—PROJECTED COSTS FYS 2014 THROUGH 2016—Continued
Fee service activity
2014
2015
2016
Sea passenger .............................................................................................................................
Rail passenger .............................................................................................................................
Bus passenger .............................................................................................................................
POV passenger ...........................................................................................................................
Pedestrian ....................................................................................................................................
Commercial aircraft ......................................................................................................................
Commercial maritime ...................................................................................................................
Commercial truck .........................................................................................................................
Commercial cargo railcar .............................................................................................................
Private aircraft ..............................................................................................................................
Private maritime vessel ...............................................................................................................
Treatments ...................................................................................................................................
Military clearance .........................................................................................................................
22,421,487
1,805,242
25,573,198
143,333,256
38,357,661
170,836,038
99,783,440
81,018,003
5,679,995
12,602,768
5,486,025
15,086,074
4,331,642
22,589,194
1,818,103
25,758,827
144,384,916
38,635,543
172,855,461
100,995,859
81,789,820
5,732,572
12,690,860
5,526,987
15,421,466
4,371,639
22,758,727
1,831,085
25,946,311
145,447,319
38,916,167
174,912,526
102,232,305
82,573,152
5,785,904
12,779,754
5,568,398
15,765,008
4,412,236
Total ......................................................................................................................................
948,906,281
957,567,365
966,355,270
Volume Projections
To develop potential fee scenarios, we
also projected workload growth and
resulting workload volumes for each
fiscal year from 2013 to 2016. We were
able to identify FY 2011 and 2012 actual
workload from data previously captured
by APHIS and CBP. To forecast
expected changes in imports and tourist
traffic across the nation’s borders, we
researched a variety of data sources and
used the following:
• We used projections from the
International Air Transport Association
Industry Forecast Summary Report to
project air passengers and air cargo.
• We used projections from a market
research site, Cruise Market Watch, to
project sea passengers.
• We used a U.S. Department of
Transportation report that forecast the
number of border crossings by mode of
traffic at selected ports of entry and
extrapolated to get projections for
pedestrians and POV and bus
passengers.
• We used a USDA report on
Agricultural Sector Aggregate Indicators
to project maritime cargo, truck cargo,
rail cargo, mail packages, commodity
import permits, and treatments.
• We did not forecast any changes for
rail passengers, private aircraft, or
private sea vessels because a change rate
for these conveyances cannot be tied to
any import data or other independent
variable.
Table 6 shows the resulting volumes
for the various fee service activities.
TABLE 6—WORKLOAD PROJECTIONS, FYS 2013 THROUGH 2016
2011 Actual
count
Fee
Air passenger ...................
Sea passenger .................
Rail passenger .................
Bus passenger .................
POV passenger ................
Pedestrian ........................
Commercial aircraft ..........
Commercial maritime
cargo vessel .................
Commercial truck .............
Commercial cargo railcar
Private aircraft ..................
Private maritime vessel ....
Treatments .......................
2012 Actual
count
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
2014
2015
2016
77,255,476
13,532,465
276,855
5,318,382
175,428,545
41,375,736
719,251
3.60%
3.15
—
¥1.69
0.76
¥3.49
3.60
80,036,673
13,958,738
276,855
5,228,501
176,761,802
39,931,723
745,144
82,917,993
14,398,438
276,855
5,140,140
178,105,192
38,538,106
771,969
85,903,041
14,851,989
276,855
5,053,271
179,458,791
37,193,126
799,760
88,995,551
15,319,826
276,855
4,967,871
180,822,678
35,895,086
828,551
101,794
10,348,791
2,912,210
121,221
80,529
29,713
113,727
10,664,770
3,230,167
116,240
80,949
38,517
3.15
3.83
3.83
—
—
5.36
117,309
11,073,231
3,353,882
116,240
80,949
40,582
121,005
11,497,335
3,482,336
116,240
80,949
42,757
124,816
11,937,683
3,615,710
116,240
80,949
45,048
128,748
12,394,897
3,754,191
116,240
80,949
47,463
With the total costs and the workload
projections, we were able to project fee
requirements for each potential fee
service activity. However, in addition to
the fee revenue required to cover
current and projected AQI service costs,
we need to generate revenue to
replenish the AQI account reserve. The
reserve components were established
simply by rounding up the raw fee
calculations (projected unit cost) for
each fee. All projected unit costs less
16:16 Apr 24, 2014
2013
78,901,506
12,931,271
276,722
5,222,786
169,834,015
40,609,235
700,644
Fee Computation
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Expected
changes
(annual)
Jkt 232001
than $10 were rounded up to the next
$1, and all unit costs greater than $200
were rounded up to the next $25. No
proposed fees fall between $10 and
$200. This approach provides a
proportionate rounding for all fees. We
then calculated the estimated number of
days that the reserve could support
costs on a noncumulative basis. We
estimate that by the end of FY 2016 the
AQI reserve will have approximately a
90 day reserve, which is consistent with
our established AQI fund reserve policy.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Proposed Fee Amounts
APHIS is proposing significant
changes to the AQI user fee structure
and the fee rates. As previously
mentioned, we employed activity based
costing (ABC) as our methodology to
determine the cost of AQI services, and
this information, along with other
factors, was used to define an
appropriate fee structure and fee rates.
The ABC methodology is a derivative of
the managerial cost accounting, which
is recommended by OMB and
E:\FR\FM\25APP1.SGM
25APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 80 / Friday, April 25, 2014 / Proposed Rules
Government Accountability Office
guidance on government fee setting.
Previously, APHIS relied on an
estimation methodology to determine
the fee rates, and we believe that the
estimation methodology did not provide
enough information to properly
establish the correct fee structure and
fee rates. We also believe that the use of
the ABC methodology provides
significantly greater accuracy and
transparency in fee setting. The use of
ABC has enabled APHIS to more
accurately identify the true costs of
providing each of the AQI services.
The costs incurred by both APHIS and
CBP have been analyzed using the ABC
methodology. APHIS was able to
determine activity costs for each AQI
service by collecting related financial
and workload data for APHIS and CBP,
and using this information to properly
assign AQI program costs to each
activity. The AQI program costs include
program delivery activities such as
inspections, inspection targeting
analysis, staff training, plant and pest
identification, and risk assessments. The
majority of activity costs are for salary
and benefits, but they also include costs
such as the training of CBP Agriculture
Specialists, CBP Officers, training and
care of CBP Agriculture Specialist
Canine Officers and canines,
replacement or new equipment,
utilities, rent, replacement or new
vehicles, and office supplies; and
imputed costs that APHIS and CBP are
22901
responsible for recovering such as
workman’s compensation, health,
retirement, and life insurance benefits.
Using the data and methodology
discussed above, we calculated the
proposed fees shown in table 7. Each fee
service activity is explained in greater
detail in the paragraphs that follow. If
these proposed fees become effective,
we would continue to monitor the costs
of AQI services, our collections, and the
level of the reserve and would
undertake rulemaking to adjust the fees
if we determined that costs were not
being appropriately recovered or the
reserve levels were on a path to be
either greater or less than our
established AQI fund 90-day reserve
policy.
TABLE 7—PROPOSED FEES
Current
Air passenger ............................................................................................................................................................
Commercial aircraft ...................................................................................................................................................
Commercial maritime cargo vessel ...........................................................................................................................
Commercial truck ......................................................................................................................................................
Commercial truck transponder ..................................................................................................................................
Commercial cargo railcar ..........................................................................................................................................
Sea passenger ..........................................................................................................................................................
Treatments ................................................................................................................................................................
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Fee service activity
$5 .................
70.75 ............
496 ...............
5.25 ..............
105 ...............
7.75 ..............
no fee ...........
no fee ...........
Air passenger. Millions of travelers
pass through U.S. airports daily.
Inspecting air passengers includes prearrival analysis of incoming passengers
and screening arriving air passengers for
agricultural products by CBP
Agriculture Specialists and CBP
Officers; inspection of passenger
baggage using CBP agriculture canines
and specialized non-intrusive
inspection equipment; inspecting the
interior of the passenger aircraft;
monitoring the storage and removal of
regulated international garbage from the
aircraft to ensure consistency with all
regulatory requirements; safeguarding
and appropriately disposing of any
seized or abandoned prohibited
agricultural products; and identifying
pests found on prohibited agricultural
products brought into the country by air
passengers. The ABC data indicated that
the current fee was going to generate
revenues in excess of what will be
required to support anticipated costs. As
a result, we are proposing a 20 percent
decrease in this fee (from $5 to $4) to
better align the fee with the cost of
activities related to air passengers.
Commercial aircraft. We also inspect
international commercial aircraft
arriving at airports in the customs
territory of the United States. Inspecting
commercial aircraft includes reviewing
manifests and documentation
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:16 Apr 24, 2014
Jkt 232001
accompanying incoming cargo; targeting
higher risk cargo for inspection or
clearance; inspecting various types of
agricultural and agricultural-related
commodities, international mail,
expedited courier packages, containers,
compliant wood packaging material,
and packing materials to screen for the
presence of plant pests and
contaminants, compliance with
regulations, and determining entry
status; inspecting the aircraft hold or
exterior for contaminants, pests, or
invasive species; monitoring the storage
and removal of regulated international
garbage from the aircraft to ensure
consistency with all regulatory
requirements; identifying pests found
during inspection; and safeguarding
shipments pending PPQ determination
for treatment or final disposition. The
ABC data indicated that the current fee
being charged does not reflect the actual
costs incurred in the performance of
those activities and would result in a
significant shortfall in what will be
required to cover the anticipated costs
of this activity. Accordingly, we are
proposing a 218 percent increase in this
fee (from $70.75 to $225) to more
accurately align the fee with the actual
cost of activities related to commercial
aircraft inspection described above as
those costs were identified using our
ABC methodology.
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Proposed
$4
225
825
8
320
2
2
375
Commercial maritime cargo vessel.
We inspect commercial vessels of 100
net tons or more arriving at ports of
entry into the customs territory of the
United States. Inspecting commercial
maritime cargo vessels involves
reviewing manifests and documentation
accompanying incoming cargo; targeting
higher risk cargo for inspection or
clearance; inspecting various types of
agricultural and agricultural-related
commodities, containers, compliant
wood packaging material, and packing
materials to screen for the presence of
plant pests and contaminants,
compliance with regulations, and
determining entry status; inspecting the
vessel to ensure that contaminants,
pests, or invasive pests are not present
or are properly safeguarded; inspecting
the ship’s stores to ensure that
prohibited items are not present;
monitoring the storage and removal of
regulated international garbage from the
vessel to ensure consistency with all
regulatory requirements; identifying
pests found during inspection; and
safeguarding shipments pending PPQ
determination for treatment or final
disposition. The current regulations cap
the number of arrivals for which a single
vessel would be charged at 15 per
calendar year, i.e., a vessel is not
charged for its 16th or subsequent
arrival in any 1 year. The ABC data
E:\FR\FM\25APP1.SGM
25APP1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
22902
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 80 / Friday, April 25, 2014 / Proposed Rules
indicated that the limitation on
collections imposed by the cap, as well
as the amount of the current fee, was
going to lead to a shortfall in what will
be required to support anticipated costs.
As a result, we are proposing to remove
the 15-arrival cap and increase the fee
by 71 percent (from $496 to $825) to
align the fee with the cost of activities
related to commercial maritime cargo
vessels.
Commercial truck. We inspect
commercial trucks arriving at land ports
in the customs territory of the United
States from Mexico and Canada.
Inspecting trucks involves reviewing
manifests and documentation
accompanying incoming cargo; targeting
higher risk cargo for inspection;
inspecting various types of agricultural
and agricultural-related commodities,
compliant wood packaging material,
and packing materials to screen for the
presence of plant pests and
contaminants, compliance with
regulations, and determining entry
status; inspecting the truck and
conveyance for contaminants, pests, or
invasive species; identifying pests found
during inspection; and safeguarding
shipments pending final determination
for treatment or final disposition. The
ABC data indicated that the current fee
was going to result in a shortfall in what
will be required to support anticipated
costs. As a result, we are proposing a 52
percent increase in this fee (from $5.25
to $8) to align the fee with the cost of
activities related to commercial trucks.
Commercial truck transponder. We
estimate that the use of transponders
corresponds to a 10 minute reduction in
the border crossing time for trucks. The
proposed fee will maintain an incentive
for trucks to continue the use of
transponders while recovering a greater
portion of the Government’s cost to
provide inspection services. Based on
data about how many times a
commercial truck with a responder
came into the country, we propose to
increase the truck transponder fee from
20 to 40 times the individual truck fee.
We are proposing this change based on
our analysis indicating that trucks with
transponders cross an average of 106
times per year. Increasing the truck
transponder fee to 40 times the
individual truck fee, along with the
increase in the commercial truck fee,
results in an increase of 205 percent
(from $105 to $320) for the transponder
fee.
Commercial cargo railcar. We inspect
loaded commercial railroad cars arriving
at land ports in the customs territory of
the United States from Mexico and
Canada. Inspecting railcars involves
reviewing manifests and documentation
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:16 Apr 24, 2014
Jkt 232001
accompanying incoming cargo; targeting
higher risk cargo for inspection or
clearance; inspecting various types of
agricultural and agricultural-related
commodities, containers, compliant
wood packaging material, and packing
materials to screen for the presence of
plant pests and contaminants,
compliance with regulations, and
determining entry status; inspecting the
railcars for contaminants, pests or
invasive species; identifying pests found
during inspection; monitoring the
storage and removal of regulated
international garbage from the railcar to
ensure consistency with all regulatory
requirements; and safeguarding
shipments pending PPQ determination
for treatment or final disposition. The
ABC data indicated that the current fee
was going to generate revenues
significantly in excess of what will be
required to support anticipated costs.
Accordingly, we are proposing a 74
percent decrease in this fee (from $7.75
to $2) to align the fee with the cost of
activities related to commercial cargo
railcars.
We also analyzed those fee service
activities for which there was not
currently a fee even though significant
workload and/or costs were being
generated:
Sea passenger. Inspecting a cruise
vessel and its passengers includes prearrival analysis of incoming passengers;
screening arriving sea passengers for
agricultural products by CBP
Agriculture Specialists and CBP
Officers; inspection of passenger
baggage using CBP agriculture canines
and specialized non-intrusive
inspection equipment; inspection of the
vessel itself to ensure that contaminants,
prohibited articles, or invasive pests are
not present; inspecting the ship’s stores
to ensure that prohibited items are not
present or are properly safeguarded; and
monitoring the storage and removal of
regulated international garbage from the
vessel to ensure consistency with all
existing regulatory requirements.
(Consistent with our AQI fee authority,
the costs of inspecting the cruise ships
themselves would be covered by the
proposed sea passenger fee rather than
a separate fee similar to the commercial
maritime cargo vessel fee, just as the
international air passenger user fee
covers the costs associated with
inspecting the aircraft on which they
arrived.) We also analyze information
that allows us to perform targeted
inspections in order to reduce the risk
of a dangerous plant, plant pest,
contaminant, or foreign animal disease
from entering the United States. This
information is used in our training and
in the development of inspection
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
guidance and policies. Similar
information is used extensively by CBP
to help distinguish levels of risk. We
believe that this effort helps us to
provide the highest level of protection at
the lowest cost. No fees are currently
collected for this category of passenger.
Based on the costs associated with
inspecting these passengers (projected at
approximately $22.4 million to $22.8
million in FYs 2014 to 2016, as noted
in table 5 above) and the ease of
collection from the direct beneficiary
(i.e., the passenger) through the sea
vessel ticket, we are proposing to
implement a $2 user fee, which is
sufficient to recover the projected costs
of this AQI activity. This new fee would
allow us to recover the costs associated
with this inspection activity.
The new sea passenger user fee would
be added to paragraph (f) of § 354.3,
which currently contains the provisions
regarding the airline passenger AQI user
fee, as the collection and remittance
procedures for both the sea passenger
and airline passenger user fees would be
the same. The current regulations
provide an exemption from the payment
of user fees for the crew members on
duty on an arriving aircraft; we would
make the same exemption for crew
members on duty aboard an arriving
cruise ship. Similarly, the current
regulations provide that airlines will not
be charged reimbursable overtime for
passenger inspection services required
for any aircraft on which a passenger
arrived who has paid the international
passenger AQI user fee for that flight.
We would provide the same limitation
on overtime charges for cruise lines.
Treatments. Treatments are performed
on some agricultural goods as a
condition of entry, and others are
performed when an actionable pest (i.e.,
a plant pest that should not be allowed
to be introduced into or disseminated
within the United States) is detected
during a port-of-entry inspection. The
objective of these AQI treatments is to
ensure that agricultural goods and
commodities entering the United States
are free from viable plant pests and
noxious weeds that would pose a risk to
the health of the U.S. domestic
agriculture and natural resources.
Treatment methods include fumigation,
cold treatment, irradiation, and heat
treatment. APHIS activities related to
the application of AQI treatments
include personnel determining the
appropriate treatment schedule,
monitoring the treatment to ensure it is
conducted as specified so that the
treatment takes place in the prescribed
manner, and determining whether the
treatment was successful. These AQI
services focus on ensuring the
E:\FR\FM\25APP1.SGM
25APP1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 80 / Friday, April 25, 2014 / Proposed Rules
effectiveness of a given treatment
regardless of its methodology. While
AQI treatments are usually provided by
private entities who charge the importer
for their services, from time to time
APHIS will provide the treatment,
especially for propagative materials. We
also develop new methods of
treatments. These methods increase the
effectiveness of treating agricultural
goods and reduce the risk of dangerous
pests entering the United States. No fees
are currently collected for this activity.
Based on our analysis of the costs
(projected at approximately $15 million
to $15.8 million in FYs 2014 to 2016, as
noted in table 5 above) and the relative
ease of collection when the treatment is
ordered, we are proposing a $375 fee for
each treatment. The AQI treatment fee is
designed to recover the costs of APHIS
services for monitoring the treatment to
ensure it is conducted as specified so
that the treatment takes place in the
prescribed manner and determining
whether the treatment was successful.
Should a treatment prove unsuccessful
and have to be reapplied, that
subsequent AQI treatment would also be
subject to an AQI treatment fee, as
APHIS incurs costs by providing AQI
treatment-related services regardless of
the success or failure of the treatment.
Similarly, if there was a particularly
large consignment that had to be treated
in two or more lots, each lot would be
subject to an AQI treatment fee. Finally,
along those lines, if there were two or
more small consignments from different
importers that required the same
treatment and could be combined and
treated together at the same time, there
would be only one AQI treatment fee
charged, with each importer being
responsible for a share of that fee.
The provisions for the payment of
AQI user fees for conducting and
monitoring treatments would be added
to § 354.3 as a new paragraph (h). Most
treatment services are provided by
private companies that charge importers
a fee for their services. Because those
companies are already invoicing the
importers whose consignments are
being treated, we are proposing that the
treatment companies would also collect
the AQI user fee and subsequently remit
the fee to APHIS. This is the same
model used for the collection of the AQI
user fees for international airline
passengers and that we are proposing to
use for cruise ship passengers. In those
instances where APHIS itself performs
the treatment, we would collect the fee
directly from the importer for whom the
treatment is being provided.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:16 Apr 24, 2014
Jkt 232001
Other Fees Considered
APHIS considered, but is not
proposing at this time, fees for the
following AQI services:
• Rail passenger: No fees are
currently collected for this category of
passenger. Because the total cost is less
than $2 million, and there would be
additional cost of creating and operating
fee collections, we are not proposing
any fees for this category of passenger.
• Bus passenger: No fees are currently
collected for this category of passenger,
even though annual costs are over $25
million for this service. We considered
proposing a new bus passenger fee, but
recognized that this would require
establishing the infrastructure and
process for bus companies to collect and
remit the fees since CBP does not have
a comparable fee. In addition, the
barriers for entry into the bus passenger
industry are much lower compared to
air and cruise vessel industries. As a
result, there are more bus companies
entering and exiting the industry, which
would make fee collection and
monitoring difficult. However, we
intend to gather additional information
to determine if there are other ways to
collect this fee in the future, which
would be addressed through a future
rulemaking.
• POV passenger: No fees are
currently collected for this category of
passenger, even though annual costs are
over $160 million. The high cost of
creating and operating fee collections,
and considerations about potential
backups of POVs at the ports of entry,
led us to recommend that POV
passengers continue to not be subject to
an AQI user fee.
• Pedestrians: No fees are currently
collected for the inspection of
pedestrians arriving in the United
States, even though the annual costs are
over $38 million for this service. The
high cost of creating and operating fee
collections and considerations about
potential backups of pedestrians at the
ports of entry led us to recommend that
arriving pedestrians continue to not be
subject to an AQI user fee at this time.
• Private aircraft: No fees are
currently collected for the inspection of
private aircraft and their passengers.
The cost of less than $13 million, and
the additional cost of creating and
operating fee collections, led us to
recommend that private aircraft and
their passengers continue to not be
subject to an AQI user fee.
• Private maritime vessel: No fees are
currently collected for the inspection of
private maritime vessels and their
passengers. The cost of less than $6
million, and the additional cost of
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
22903
creating and operating fee collections,
led us to recommend that private
maritime vessel passengers continue to
not be subject to an AQI user fee.
• Commodity import permit: No fee is
currently charged for commodity import
permits. We considered establishing a
separate fee, but concerns about the
impact on importers and relationships
with trading partners led us to not
propose this fee.
• Pest import permit: No fee is
currently charged for pest import
permits. We considered establishing a
separate fee, but we did not want to
discourage the research associated with
pest import permits because this
research benefits United States
agriculture and ecosystem overall.
Accordingly, the costs of these AQI
services will continue to be covered
through appropriated funding.
Periodic Updates to User Fees
The Department is seeking public
comment on the frequency and
methodology for updating the AQI user
fees. Currently there is no established
schedule for updating the fees, which
has led to long gaps between updates
and substantial increases in fees when
updates are made. The Department is
particularly interested in comments on
whether fees should be updated more
frequently, e.g., every 2 years, and
whether the updates should be made
through a rulemaking or some other
means such as a notice-based process
that provides an opportunity for public
comment. We are also interested in
comments regarding the possibility of
phasing in the updated fees when there
may be an economic hardship due to
factors such as substantial increases due
to long gaps between updates or, as in
the case with this proposed rule, a
comprehensive review to determine the
current cost of specific AQI services
indicates that the AQI program is not
recovering the full cost of its fee
services.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and
Regulatory Flexibility Act
This proposed rule has been
determined to be economically
significant for the purposes of Executive
Order 12866 and, therefore, has been
reviewed by OMB.
We have prepared a regulatory impact
analysis (RIA) for this rule. The RIA
provides a cost-benefit analysis, as
required by Executive Orders 12866 and
13563, which direct agencies to assess
all costs and benefits of available
regulatory alternatives and, if regulation
is necessary, to select regulatory
approaches that maximize net benefits
(including potential economic,
E:\FR\FM\25APP1.SGM
25APP1
22904
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 80 / Friday, April 25, 2014 / Proposed Rules
environmental, public health and safety
effects, and equity). Executive Order
13563 emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits, of
reducing costs, of harmonizing rules,
and of promoting flexibility. The RIA
also provides an initial regulatory
flexibility analysis that examines the
potential economic effects of this rule
on small entities, as required by the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. The RIA is
summarized below. Copies of the full
analysis are available by contacting the
person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT or on the
Regulations.gov Web site (see
ADDRESSES above for instructions for
accessing Regulations.gov).
APHIS is proposing to amend the user
fee regulations by adding new fee
categories and adjusting current fees
charged for certain agricultural
quarantine and inspection (AQI)
services. We are also proposing to alter
or remove certain fee caps. We have
determined that revised user fee
categories and revised user fees are
necessary to recover the costs of the
current level of activity, to account for
actual and projected increases in the
cost of doing business, and to more
accurately align fees with the costs
associated with each fee service.
AQI fees are mandated to be costbased and paid by the users of the AQI
services to ensure that recipients bear
the costs of the services instead of the
American taxpayer. In our RIA, benefits
and costs of the proposed changes to the
AQI user fee schedule are evaluated in
accordance with Executive Orders
12866 and 13563. Expected effects for
small entities are evaluated as required
by the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
AQI services benefit U.S. agricultural
and natural resources by protecting
them from the inadvertent introduction
of foreign pests and diseases that may
enter the country and the threat of
intentional introduction of pests or
pathogens as a means of agroterrorism.
Failure to adjust these fees to account
for full cost recovery, particularly in the
present fiscal climate, has the potential
to cause a decrease in AQI services
provided. Efforts would be made to
address the greatest risk and minimize,
to the extent allowed by available
resources, significant negative impact
on U.S. industries.
The proposed changes in user fees
would more closely align, by class, the
cost of AQI services provided and user
fee revenue received. The proposed fee
schedule would better reflect the costs
of AQI services provided commercial
vessels, commercial trucks, commercial
railcars, commercial aircraft, and
international air passengers arriving at
U.S. ports; newly include fees for
additional classes of recipients of AQI
services; remove user fee caps for
commercial vessels and commercial
railcars; and increase the fee cap for
commercial trucks. Fee caps refer to
limits on the number of times a fee must
be paid for a specific truck (with
transponder), vessel, or railcar in a
calendar year. The current and proposed
AQI user fee rates are shown in table 8.
TABLE 8—CURRENT AND PROPOSED AQI USER FEE RATES
[Dollars]
Current
Air passenger ............................................................................................................................................................
Commercial aircraft ...................................................................................................................................................
Commercial cargo vessel ..........................................................................................................................................
Commercial truck ......................................................................................................................................................
Commercial truck with transponder (one) annual payment) .....................................................................................
Commercial cargo railcar ..........................................................................................................................................
Sea passenger ..........................................................................................................................................................
Treatment ..................................................................................................................................................................
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
User fee class
$5 .................
70.75 ............
496 ...............
5.25 ..............
105 ...............
7.75 ..............
no fee ...........
no fee ...........
APHIS used activity-based costing to
determine the proposed rate
adjustments for classes that currently
pay user fees and the proposed rates for
newly charged classes. The two classes
that would be newly charged user fees
under the proposed rule are
international sea (cruise) passengers and
recipients of AQI treatment services.
Currently, the cost of AQI services
received by these entities is borne by
other user fee classes and/or taxpayers
through appropriated funding.
Elimination of the user fee caps for
commercial railcars and commercial
vessels would more closely align the
user fee revenue received with the cost
of providing AQI services for rail and
vessel cargo. We propose to retain the
cap for commercial trucks because of
the increased efficiency gained through
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:16 Apr 24, 2014
Jkt 232001
the use of transponders at border
inspections. The cap for commercial
trucks would be increased, however,
and these businesses would pay in fees
a larger share of the cost of the AQI
services they receive.
Under the proposed fee structure, it is
expected that AQI user fee revenue for
fiscal year (FY) 2014 would be about
$700.1 million, as compared to about
$573.1 million under the current fee
schedule, an increase of $127 million
(table 9), of which $94.5 million is due
to the change in fees and fee structure
and $32.5 million is due to workload
changes as valued at the proposed fee
rates. Reliance on appropriated funds to
finance certain AQI services is expected
to be reduced by $46.8 million,
assuming that the total cost of AQI
services, $948.9 million, would be the
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Proposed
$4
225
825
8
320
2
2
375
same with or without adoption of the
proposed fee schedule, since the level of
AQI services provided would not
change with the fee collections under
the proposed rule available to APHIS
and CBP. A projected AQI program
deficit of $54.5 million under the
current fee schedule would not be
incurred. Net revenue of the AQI
program under the proposed fee
schedule is expected to total about $25.7
million, which would be used to
maintain the AQI program’s reserve
fund. The reserve fund ensures that AQI
program operations can continue
without interruption when service
volumes fluctuate due to economic
conditions or other circumstances and
CBP and APHIS are able to adjust their
activity to account for the changed
economic conditions.
E:\FR\FM\25APP1.SGM
25APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 80 / Friday, April 25, 2014 / Proposed Rules
22905
TABLE 9—EXPECTED AQI USER FEE REVENUE, APPROPRIATED AQI FUNDING UNDER THE CURRENT AND PROPOSED
USER FEE SCHEDULES, AND COST OF AQI SERVICES, FY 2014
[Million dollars]
Current fee
schedule
AQI revenue:
User fees ..............................................................................................................................
Appropriated funding ............................................................................................................
AQI total revenue .........................................................................................................................
AQI total cost ...............................................................................................................................
AQI revenue minus cost ..............................................................................................................
Tables showing similar expected AQI
revenue effects of the proposed fee
schedule for FYs 2015–2017 are
presented in the body of the RIA.
Respectively for these 3 years, in
comparison to projections under the
current fee schedule, AQI user fee
revenue is expected to be larger by
$130.7 million, $134.5 million, and
$138.4 million; appropriated funding of
AQI services is expected to be smaller
by $37.6 million, $78.2 million, and
$78.6 million; and net revenue of $39.0
million, $39.1 million, and $60.3
million is expected to be available to
maintain the AQI reserve fund.1
APHIS considered a number of
alternatives for revising the AQI user
fees. Some of the alternatives, such as
increasing all current fees by the same
percentage, were rejected because they
clearly would not meet the objective of
making the fees paid by users in the
various fee classes more commensurate
with the costs of the AQI services
provided for each class. Other
alternatives were rejected because the
transaction costs of creating and
operating fee collection systems for
certain classes, such as bus passengers,
private vehicles, and pedestrians, would
be overly burdensome.
APHIS then focused on three
remaining alternatives composed of
different combinations of paying
classes. The first or preferred alternative
is the proposed rule, with user fee
classes as shown in table 8. The second
alternative differs from the first by not
including user fees for recipients of AQI
treatment services. Under the third
alternative, recipients of commodity
import permits and pest import permits
would pay user fees, in addition to the
classes that would pay fees under the
proposed rule.
Under all three alternatives,
international sea (cruise) passengers
would pay a user fee for services they
receive that are currently funded by
other AQI service recipients and/or
through appropriated funding. In
addition, the preferred alternative
would newly include payment of fees
by users of AQI treatment services.
Under alternative 2, the cost of
providing AQI treatment services would
continue to be covered by user fees paid
by other classes. For this reason,
Alternative 2 was rejected because AQI
costs and revenues would be less
commensurable by class than under the
preferred alternative.
Alternative 3 would include user fees
for recipients of commodity import
permits and pest import permits, classes
not charged fees under the preferred
alternative. In these instances, APHIS
Proposed fee
schedule
$573.1
321.3
894.4
948.9
¥54.5
$700.1
274.5
974.6
948.9
25.7
Change
$127.0
¥46.8
80.2
0
80.2
found that there are overriding
concerns. Charging a user fee for
commodity import permits could be
counterproductive in terms of our
relations with trading partners; negative
reactions by other countries could
potentially affect U.S. export markets.
Pest import permits are normally
requested for research purposes.
Charging a fee for pest import permits,
which activity-based costing indicates
would need to be set at more than
$2,000, could have the unintended
consequence of discouraging research
that directly benefits U.S. agriculture.
For these reasons, APHIS decided
against the selection of alternative 3.
In table 10, we compare the
cumulative expected revenue changes
over 4 years for the alternatives. In all
cases, the baseline for comparison is
continuation of the current AQI user fee
schedule. AQI services performed and
the cost of providing those services
would be the same under each
alternative. All three alternatives would
ensure that the costs of providing AQI
services are covered and the reserve
fund is maintained. Relative to the other
alternatives, the preferred alternative
would result in the smallest increase in
user fee receipts and, less noteworthy,
the largest decrease in appropriated
funding.
TABLE 10—CHANGES IN EXPECTED AQI USER FEE REVENUE, APPROPRIATED AQI FUNDING, AND NET REVENUE UNDER
THE THREE ALTERNATIVE USER FEE SCHEDULES, SUMMED OVER FYS 2014–2017
[Million dollars]
Preferred
alternative
(proposed rule)
Expected change in:
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
FYs 2014–2017
AQI revenue:.
User fees ..................................................................................................................
Appropriated funding ................................................................................................
AQI total revenue .............................................................................................................
AQI total cost ...................................................................................................................
$530.6
¥241.2
289.5
0
1 All values in the RIA are nominal, that is, they
include projected inflation.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:20 Apr 24, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\25APP1.SGM
25APP1
$570.2
¥236.5
333.7
0
$584.7
¥236.5
348.3
0
22906
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 80 / Friday, April 25, 2014 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 10—CHANGES IN EXPECTED AQI USER FEE REVENUE, APPROPRIATED AQI FUNDING, AND NET REVENUE UNDER
THE THREE ALTERNATIVE USER FEE SCHEDULES, SUMMED OVER FYS 2014–2017—Continued
[Million dollars]
Preferred
alternative
(proposed rule)
Expected change in:
AQI revenue minus cost ..................................................................................................
Alternative 2
289.5
333.7
Alternative 3
348.3
Note: Columns may not sum due to rounding.
Economic effects under each of the
three alternatives would derive from the
increase or reduction in costs borne by
affected importers and international
passengers because of the changes in
AQI user fees and concurrent reduced
reliance on appropriated funding of AQI
user fees. Impacts would depend on the
magnitude of the changes, and for
importers, on the ability of suppliers to
pass along or absorb the costs, and for
inbound international passengers, on
the ability of airlines and vessels to do
likewise. In theory, higher user fees
increase the cost of imports and the
supplier may have incentive to send
fewer goods to the United States or
international passengers may have less
incentive to travel to the United States.
Lower user fees, in theory, create the
opposite incentives.
The proposed changes in user fees are
very small in comparison to the overall
value of the commodities imported or
the price of an international ticket, and
therefore are expected to have negligible
impact on imports or the number of
international passengers. Estimated
changes in user fee revenue relative to
the output of the affected sectors
represent, in total, a decline of about
two-hundredths of one percent, and
range from a decline of about sixthousandths of one percent in the
trucking industry to a decline of about
one-tenth of one percent in the airline
industry.2 We cannot determine what
would be the effect of the projected
reductions in appropriated funding of
AQI services, but observe that the
reductions may counterbalance the
negligible impacts of the user fee
increases to some extent.
Output and employment impacts for
FY 2014 under the three alternatives,
shown in table 11, were modeled for
APHIS by a contracted consultancy. The
model results indicate that U.S. output
and employment would decline under
all three alternatives, with the smallest
declines expected under the preferred
alternative. Modeled output and
employment effects for FYs 2015–2017,
as well as output effects by class for FY
2014, are similarly shown in the body
of the RIA. We expect the economic
effects of the proposed user fee revisions
for several of the classes, if they occur
at all, to be extremely small.
TABLE 11—MODELED SHORT-RUN DIRECT EFFECTS FOR U.S. OUTPUT AND EMPLOYMENT OF THE THREE AQI USER FEE
ALTERNATIVES, FY 2014
Change in output
(million dollars)
¥$94
¥122
¥126
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Preferred alternative (proposed rule) ..............................................................................................
Alternative 2 .....................................................................................................................................
Alternative 3 .....................................................................................................................................
Change in
employment
(jobs)
¥1,090
¥1,301
¥1,400
The fee increases themselves and the
newly charged fees for cruise passengers
and for monitoring and conducting
treatments are not costs to the economy
as a whole, but rather transfer payments.
Transfer payments are monetary
payments from one group to another
that do not affect total resources
available to society. While individual
importers or passengers may experience
financial burden from an increase in
user fees (or relief when a fee is
reduced), the AQI services are already
being provided and therefore they are
already counted as government costs. A
fee rate adjustment to support full cost
recovery is consistent with the intent of
the relevant statues and regulations.
The increase in user fee funding of
AQI services and closer alignment, by
class, of user fee revenues and costs
would be the principal outcomes of the
proposed rule. For the 4 years FYs
2014–2017, user fee funding of AQI
services under the proposed rule is
projected to be $530.6 million more and
appropriated funding of AQI services is
projected to be $241.2 million less than
would occur with continuation of the
current fee schedule.
Increased reliance on user fee funding
means that APHIS would more fully
meet its statutory mandate to prescribe
and collect cost-based fees for providing
AQI services, including maintaining a
reasonable reserve. It also means that
appropriated funds that would be used
to pay for AQI services under the
existing user fee schedule may be
available for other Federal uses. We are
unable to determine how those
appropriated funds that would no
longer be used to pay for AQI services
under the proposed rule may be
otherwise used. We expect that the
proposed increase in user fee funding
and the decrease in appropriated
funding would have small distributional
effects that may be largely offsetting.
Firms most likely to be impacted by
this rule are transportation businesses
within the truck, rail, sea, and air cargo
sectors that import goods into the
United States. While the Small Business
Administration has set guidelines for
the definition of small businesses
within each of those sectors, the size
data do not distinguish between
transportation firms that operate
internationally and those firms that only
2 Short-run impacts of the proposed fee changes
are estimated to represent the following percentage
changes from current output, by affected industry:
Trucking industry, ¥0.006 percent; rail industry,
0.035 percent; vessel cargo industry, ¥0.005
percent; cruise ship industry, 0.003 percent; and air
cargo and passenger industry, ¥0.102 percent.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:20 Apr 24, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\25APP1.SGM
25APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 80 / Friday, April 25, 2014 / Proposed Rules
22907
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Travel and transportation
expenses.
Accordingly, we are proposing to
amend 7 CFR part 354 as follows:
*
Amount
PART 354—OVERTIME SERVICES
RELATING TO IMPORTS AND
EXPORTS; AND USER FEES
Beginning [effective date of final
rule] ...........................................
1. The authority citation for part 354
continues to read as follows:
*
operate within the United States.
However, the effects of the proposed
rule on firms within the transportation
sector are expected to be limited,
regardless of firm size. In addition, at
least some portion of increased user fees
may be passed on to consumers.
We invite public comment on the
proposed rule, including comments on
the expected impacts for small entities
and how the proposed rule may be
modified to reduce the burden for small
entities consistent with the rule’s
objectives. Any comment suggesting
changes to the proposed rule should be
accompanied by supporting evidence
and an explanation of why the changes
should be considered and supporting
evidence.
Executive Order 12988
This proposed rule has been reviewed
under Executive Order 12988, Civil
Justice Reform. If this proposed rule is
adopted: (1) All State and local laws and
regulations that are inconsistent with
this rule will be preempted; (2) no
retroactive effect will be given to this
rule; and (3) administrative proceedings
will not be required before parties may
file suit in court challenging this rule.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule contains no new
information collection or recordkeeping
requirements under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.).
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 354
Animal diseases, Exports,
Government employees, Imports, Plant
diseases and pests, Quarantine,
■
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7701–7772, 7781–7786,
and 8301–8317; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 49
U.S.C. 80503; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.
2. Section 354.3 is amended as
follows:
■ a. By revising the tables in paragraphs
(b)(1), (c)(1), (d)(1), and (e)(1).
■ b. In paragraph (b)(1), by removing the
words ‘‘, not to exceed 15 payments in
a calendar year (i.e., no additional fee
will be charged for a 16th or subsequent
arrival in a calendar year),’’.
■ c. In paragraph (c)(3)(i), by removing
the words ‘‘20 times’’ and adding the
words ‘‘40 times’’ in their place.
■ d. By revising paragraphs (f)(1),
(f)(2)(i), (f)(8), and adding paragraph (h).
The revisions and additions read as
follows:
■
§ 354.3 User fees for certain international
services.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Fee for inspection of commercial
vessels of 100 net tons or more. (1)
* * *
Effective dates
Amount
Beginning [effective date of final
rule] ...........................................
$825
*
*
*
*
(c) Fee for inspection of commercial
trucks. (1) * * *
Effective dates
$8
*
*
*
*
(d) Fee for inspection of commercial
railroad cars. (1) * * *
Effective dates
Amount
Beginning [effective date of final
rule] ...........................................
$2
*
*
*
*
*
(e) Fee for inspection of commercial
aircraft. (1) * * *
Effective dates
Amount
Beginning [effective date of final
rule] ...........................................
$225
*
*
*
*
*
(f) Fee for inspection of international
passengers. (1) Except as specified in
paragraph (f)(2) of this section, each
passenger aboard a commercial aircraft
or cruise ship who is subject to
inspection under part 330 of this
chapter or 9 CFR, chapter I, subchapter
D, upon arrival from a place outside of
the customs territory of the United
States, must pay an AQI user fee. The
AQI user fee for each arrival is shown
in the following table:
Effective dates 1
Passenger type
Beginning [effective date of final rule] ....................................................................
Beginning [effective date of final rule] ....................................................................
Commercial aircraft ................................................
Cruise ship .............................................................
Amount
$4
2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
1 Persons who issue international airline and cruise line tickets or travel documents are responsible for collecting the AQI international airline
passenger user fee and the international cruise ship passenger user fee from ticket purchasers. Issuers must collect the fee applicable at the
time tickets are sold. In the event that ticket sellers do not collect the AQI user fee when tickets are sold, the air carrier or cruise line must collect
the user fee that is applicable at the time of departure from the passenger upon departure.
(2) * * *
(i) Crew members who are on duty
aboard a cruise ship;
*
*
*
*
*
(8) Limitation on charges. Airlines
and cruise lines will not be charged
reimbursable overtime for passenger
inspection services required for any
aircraft or cruise ship on which a
passenger arrived who has paid the
international passenger AQI user fee for
that flight or cruise.
*
*
*
*
*
(h) Fee for conducting and monitoring
treatments. (1) Each importer of a
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:16 Apr 24, 2014
Jkt 232001
consignment of articles that require
treatment upon arrival from a place
outside of the customs territory of the
United States, either as a preassigned
condition of entry or as a remedial
measure ordered following the
inspection of the consignment, must pay
an AQI user fee. The AQI user fee is
charged on a per-treatment basis, i.e., if
two or more consignments are treated
together, only a single fee will be
charged, and if a single consignment is
split or must be retreated, a fee will be
charged for each separate treatment
conducted. The AQI user fee for each
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
treatment is shown in the following
table:
Effective dates
Beginning [effective date of final
rule] ...........................................
Amount
$375
(2) Treatment provider. (i) Private
entities that provide AQI treatment
services to importers are responsible for
collecting the AQI treatment user fee
from the importer for whom the service
is provided. Treatment providers must
collect the AQI treatment fee applicable
at the time the treatment is applied.
E:\FR\FM\25APP1.SGM
25APP1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
22908
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 80 / Friday, April 25, 2014 / Proposed Rules
(ii) When AQI treatment services are
provided by APHIS, APHIS will collect
the AQI treatment fee applicable at the
time the treatment is applied from the
person receiving the services.
Remittances must be made by check or
money order, payable in United States
dollars, through a United States bank, to
‘‘The Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service.’’
(3) Collection of fees. (i) In cases
where APHIS is not providing the AQI
treatment and collecting the associated
fee, AQI user fees collected from
importers pursuant to paragraph (h) of
this section shall be held in trust for the
United States by the person collecting
such fees, by any person holding such
fees, or by the person who is ultimately
responsible for remittance of such fees
to APHIS. AQI user fees collected from
importers shall be accounted for
separately and shall be regarded as trust
funds held by the person possessing
such fees as agents, for the beneficial
interest of the United States. All such
user fees held by any person shall be
property in which the person holds only
a possessory interest and not an
equitable interest. As compensation for
collecting, handling, and remitting the
AQI treatment user fees, the person
holding such user fees shall be entitled
to any interest or other investment
return earned on the user fees between
the time of collection and the time the
user fees are due to be remitted to
APHIS under this section. Nothing in
this section shall affect APHIS’ right to
collect interest from the person holding
such user fees for late remittance.
(4) Remittance and statement
procedures. (i) The treatment provider
that collects the AQI treatment user fee
must remit the fee to [address to be
added in final rule].
(ii) AQI treatment user fees must be
remitted to [address to be added in final
rule] for receipt no later than 31 days
after the close of the calendar quarter in
which the AQI user fees were collected.
Late payments will be subject to
interest, penalty, and handling charges
as provided in the Debt Collection Act
of 1982, as amended by the Debt
Collection Improvement Act of 1996 (31
U.S.C. 3717).
(iii) The remitter must mail with the
remittance a written statement to
[address to be added in final rule]. The
statement must include the following
information:
(A) Name and address of the person
remitting payment;
(B) Taxpayer identification number of
the person remitting payment;
(C) Calendar quarter covered by the
payment; and
(D) Amount collected and remitted.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:16 Apr 24, 2014
Jkt 232001
(iv) Remittances must be made by
check or money order, payable in
United States dollars, through a United
States bank, to ‘‘The Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service.’’
*
*
*
*
*
Done in Washington, DC, this 21st day of
April 2014.
Gary Woodward,
Deputy Under Secretary for Marketing and
Regulatory Programs.
[FR Doc. 2014–09466 Filed 4–24–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–34–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2014–0256; Directorate
Identifier 2013–NM–214–AD]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; the Boeing
Company Airplanes
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
AGENCY:
We propose to adopt a new
airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
The Boeing Company Model 777
airplanes. This proposed AD was
prompted by reports of dual pitch rate
sensor (PRS) failures, resulting in
autopilot disconnects. This proposed
AD would require an inspection to
determine the PRS part number and
replacement if necessary. We are
proposing this AD to prevent a dual PRS
failure that could cause an automatic
disengagement of the autopilot and
autoland, which may prevent continued
safe flight and landing if disengagement
occurs at low altitude and the flight
crew is unable to safely assume control
and execute a go-around or manual
landing.
DATES: We must receive comments on
this proposed AD by June 9, 2014.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments,
using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following
methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Fax: 202–493–2251.
• Mail: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M–
30, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.
• Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail
address above between 9 a.m. and 5
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
For service information identified in
this proposed AD, contact Boeing
Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data
& Services Management, P.O. Box 3707,
MC 2H–65, Seattle, WA 98124–2207;
telephone 206–544–5000, extension 1;
fax 206–766–5680; Internet https://
www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view
this referenced service information at
the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, WA. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA,
call 425–227–1221.
Examining the AD Docket
You may examine the AD docket on
the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov by searching for
and locating Docket No. FAA–2014–
0256; or in person at the Docket
Management Facility between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the
regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The
street address for the Docket Office
(phone: 800–647–5527) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be
available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Marie Hogestad, Aerospace Engineer,
Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM–
130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification
Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
WA 98057–3356; phone: 425–917–6418;
fax: 425–917–6590; email:
marie.hogestad@faa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
We invite you to send any written
relevant data, views, or arguments about
this proposal. Send your comments to
an address listed under the ADDRESSES
section. Include ‘‘Docket No. FAA–
2014–0256; Directorate Identifier 2013–
NM–214–AD’’ at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite
comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy
aspects of this proposed AD. We will
consider all comments received by the
closing date and may amend this
proposed AD because of those
comments.
We will post all comments we
receive, without change, to https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each
substantive verbal contact we receive
about this proposed AD.
E:\FR\FM\25APP1.SGM
25APP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 80 (Friday, April 25, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 22895-22908]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-09466]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
7 CFR Part 354
[Docket No. APHIS-2013-0021]
RIN 0579-AD77
User Fees for Agricultural Quarantine and Inspection Services
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are proposing to amend the user fee regulations by adding
new fee categories and adjusting current fees charged for certain
agricultural quarantine and inspection services that are provided in
connection with certain commercial vessels, commercial trucks,
commercial railroad cars, commercial aircraft, and international
passengers arriving at ports in the customs territory of the United
States. We are also proposing to adjust or remove the fee caps
associated with commercial trucks, commercial vessels, and commercial
railcars. We have determined that revised user fee categories and
revised user fees are necessary to recover the costs of the current
level of activity, to account for actual and projected increases in the
cost of doing business, and to more accurately align fees with the
costs associated with each fee service.
DATES: We will consider all comments that we receive on or before June
24, 2014.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2013-0021.
Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Send your comment to
Docket No. APHIS-2013-0021, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD,
APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-
1238.
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may
be viewed at https://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2013-
0021 or in our reading room, which is located in room 1141 of the USDA
South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington,
DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you,
please call (202) 799-7039 before coming.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning program
operations, contact Mr. William E. Thomas, Senior Agriculturist, Office
of the Deputy Administrator, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 130,
Riverdale, MD 20737 1231; (301) 851-2306. For information concerning
rate development, contact Mr. Michael Peranio, Chief, User Fees,
Financial Services Branch, FMD, MRPBS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 55,
Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 851-2852.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 2509(a) of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade
(FACT) Act of 1990 (21 U.S.C. 136a) authorizes the Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service (APHIS) to collect user fees for certain
agricultural quarantine and inspection (AQI) services. The FACT Act was
amended on April 4, 1996, and May 13, 2002.
The FACT Act, as amended, authorizes APHIS to collect user fees for
[[Page 22896]]
AQI services provided in connection with the arrival, at a port in the
customs territory of the United States, of commercial vessels,
commercial trucks, commercial railroad cars, commercial aircraft, and
international passengers. According to the FACT Act, as amended, these
user fees should recover the costs of:
Providing the AQI services for the conveyances and the
passengers listed above;
Providing preclearance or preinspection at a site outside
the customs territory of the United States to international passengers,
commercial vessels, commercial trucks, commercial railroad cars, and
commercial aircraft;
Administering the user fee program; and
Maintaining a reasonable reserve.
In addition, the FACT Act, as amended, contains the following
requirements:
The fees should be commensurate with the costs with
respect to the class of persons or entities paying the fees. This is
intended to avoid cross-subsidization of AQI services.
The cost of AQI services with respect to passengers as a
class should include the cost of related inspections of the aircraft or
other vehicle.
APHIS' regulations regarding overtime services and user fees
relating to imports and exports are found in 7 CFR part 354. The user
fees for the AQI activities described above are contained in Sec.
354.3, ``User fees for certain international services.''
In an interim rule published in Federal Register on December 9,
2004 (69 FR 71660-71683, Docket No. 04-042-1), and effective on January
1, 2005, we amended the user fee regulations in Sec. 354.3 by
adjusting the fees charged for certain AQI services provided by APHIS
and the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) bureau of the Department of
Homeland Security in connection with certain commercial vessels,
commercial trucks, commercial railroad cars, commercial aircraft, and
international airline passengers arriving at ports in the customs
territory of the United States. The AQI user fees contained in that
interim rule covered fiscal years (FY) 2005 through 2010. A final rule
affirming the interim rule without change was published in the Federal
Register on August 24, 2006 (71 FR 49984-49986, Docket No. 04-042-2).
Those fees are still in effect today. We published an interim rule to
increase AQI fees 10 percent across the board on September 28, 2009 (74
FR 49311-49315, Docket No. APHIS-2009-0048), but withdrew that interim
rule before it became effective in order to explore other regulatory
alternatives.
Introduction
The AQI fees have not been adjusted since FY 2010 and do not
reflect the current cost of providing AQI services. In addition, the
AQI fee reserve account has decreased because fees collected have not
been sufficient to cover current costs, in part due to the recent
economic recession. As a result, CBP has relied more heavily on its
appropriated funds to supplement fee revenue.
APHIS recently conducted a comprehensive fee review to determine
the current cost of specific AQI services supported by these fees. That
review determined that the AQI program was not recovering the full cost
of its fee services, including costs of administering the user fee
program and maintaining a reasonable reserve in the fee accounts. Some
of this non-recovery is because most of the current fees do not
accurately reflect the current full cost of the services related to
those fees. However, some of this non-recovery is also due to prior
APHIS policy decisions to:
Cap fees collected for commercial trucks (with
transponders), commercial vessels, and commercial railroad cars;
Exempt certain commercial vessels, commercial trucks,
commercial railroad cars, commercial aircraft, and international
passengers as authorized in AQI regulations;
Exempt international passengers arriving as rail
passengers, bus passengers, in privately owned vehicles (POV), private
aircraft, and private vessels; and
Exempt individuals arriving as pedestrians.
The fee caps refer to current AQI user fee regulations that limit
the number of times a specific truck (with transponder), vessel, or
railroad car must pay the AQI fee in a given year. As part of the AQI
fee review, we reviewed the financial and workload implications of
those caps. We also considered the financial, workload, and policy
implications of creating new fees for international passengers arriving
by cruise ship, bus, private vehicle, private aircraft, and private
vessel, and for pedestrians. We also considered the financial,
workload, and policy implications of establishing fees for commodity
(plant and plant product) import permits, pest import permits, and
conducting and monitoring treatments.
Based on the findings of the AQI user fee review, we are proposing
to amend the AQI user fee regulations to reflect the projected cost of
providing AQI services, including expected changes in cost and workload
for the period the revised fees will be in effect. Specifically, we are
proposing to:
Adjust the fees charged for the following conveyances or
persons to whom AQI services are provided: Commercial vessels,
commercial trucks, commercial railroad cars, commercial aircraft, and
international air passengers. However, because commercial truck
inspections have separate fees for trucks with and without decals
(transponders), we are actually proposing to adjust a total of six
current fees.
Add a new fee to be charged for international commercial
sea (cruise vessel) passengers, who were previously funded through fees
collected for commercial vessels. The FACT Act gives APHIS authority to
charge a fee for all international passengers.
Add a new fee for conducting and monitoring treatments,
which is a significant cost that should be paid by those who use and
benefit from these services.
Remove the caps for vessels and railcars.
Adjust the caps on fees for trucks with transponders.
These proposed adjustments are designed to recover the full cost of
providing these AQI services, commensurate with the class of persons or
entities paying the fees, and are based on an analysis of our costs for
providing services in FY 2010 and FY 2011, as well as our best
projections of what it will cost to provide these services in FYs 2013
through 2016. The proposed adjustments will also allow us to maintain
the AQI reserve account. These user fee adjustments are necessary to
recover the costs of the current level of activity, to account for
actual and projected increases in the cost of doing business, and to
more accurately align fees with the costs associated with each fee
service.
AQI services are provided by a combination of APHIS and CBP
personnel. Because of this arrangement, the AQI user fees collected
will be shared with CBP based on the related respective costs for each
agency.
AQI User Fee Accounting
We maintain all AQI user fees that we collect in a distinct
account. We carefully monitor the balance in this account and use these
funds to pay for our actual costs for providing these distinct AQI
services. Any surpluses in the various AQI accounts carry forward from
year to year. The AQI user fees are not subject to appropriation by
Congress, although actual collections
[[Page 22897]]
and estimates of future collections are expressed in each year's
President's Budget. Collected funds are available until expended to
fund appropriate AQI activities.
AQI Program Costs
For AQI user fee purposes, we are required to capture the full cost
of the AQI services that we provide. This is required by:
The FACT Act;
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-25, User
Charges;
Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards
4 (SFFAS 4), Managerial Cost Accounting Standards and
Concepts;
OMB Circular A-11, Preparation, Submission, and Execution
of the Budget; and
The Chief Financial Officers (CFO) Act.
Full cost includes programmatic costs and overhead costs as well as
imputed costs, which are costs (such as certain current benefits costs
and future retirement costs and other post-employment benefits) paid by
agencies other than APHIS and CBP. OMB Circular A-25 and SFFAS
4 require the inclusion of imputed costs when determining the
full cost of an output, such as an AQI service, so that the full cost
to the Federal Government is recovered. Full cost also includes
depreciation costs related to facilities and equipment used in
delivering AQI services.
APHIS Costs
AQI program costs incurred by APHIS include:
Direct charge costs;
Program delivery related costs (known as distributable
costs) at the State level and below, at the regional and headquarters
levels, the APHIS agency level, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) departmental level (these costs are described in greater detail
below); and
Depreciation and other imputed costs.
As part of our accounting procedures, we maintain separate
accounting codes to record costs that can be directly charged to an AQI
activity. APHIS functions that are directly charged to AQI accounts
include salary and benefits and other costs (e.g., travel, supplies,
rents, and equipment) for various personnel, including:
Personnel in plant inspection stations inspecting
propagative materials (e.g., seeds and bulbs) and conducting and
monitoring treatments;
Personnel performing pest identification services
(insects, pathogens, plants);
Personnel performing investigative, enforcement, and
smuggling interdiction and trade compliance activities;
Personnel performing risk analysis, science and
technology, policy development, training, and methods development
activities relating to AQI work; and
Personnel performing training of CBP Agricultural
Specialists, CBP Officers, and CBP Agriculture Specialist Canine
Officers.
Other program delivery related costs that cannot be directly
charged to individual AQI accounts are charged to distributable
accounts established at the State, regional, headquarters, agency, and
departmental levels. These costs are driven to the AQI activities using
staffing level (full time equivalents or FTE) counts as the cost
driver. This then provides for a ``fully loaded'' activity cost. The
activity costs are then driven to program outputs (such as inspections)
based upon work counts.
Distributable accounts typically contain the following types of
costs: Salaries and benefits, utilities, rent, telephone, vehicles,
office supplies, etc. The costs in these distributable accounts are
distributed within the APHIS accounting system to all the programs and
activities that benefit from the expense. This is based on a formula
under which the costs that are directly charged to each activity are
divided by the total costs directly charged to each account. For
example, if a work unit performs work on both domestic programs and AQI
user fee programs, the distributable account costs are allocated to
each of these programs based on the percentage of the costs directly
charged to that activity.
Headquarters-level costs include costs for employees of APHIS'
Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) and International Services (IS)
programs who are based at those programs' headquarters in Riverdale,
MD, and Washington, DC. We incur agency-level support costs through
activities that support APHIS, such as recruitment and development;
legislative and public affairs; regulation development; regulatory
enforcement; and budget, accounting, payroll, purchasing, billing, and
collection services. Departmental charges are assessed for various AQI
program costs including Federal telephone service, mail, processing of
payroll and money management, unemployment compensation, Office of
Workers Compensation Programs, and central supply for storing and
issuing commonly used supplies and forms. Because the agency and
department level costs are costs for all of APHIS, we assign a
proportional amount to the AQI program, primarily based on the staffing
level used in the AQI program.
Imputed costs include Office of Workers' Compensation costs from
the Department of Labor; costs of employee leave earned in a prior
fiscal year and used in the current fiscal year; headquarters space
operation and maintenance costs; Office of Personnel Management (OPM)
and State Department costs to provide retirement, health, and life
insurance benefits to employees; unemployment compensation costs; and
Department of Justice judgment fund costs. Fee revenue collected that
is based on imputed costs is not retained in the AQI account but is
forwarded to the U.S. Treasury.
CBP Costs
CBP program costs are similar to those for APHIS. CBP costs that
are directly charged to AQI activities include salaries and benefits
for CBP Agriculture Specialists, CBP Officers, CBP Agriculture
Specialist Canine Officers, supervisors (such as port directors), CBP
Technicians, and mission support staff; equipment and supplies used in
connection with services subject to AQI user fees; contracts used for
AQI services; and large supply items such as uniforms, laboratory and
examination equipment, and non-intrusive inspection equipment used for
AQI services.
CBP activities that are directly charged to AQI accounts include
various personnel at ports of entry, headquarters, and field offices,
including:
Personnel deployed to international airports and seaports
to perform regulatory enforcement activities that include:
Processing for entry of passengers, baggage, and personal
effects;
Examination for entry of aircraft, containers, and
vessels;
Administration of wood packaging material and regulated
garbage compliance monitoring activities; and
Examination for entry of commercial cargo and parcels.
Personnel deployed to land border ports of entry to
perform regulatory enforcement activities including examination for
entry of commercial trucks, railcars, containers, and commercial cargo
and parcels.
Personnel conducting pre-arrival analysis, targeting, and
selection for examination of baggage, commodities, conveyances,
packages, etc., that present a risk to American agriculture and natural
resources; including agricultural and biological terrorism agents.
[[Page 22898]]
Personnel providing expert guidance, training, and
technical advice to CBP Officers, other CBP personnel, trade, industry,
and other stakeholders on regulatory requirements pertaining to
compliance with agricultural regulations and the processing of
agriculture-related cargo and material.
Personnel performing pre- and post-academy training for
CBP Agriculture Specialists, CBP Officers, other CBP personnel, and the
performance of recruitment and agriculture-related outreach.
Summary level costs for APHIS and CBP are shown in table 1 below.
Table 1--FY 2011 Estimated Costs by Category and Agency
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost category APHIS CBP Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct.......................................................... $140,210,651 $418,647,765 $558,858,416
Overhead........................................................ 12,220,530 223,776,057 235,996,587
Imputed......................................................... 12,572,451 53,764,878 66,337,329
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 165,003,632 696,188,700 861,192,332
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AQI Cost Analysis
In order to determine the current cost of AQI services and
understand the potential impact of alternative fee schedules, we first
calculated the costs of the current AQI program by fee category, using
the activity-based-costing (ABC) methodology. We were then able to
project volumes and perform detailed cost analysis for potential
changes to the AQI fee schedule. This cost modeling effort included
developing historical cost information using FY 2010 and FY 2011
financial and workload data to provide the full cost of AQI activities
and outputs. We used the ABC methodology because it supports the
philosophy of full cost recovery, provides the functional elements and
data for cost and business process analysis, and complies with
regulatory guidance regarding full cost recovery.
ABC uses a two-step methodology to assign an organization's costs
to its work activities and then to its related outputs. Costs are those
things on which an organization spends its budget, such as salaries and
benefits for employees, rent, equipment, etc. Work activities are the
various endeavors that people in the organization undertake (e.g., air
passenger inspection, pest identification), and outputs are the goods
or services that the organization produces through its activities.
In the first step of ABC, we assigned costs to activities using
resource drivers, which typically represent a cause-and-effect
relationship to establish how much of a resource is consumed by each
activity. For example, if an organization spends 10 percent of its
effort performing a particular activity, we assigned 10 percent of
certain costs (e.g., salary and benefits) to that activity because the
level of effort is a good indicator of resources consumed. In support
of this step, we conducted an activity labor survey for APHIS State,
regional, and headquarters organizations to estimate the level of
effort devoted to AQI activities. We also incorporated activity cost
information for CBP from their existing cost model.
In the second step, we assigned APHIS and CBP activity costs to the
outputs produced by performing the activities. We performed this cost
assignment using activity drivers, again based on a cause-and-effect
relationship. For example, if an activity is performed for more than
one type of output, we assigned the cost of the activity to the outputs
proportionately based on the workload data (volume) associated with
each output. We used workload data from several APHIS and CBP systems
as the activity drivers.
While our AQI cost model design is based on the standard ABC
methodology, it also incorporated several additional cost assignment
layers to provide more transparent cost assignment and reporting. This
included identifying and costing outputs at levels that were more
detailed than necessary to capture costs just at current fee service
levels. For example, we separately determined the cost of APHIS and CBP
outputs and then combined this information to develop cost information
for overall AQI services. This then provided us with flexibility for
restructuring the AQI fee schedule. We also calculated expected future
costs and workload and added those to the base to estimate the total
costs and workload for the future periods when the new fees are
expected to be in effect.
The data for the AQI cost analysis came from financial and program
workload information in standard APHIS and CBP records. The financial
data included direct program costs and overhead costs previously
discussed. This data was previously captured by those agencies to
comply with other requirements. CBP already had a detailed cost model
for its activities, and we used cost data from the CBP cost model. As
noted above, we used a detailed labor survey to determine the cost of
APHIS activities.
Then, in accordance with Office of Management and Budget Circular,
A-25 ``User Charges,'' and OMB Statement of Federal Financial
Accounting Standards, Number 30, ``Managerial Cost Accounting Standards
and Concepts,'' we identified and added an appropriate amount of
imputed costs. These are costs borne by other Federal agencies (such as
the U.S. Treasury and the Office of Personnel Management) in support of
the AQI program. We used employee costs as the basis to identify the
portion of these costs to attribute to the AQI program.
We calculated APHIS depreciation by identifying equipment-related
depreciation expenses. For APHIS-owned buildings where AQI work is
performed, we used an appropriate portion (based on percent of work
done in the building that was AQI) of the total depreciation for those
buildings. CBP provided depreciation data for CBP-owned facilities and
capital equipment based on similar calculations.
When the AQI cost model was completed, we were able to determine
the actual costs of each of the current AQI services, as shown in the
table below. By matching these costs with the workload volumes for each
AQI fee service, we were also able to calculate the unit cost of each
output. We were also able to determine the more detailed costs
associated with all classes of passengers and treatments. Table 2 shows
the FY 2011 baseline costs by service activity that resulted from this
AQI cost analysis.
Table 2--AQI FY 2011 Baseline Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fee service activity 2011 Actual cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Passenger....................................... $291,434,620
Cruise Ship Passenger............................... 20,205,868
Rail Passenger...................................... 1,630,302
Bus Passenger....................................... 23,091,799
[[Page 22899]]
POV Passenger....................................... 129,489,305
Pedestrian.......................................... 34,664,442
Commercial Aircraft................................. 156,242,180
Commercial Maritime Cargo Vessel.................... 91,152,480
Commercial Truck.................................... 73,529,394
Commercial Cargo Railcar............................ 5,150,585
Private Aircraft.................................... 11,371,965
Private Maritime Vessel............................. 4,940,099
Treatments.......................................... 14,324,472
Military Clearance Operations....................... 3,964,821
-------------------
Total........................................... 861,192,332
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To project costs beyond FY 2011, we considered two changes to these
baseline costs. The first change was any initiative which would
increase APHIS or CBP costs in those years. Both APHIS and CBP have
implemented various initiatives aimed at reducing redundancy in data
input requirements for importers, increasing transparency, reducing
wait times or expediting inspections, and eliminating or changing
treatment requirements. The APHIS initiatives are:
A Web-based permit system that allows users to submit
permit applications, track applications, apply for renewals and
amendments, and receive copies of their import/interstate movement/
transit/release permits.
AQI outreach, an effort to provide information and
education to travelers and importers in order to reduce the risk of
bringing prohibited agricultural items into the United States.
Critical upgrades to plant inspection station equipment
that will enable us to do plant inspections more effectively.
A more robust risk assessment capacity that will enable
APHIS to increase its capacity to perform risk assessments through
increasing the quality and reliability of its data.
Development of new treatment techniques by APHIS
scientists that can be used on agricultural products coming into the
United States. These methods can save cost and time as well as reduce
the risk of invasive pests entering the country.
The CBP initiatives are:
Border security supplemental, which is related to a FY
2010 law intended to bolster border security, specifically along the
U.S./Mexican border, and represents the AQI cost associated with the
law. The initiative funding supports Federal agents, judges, courts,
and other various agencies.
Increase in the journeyman grade for CBP Officers, CBP
Agriculture Specialists, and Border Patrol Agents to account for
increasing scope of responsibilities of officers and agents and to
bring parity across Federal agencies. The AQI fee review incorporated
journeyman upgrade costs specifically related to AQI.
National Targeting Center that filters advanced
information on people and products to identify threats and risks and
allows CBP to target higher risk trade and travelers for detailed
inspection prior to their arrival at a U.S. port of entry.
Address increased activity at ports of entry by hiring
additional personnel.
The data for these initiatives came from APHIS and CBP budget
offices and is shown in Table 3.
Table 3--APHIS and CBP Initiatives
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Future initiatives 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APHIS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Web-based permits system........ $1,200,000 $1,204,680 $1,226,364 $1,237,279 $1,248,291
AQI outreach.................... 5,000,000 5,019,500 5,109,851 5,155,329 5,201,211
Plant inspection station 23,600 23,692 24,118 24,333 24,550
equipment......................
Risk assessment capacity........ 120,000 120,468 122,636 123,728 124,829
Treatment development........... 180,000 180,702 183,955 185,592 187,244
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CBP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Border security supplemental.... 5,676,640 5,676,640 5,773,143 5,802,009 5,831,019
Journeyman increase............. 38,550,379 38,550,379 39,205,735 39,401,764 39,598,773
National Targeting Center....... 6,895,000 6,919,133 7,042,985 7,102,850 7,163,225
Port of entry staff expansion... 7,752,437 7,752,437 7,884,228 7,923,649 7,963,267
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals...................... 65,398,056 65,447,630 66,573,016 66,956,533 67,342,408
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The second change that we considered in calculating future costs
was projected cost growth. Table 4 shows the growth rates used to
project future cost increases. These growth rates represent guidance
provided by OMB for use in developing budgets and other forecasts of
future costs. They are broken out by payroll and non-payroll costs, and
we applied them accordingly to the baseline costs and initiatives.
Table 4--Growth Rates
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Payroll Non-payroll
Fiscal year (percent) (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012.................................... 0.0 1.3
2013.................................... 0.0 1.6
2014.................................... 1.7 2.1
2015.................................... 0.5 2.1
2016.................................... 0.5 2.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on these growth rates, we projected the costs shown in Table
5 for FYs 2014 through 2016.
Table 5--Projected Costs FYs 2014 Through 2016
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fee service activity 2014 2015 2016
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air passenger................................................... $322,591,452 $324,996,118 $327,426,378
[[Page 22900]]
Sea passenger................................................... 22,421,487 22,589,194 22,758,727
Rail passenger.................................................. 1,805,242 1,818,103 1,831,085
Bus passenger................................................... 25,573,198 25,758,827 25,946,311
POV passenger................................................... 143,333,256 144,384,916 145,447,319
Pedestrian...................................................... 38,357,661 38,635,543 38,916,167
Commercial aircraft............................................. 170,836,038 172,855,461 174,912,526
Commercial maritime............................................. 99,783,440 100,995,859 102,232,305
Commercial truck................................................ 81,018,003 81,789,820 82,573,152
Commercial cargo railcar........................................ 5,679,995 5,732,572 5,785,904
Private aircraft................................................ 12,602,768 12,690,860 12,779,754
Private maritime vessel......................................... 5,486,025 5,526,987 5,568,398
Treatments...................................................... 15,086,074 15,421,466 15,765,008
Military clearance.............................................. 4,331,642 4,371,639 4,412,236
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 948,906,281 957,567,365 966,355,270
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Volume Projections
To develop potential fee scenarios, we also projected workload
growth and resulting workload volumes for each fiscal year from 2013 to
2016. We were able to identify FY 2011 and 2012 actual workload from
data previously captured by APHIS and CBP. To forecast expected changes
in imports and tourist traffic across the nation's borders, we
researched a variety of data sources and used the following:
We used projections from the International Air Transport
Association Industry Forecast Summary Report to project air passengers
and air cargo.
We used projections from a market research site, Cruise
Market Watch, to project sea passengers.
We used a U.S. Department of Transportation report that
forecast the number of border crossings by mode of traffic at selected
ports of entry and extrapolated to get projections for pedestrians and
POV and bus passengers.
We used a USDA report on Agricultural Sector Aggregate
Indicators to project maritime cargo, truck cargo, rail cargo, mail
packages, commodity import permits, and treatments.
We did not forecast any changes for rail passengers,
private aircraft, or private sea vessels because a change rate for
these conveyances cannot be tied to any import data or other
independent variable.
Table 6 shows the resulting volumes for the various fee service
activities.
Table 6--Workload Projections, FYs 2013 Through 2016
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Expected
Fee 2011 Actual 2012 Actual changes 2013 2014 2015 2016
count count (annual)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air passenger.............................. 78,901,506 77,255,476 3.60% 80,036,673 82,917,993 85,903,041 88,995,551
Sea passenger.............................. 12,931,271 13,532,465 3.15 13,958,738 14,398,438 14,851,989 15,319,826
Rail passenger............................. 276,722 276,855 -- 276,855 276,855 276,855 276,855
Bus passenger.............................. 5,222,786 5,318,382 -1.69 5,228,501 5,140,140 5,053,271 4,967,871
POV passenger.............................. 169,834,015 175,428,545 0.76 176,761,802 178,105,192 179,458,791 180,822,678
Pedestrian................................. 40,609,235 41,375,736 -3.49 39,931,723 38,538,106 37,193,126 35,895,086
Commercial aircraft........................ 700,644 719,251 3.60 745,144 771,969 799,760 828,551
Commercial maritime cargo vessel........... 101,794 113,727 3.15 117,309 121,005 124,816 128,748
Commercial truck........................... 10,348,791 10,664,770 3.83 11,073,231 11,497,335 11,937,683 12,394,897
Commercial cargo railcar................... 2,912,210 3,230,167 3.83 3,353,882 3,482,336 3,615,710 3,754,191
Private aircraft........................... 121,221 116,240 -- 116,240 116,240 116,240 116,240
Private maritime vessel.................... 80,529 80,949 -- 80,949 80,949 80,949 80,949
Treatments................................. 29,713 38,517 5.36 40,582 42,757 45,048 47,463
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fee Computation
With the total costs and the workload projections, we were able to
project fee requirements for each potential fee service activity.
However, in addition to the fee revenue required to cover current and
projected AQI service costs, we need to generate revenue to replenish
the AQI account reserve. The reserve components were established simply
by rounding up the raw fee calculations (projected unit cost) for each
fee. All projected unit costs less than $10 were rounded up to the next
$1, and all unit costs greater than $200 were rounded up to the next
$25. No proposed fees fall between $10 and $200. This approach provides
a proportionate rounding for all fees. We then calculated the estimated
number of days that the reserve could support costs on a noncumulative
basis. We estimate that by the end of FY 2016 the AQI reserve will have
approximately a 90 day reserve, which is consistent with our
established AQI fund reserve policy.
Proposed Fee Amounts
APHIS is proposing significant changes to the AQI user fee
structure and the fee rates. As previously mentioned, we employed
activity based costing (ABC) as our methodology to determine the cost
of AQI services, and this information, along with other factors, was
used to define an appropriate fee structure and fee rates. The ABC
methodology is a derivative of the managerial cost accounting, which is
recommended by OMB and
[[Page 22901]]
Government Accountability Office guidance on government fee setting.
Previously, APHIS relied on an estimation methodology to determine the
fee rates, and we believe that the estimation methodology did not
provide enough information to properly establish the correct fee
structure and fee rates. We also believe that the use of the ABC
methodology provides significantly greater accuracy and transparency in
fee setting. The use of ABC has enabled APHIS to more accurately
identify the true costs of providing each of the AQI services.
The costs incurred by both APHIS and CBP have been analyzed using
the ABC methodology. APHIS was able to determine activity costs for
each AQI service by collecting related financial and workload data for
APHIS and CBP, and using this information to properly assign AQI
program costs to each activity. The AQI program costs include program
delivery activities such as inspections, inspection targeting analysis,
staff training, plant and pest identification, and risk assessments.
The majority of activity costs are for salary and benefits, but they
also include costs such as the training of CBP Agriculture Specialists,
CBP Officers, training and care of CBP Agriculture Specialist Canine
Officers and canines, replacement or new equipment, utilities, rent,
replacement or new vehicles, and office supplies; and imputed costs
that APHIS and CBP are responsible for recovering such as workman's
compensation, health, retirement, and life insurance benefits.
Using the data and methodology discussed above, we calculated the
proposed fees shown in table 7. Each fee service activity is explained
in greater detail in the paragraphs that follow. If these proposed fees
become effective, we would continue to monitor the costs of AQI
services, our collections, and the level of the reserve and would
undertake rulemaking to adjust the fees if we determined that costs
were not being appropriately recovered or the reserve levels were on a
path to be either greater or less than our established AQI fund 90-day
reserve policy.
Table 7--Proposed Fees
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fee service activity Current Proposed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air passenger.................... $5................... $4
Commercial aircraft.............. 70.75................ 225
Commercial maritime cargo vessel. 496.................. 825
Commercial truck................. 5.25................. 8
Commercial truck transponder..... 105.................. 320
Commercial cargo railcar......... 7.75................. 2
Sea passenger.................... no fee............... 2
Treatments....................... no fee............... 375
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air passenger. Millions of travelers pass through U.S. airports
daily. Inspecting air passengers includes pre-arrival analysis of
incoming passengers and screening arriving air passengers for
agricultural products by CBP Agriculture Specialists and CBP Officers;
inspection of passenger baggage using CBP agriculture canines and
specialized non-intrusive inspection equipment; inspecting the interior
of the passenger aircraft; monitoring the storage and removal of
regulated international garbage from the aircraft to ensure consistency
with all regulatory requirements; safeguarding and appropriately
disposing of any seized or abandoned prohibited agricultural products;
and identifying pests found on prohibited agricultural products brought
into the country by air passengers. The ABC data indicated that the
current fee was going to generate revenues in excess of what will be
required to support anticipated costs. As a result, we are proposing a
20 percent decrease in this fee (from $5 to $4) to better align the fee
with the cost of activities related to air passengers.
Commercial aircraft. We also inspect international commercial
aircraft arriving at airports in the customs territory of the United
States. Inspecting commercial aircraft includes reviewing manifests and
documentation accompanying incoming cargo; targeting higher risk cargo
for inspection or clearance; inspecting various types of agricultural
and agricultural-related commodities, international mail, expedited
courier packages, containers, compliant wood packaging material, and
packing materials to screen for the presence of plant pests and
contaminants, compliance with regulations, and determining entry
status; inspecting the aircraft hold or exterior for contaminants,
pests, or invasive species; monitoring the storage and removal of
regulated international garbage from the aircraft to ensure consistency
with all regulatory requirements; identifying pests found during
inspection; and safeguarding shipments pending PPQ determination for
treatment or final disposition. The ABC data indicated that the current
fee being charged does not reflect the actual costs incurred in the
performance of those activities and would result in a significant
shortfall in what will be required to cover the anticipated costs of
this activity. Accordingly, we are proposing a 218 percent increase in
this fee (from $70.75 to $225) to more accurately align the fee with
the actual cost of activities related to commercial aircraft inspection
described above as those costs were identified using our ABC
methodology.
Commercial maritime cargo vessel. We inspect commercial vessels of
100 net tons or more arriving at ports of entry into the customs
territory of the United States. Inspecting commercial maritime cargo
vessels involves reviewing manifests and documentation accompanying
incoming cargo; targeting higher risk cargo for inspection or
clearance; inspecting various types of agricultural and agricultural-
related commodities, containers, compliant wood packaging material, and
packing materials to screen for the presence of plant pests and
contaminants, compliance with regulations, and determining entry
status; inspecting the vessel to ensure that contaminants, pests, or
invasive pests are not present or are properly safeguarded; inspecting
the ship's stores to ensure that prohibited items are not present;
monitoring the storage and removal of regulated international garbage
from the vessel to ensure consistency with all regulatory requirements;
identifying pests found during inspection; and safeguarding shipments
pending PPQ determination for treatment or final disposition. The
current regulations cap the number of arrivals for which a single
vessel would be charged at 15 per calendar year, i.e., a vessel is not
charged for its 16th or subsequent arrival in any 1 year. The ABC data
[[Page 22902]]
indicated that the limitation on collections imposed by the cap, as
well as the amount of the current fee, was going to lead to a shortfall
in what will be required to support anticipated costs. As a result, we
are proposing to remove the 15-arrival cap and increase the fee by 71
percent (from $496 to $825) to align the fee with the cost of
activities related to commercial maritime cargo vessels.
Commercial truck. We inspect commercial trucks arriving at land
ports in the customs territory of the United States from Mexico and
Canada. Inspecting trucks involves reviewing manifests and
documentation accompanying incoming cargo; targeting higher risk cargo
for inspection; inspecting various types of agricultural and
agricultural-related commodities, compliant wood packaging material,
and packing materials to screen for the presence of plant pests and
contaminants, compliance with regulations, and determining entry
status; inspecting the truck and conveyance for contaminants, pests, or
invasive species; identifying pests found during inspection; and
safeguarding shipments pending final determination for treatment or
final disposition. The ABC data indicated that the current fee was
going to result in a shortfall in what will be required to support
anticipated costs. As a result, we are proposing a 52 percent increase
in this fee (from $5.25 to $8) to align the fee with the cost of
activities related to commercial trucks.
Commercial truck transponder. We estimate that the use of
transponders corresponds to a 10 minute reduction in the border
crossing time for trucks. The proposed fee will maintain an incentive
for trucks to continue the use of transponders while recovering a
greater portion of the Government's cost to provide inspection
services. Based on data about how many times a commercial truck with a
responder came into the country, we propose to increase the truck
transponder fee from 20 to 40 times the individual truck fee. We are
proposing this change based on our analysis indicating that trucks with
transponders cross an average of 106 times per year. Increasing the
truck transponder fee to 40 times the individual truck fee, along with
the increase in the commercial truck fee, results in an increase of 205
percent (from $105 to $320) for the transponder fee.
Commercial cargo railcar. We inspect loaded commercial railroad
cars arriving at land ports in the customs territory of the United
States from Mexico and Canada. Inspecting railcars involves reviewing
manifests and documentation accompanying incoming cargo; targeting
higher risk cargo for inspection or clearance; inspecting various types
of agricultural and agricultural-related commodities, containers,
compliant wood packaging material, and packing materials to screen for
the presence of plant pests and contaminants, compliance with
regulations, and determining entry status; inspecting the railcars for
contaminants, pests or invasive species; identifying pests found during
inspection; monitoring the storage and removal of regulated
international garbage from the railcar to ensure consistency with all
regulatory requirements; and safeguarding shipments pending PPQ
determination for treatment or final disposition. The ABC data
indicated that the current fee was going to generate revenues
significantly in excess of what will be required to support anticipated
costs. Accordingly, we are proposing a 74 percent decrease in this fee
(from $7.75 to $2) to align the fee with the cost of activities related
to commercial cargo railcars.
We also analyzed those fee service activities for which there was
not currently a fee even though significant workload and/or costs were
being generated:
Sea passenger. Inspecting a cruise vessel and its passengers
includes pre-arrival analysis of incoming passengers; screening
arriving sea passengers for agricultural products by CBP Agriculture
Specialists and CBP Officers; inspection of passenger baggage using CBP
agriculture canines and specialized non-intrusive inspection equipment;
inspection of the vessel itself to ensure that contaminants, prohibited
articles, or invasive pests are not present; inspecting the ship's
stores to ensure that prohibited items are not present or are properly
safeguarded; and monitoring the storage and removal of regulated
international garbage from the vessel to ensure consistency with all
existing regulatory requirements. (Consistent with our AQI fee
authority, the costs of inspecting the cruise ships themselves would be
covered by the proposed sea passenger fee rather than a separate fee
similar to the commercial maritime cargo vessel fee, just as the
international air passenger user fee covers the costs associated with
inspecting the aircraft on which they arrived.) We also analyze
information that allows us to perform targeted inspections in order to
reduce the risk of a dangerous plant, plant pest, contaminant, or
foreign animal disease from entering the United States. This
information is used in our training and in the development of
inspection guidance and policies. Similar information is used
extensively by CBP to help distinguish levels of risk. We believe that
this effort helps us to provide the highest level of protection at the
lowest cost. No fees are currently collected for this category of
passenger. Based on the costs associated with inspecting these
passengers (projected at approximately $22.4 million to $22.8 million
in FYs 2014 to 2016, as noted in table 5 above) and the ease of
collection from the direct beneficiary (i.e., the passenger) through
the sea vessel ticket, we are proposing to implement a $2 user fee,
which is sufficient to recover the projected costs of this AQI
activity. This new fee would allow us to recover the costs associated
with this inspection activity.
The new sea passenger user fee would be added to paragraph (f) of
Sec. 354.3, which currently contains the provisions regarding the
airline passenger AQI user fee, as the collection and remittance
procedures for both the sea passenger and airline passenger user fees
would be the same. The current regulations provide an exemption from
the payment of user fees for the crew members on duty on an arriving
aircraft; we would make the same exemption for crew members on duty
aboard an arriving cruise ship. Similarly, the current regulations
provide that airlines will not be charged reimbursable overtime for
passenger inspection services required for any aircraft on which a
passenger arrived who has paid the international passenger AQI user fee
for that flight. We would provide the same limitation on overtime
charges for cruise lines.
Treatments. Treatments are performed on some agricultural goods as
a condition of entry, and others are performed when an actionable pest
(i.e., a plant pest that should not be allowed to be introduced into or
disseminated within the United States) is detected during a port-of-
entry inspection. The objective of these AQI treatments is to ensure
that agricultural goods and commodities entering the United States are
free from viable plant pests and noxious weeds that would pose a risk
to the health of the U.S. domestic agriculture and natural resources.
Treatment methods include fumigation, cold treatment, irradiation, and
heat treatment. APHIS activities related to the application of AQI
treatments include personnel determining the appropriate treatment
schedule, monitoring the treatment to ensure it is conducted as
specified so that the treatment takes place in the prescribed manner,
and determining whether the treatment was successful. These AQI
services focus on ensuring the
[[Page 22903]]
effectiveness of a given treatment regardless of its methodology. While
AQI treatments are usually provided by private entities who charge the
importer for their services, from time to time APHIS will provide the
treatment, especially for propagative materials. We also develop new
methods of treatments. These methods increase the effectiveness of
treating agricultural goods and reduce the risk of dangerous pests
entering the United States. No fees are currently collected for this
activity.
Based on our analysis of the costs (projected at approximately $15
million to $15.8 million in FYs 2014 to 2016, as noted in table 5
above) and the relative ease of collection when the treatment is
ordered, we are proposing a $375 fee for each treatment. The AQI
treatment fee is designed to recover the costs of APHIS services for
monitoring the treatment to ensure it is conducted as specified so that
the treatment takes place in the prescribed manner and determining
whether the treatment was successful. Should a treatment prove
unsuccessful and have to be reapplied, that subsequent AQI treatment
would also be subject to an AQI treatment fee, as APHIS incurs costs by
providing AQI treatment-related services regardless of the success or
failure of the treatment. Similarly, if there was a particularly large
consignment that had to be treated in two or more lots, each lot would
be subject to an AQI treatment fee. Finally, along those lines, if
there were two or more small consignments from different importers that
required the same treatment and could be combined and treated together
at the same time, there would be only one AQI treatment fee charged,
with each importer being responsible for a share of that fee.
The provisions for the payment of AQI user fees for conducting and
monitoring treatments would be added to Sec. 354.3 as a new paragraph
(h). Most treatment services are provided by private companies that
charge importers a fee for their services. Because those companies are
already invoicing the importers whose consignments are being treated,
we are proposing that the treatment companies would also collect the
AQI user fee and subsequently remit the fee to APHIS. This is the same
model used for the collection of the AQI user fees for international
airline passengers and that we are proposing to use for cruise ship
passengers. In those instances where APHIS itself performs the
treatment, we would collect the fee directly from the importer for whom
the treatment is being provided.
Other Fees Considered
APHIS considered, but is not proposing at this time, fees for the
following AQI services:
Rail passenger: No fees are currently collected for this
category of passenger. Because the total cost is less than $2 million,
and there would be additional cost of creating and operating fee
collections, we are not proposing any fees for this category of
passenger.
Bus passenger: No fees are currently collected for this
category of passenger, even though annual costs are over $25 million
for this service. We considered proposing a new bus passenger fee, but
recognized that this would require establishing the infrastructure and
process for bus companies to collect and remit the fees since CBP does
not have a comparable fee. In addition, the barriers for entry into the
bus passenger industry are much lower compared to air and cruise vessel
industries. As a result, there are more bus companies entering and
exiting the industry, which would make fee collection and monitoring
difficult. However, we intend to gather additional information to
determine if there are other ways to collect this fee in the future,
which would be addressed through a future rulemaking.
POV passenger: No fees are currently collected for this
category of passenger, even though annual costs are over $160 million.
The high cost of creating and operating fee collections, and
considerations about potential backups of POVs at the ports of entry,
led us to recommend that POV passengers continue to not be subject to
an AQI user fee.
Pedestrians: No fees are currently collected for the
inspection of pedestrians arriving in the United States, even though
the annual costs are over $38 million for this service. The high cost
of creating and operating fee collections and considerations about
potential backups of pedestrians at the ports of entry led us to
recommend that arriving pedestrians continue to not be subject to an
AQI user fee at this time.
Private aircraft: No fees are currently collected for the
inspection of private aircraft and their passengers. The cost of less
than $13 million, and the additional cost of creating and operating fee
collections, led us to recommend that private aircraft and their
passengers continue to not be subject to an AQI user fee.
Private maritime vessel: No fees are currently collected
for the inspection of private maritime vessels and their passengers.
The cost of less than $6 million, and the additional cost of creating
and operating fee collections, led us to recommend that private
maritime vessel passengers continue to not be subject to an AQI user
fee.
Commodity import permit: No fee is currently charged for
commodity import permits. We considered establishing a separate fee,
but concerns about the impact on importers and relationships with
trading partners led us to not propose this fee.
Pest import permit: No fee is currently charged for pest
import permits. We considered establishing a separate fee, but we did
not want to discourage the research associated with pest import permits
because this research benefits United States agriculture and ecosystem
overall.
Accordingly, the costs of these AQI services will continue to be
covered through appropriated funding.
Periodic Updates to User Fees
The Department is seeking public comment on the frequency and
methodology for updating the AQI user fees. Currently there is no
established schedule for updating the fees, which has led to long gaps
between updates and substantial increases in fees when updates are
made. The Department is particularly interested in comments on whether
fees should be updated more frequently, e.g., every 2 years, and
whether the updates should be made through a rulemaking or some other
means such as a notice-based process that provides an opportunity for
public comment. We are also interested in comments regarding the
possibility of phasing in the updated fees when there may be an
economic hardship due to factors such as substantial increases due to
long gaps between updates or, as in the case with this proposed rule, a
comprehensive review to determine the current cost of specific AQI
services indicates that the AQI program is not recovering the full cost
of its fee services.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and Regulatory Flexibility Act
This proposed rule has been determined to be economically
significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore,
has been reviewed by OMB.
We have prepared a regulatory impact analysis (RIA) for this rule.
The RIA provides a cost-benefit analysis, as required by Executive
Orders 12866 and 13563, which direct agencies to assess all costs and
benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is
necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits
(including potential economic,
[[Page 22904]]
environmental, public health and safety effects, and equity). Executive
Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and
benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting
flexibility. The RIA also provides an initial regulatory flexibility
analysis that examines the potential economic effects of this rule on
small entities, as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The RIA
is summarized below. Copies of the full analysis are available by
contacting the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or
on the Regulations.gov Web site (see ADDRESSES above for instructions
for accessing Regulations.gov).
APHIS is proposing to amend the user fee regulations by adding new
fee categories and adjusting current fees charged for certain
agricultural quarantine and inspection (AQI) services. We are also
proposing to alter or remove certain fee caps. We have determined that
revised user fee categories and revised user fees are necessary to
recover the costs of the current level of activity, to account for
actual and projected increases in the cost of doing business, and to
more accurately align fees with the costs associated with each fee
service.
AQI fees are mandated to be cost-based and paid by the users of the
AQI services to ensure that recipients bear the costs of the services
instead of the American taxpayer. In our RIA, benefits and costs of the
proposed changes to the AQI user fee schedule are evaluated in
accordance with Executive Orders 12866 and 13563. Expected effects for
small entities are evaluated as required by the Regulatory Flexibility
Act.
AQI services benefit U.S. agricultural and natural resources by
protecting them from the inadvertent introduction of foreign pests and
diseases that may enter the country and the threat of intentional
introduction of pests or pathogens as a means of agroterrorism. Failure
to adjust these fees to account for full cost recovery, particularly in
the present fiscal climate, has the potential to cause a decrease in
AQI services provided. Efforts would be made to address the greatest
risk and minimize, to the extent allowed by available resources,
significant negative impact on U.S. industries.
The proposed changes in user fees would more closely align, by
class, the cost of AQI services provided and user fee revenue received.
The proposed fee schedule would better reflect the costs of AQI
services provided commercial vessels, commercial trucks, commercial
railcars, commercial aircraft, and international air passengers
arriving at U.S. ports; newly include fees for additional classes of
recipients of AQI services; remove user fee caps for commercial vessels
and commercial railcars; and increase the fee cap for commercial
trucks. Fee caps refer to limits on the number of times a fee must be
paid for a specific truck (with transponder), vessel, or railcar in a
calendar year. The current and proposed AQI user fee rates are shown in
table 8.
Table 8--Current and Proposed AQI User Fee Rates
[Dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
User fee class Current Proposed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air passenger.................... $5................... $4
Commercial aircraft.............. 70.75................ 225
Commercial cargo vessel.......... 496.................. 825
Commercial truck................. 5.25................. 8
Commercial truck with transponder 105.................. 320
(one) annual payment).
Commercial cargo railcar......... 7.75................. 2
Sea passenger.................... no fee............... 2
Treatment........................ no fee............... 375
------------------------------------------------------------------------
APHIS used activity-based costing to determine the proposed rate
adjustments for classes that currently pay user fees and the proposed
rates for newly charged classes. The two classes that would be newly
charged user fees under the proposed rule are international sea
(cruise) passengers and recipients of AQI treatment services.
Currently, the cost of AQI services received by these entities is borne
by other user fee classes and/or taxpayers through appropriated
funding. Elimination of the user fee caps for commercial railcars and
commercial vessels would more closely align the user fee revenue
received with the cost of providing AQI services for rail and vessel
cargo. We propose to retain the cap for commercial trucks because of
the increased efficiency gained through the use of transponders at
border inspections. The cap for commercial trucks would be increased,
however, and these businesses would pay in fees a larger share of the
cost of the AQI services they receive.
Under the proposed fee structure, it is expected that AQI user fee
revenue for fiscal year (FY) 2014 would be about $700.1 million, as
compared to about $573.1 million under the current fee schedule, an
increase of $127 million (table 9), of which $94.5 million is due to
the change in fees and fee structure and $32.5 million is due to
workload changes as valued at the proposed fee rates. Reliance on
appropriated funds to finance certain AQI services is expected to be
reduced by $46.8 million, assuming that the total cost of AQI services,
$948.9 million, would be the same with or without adoption of the
proposed fee schedule, since the level of AQI services provided would
not change with the fee collections under the proposed rule available
to APHIS and CBP. A projected AQI program deficit of $54.5 million
under the current fee schedule would not be incurred. Net revenue of
the AQI program under the proposed fee schedule is expected to total
about $25.7 million, which would be used to maintain the AQI program's
reserve fund. The reserve fund ensures that AQI program operations can
continue without interruption when service volumes fluctuate due to
economic conditions or other circumstances and CBP and APHIS are able
to adjust their activity to account for the changed economic
conditions.
[[Page 22905]]
Table 9--Expected AQI User Fee Revenue, Appropriated AQI Funding Under the Current and Proposed User Fee
Schedules, and Cost of AQI Services, FY 2014
[Million dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current fee Proposed fee
schedule schedule Change
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AQI revenue:
User fees................................................... $573.1 $700.1 $127.0
Appropriated funding........................................ 321.3 274.5 -46.8
AQI total revenue............................................... 894.4 974.6 80.2
AQI total cost.................................................. 948.9 948.9 0
AQI revenue minus cost.......................................... -54.5 25.7 80.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tables showing similar expected AQI revenue effects of the proposed
fee schedule for FYs 2015-2017 are presented in the body of the RIA.
Respectively for these 3 years, in comparison to projections under the
current fee schedule, AQI user fee revenue is expected to be larger by
$130.7 million, $134.5 million, and $138.4 million; appropriated
funding of AQI services is expected to be smaller by $37.6 million,
$78.2 million, and $78.6 million; and net revenue of $39.0 million,
$39.1 million, and $60.3 million is expected to be available to
maintain the AQI reserve fund.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All values in the RIA are nominal, that is, they include
projected inflation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
APHIS considered a number of alternatives for revising the AQI user
fees. Some of the alternatives, such as increasing all current fees by
the same percentage, were rejected because they clearly would not meet
the objective of making the fees paid by users in the various fee
classes more commensurate with the costs of the AQI services provided
for each class. Other alternatives were rejected because the
transaction costs of creating and operating fee collection systems for
certain classes, such as bus passengers, private vehicles, and
pedestrians, would be overly burdensome.
APHIS then focused on three remaining alternatives composed of
different combinations of paying classes. The first or preferred
alternative is the proposed rule, with user fee classes as shown in
table 8. The second alternative differs from the first by not including
user fees for recipients of AQI treatment services. Under the third
alternative, recipients of commodity import permits and pest import
permits would pay user fees, in addition to the classes that would pay
fees under the proposed rule.
Under all three alternatives, international sea (cruise) passengers
would pay a user fee for services they receive that are currently
funded by other AQI service recipients and/or through appropriated
funding. In addition, the preferred alternative would newly include
payment of fees by users of AQI treatment services. Under alternative
2, the cost of providing AQI treatment services would continue to be
covered by user fees paid by other classes. For this reason,
Alternative 2 was rejected because AQI costs and revenues would be less
commensurable by class than under the preferred alternative.
Alternative 3 would include user fees for recipients of commodity
import permits and pest import permits, classes not charged fees under
the preferred alternative. In these instances, APHIS found that there
are overriding concerns. Charging a user fee for commodity import
permits could be counterproductive in terms of our relations with
trading partners; negative reactions by other countries could
potentially affect U.S. export markets. Pest import permits are
normally requested for research purposes. Charging a fee for pest
import permits, which activity-based costing indicates would need to be
set at more than $2,000, could have the unintended consequence of
discouraging research that directly benefits U.S. agriculture. For
these reasons, APHIS decided against the selection of alternative 3.
In table 10, we compare the cumulative expected revenue changes
over 4 years for the alternatives. In all cases, the baseline for
comparison is continuation of the current AQI user fee schedule. AQI
services performed and the cost of providing those services would be
the same under each alternative. All three alternatives would ensure
that the costs of providing AQI services are covered and the reserve
fund is maintained. Relative to the other alternatives, the preferred
alternative would result in the smallest increase in user fee receipts
and, less noteworthy, the largest decrease in appropriated funding.
Table 10--Changes in Expected AQI User Fee Revenue, Appropriated AQI Funding, and Net Revenue Under the Three
Alternative User Fee Schedules, Summed Over FYs 2014-2017
[Million dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Preferred
Expected change in: alternative Alternative 2 Alternative 3
(proposed rule)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FYs 2014-2017
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AQI revenue:..............................................
User fees............................................. $530.6 $570.2 $584.7
Appropriated funding.................................. -241.2 -236.5 -236.5
AQI total revenue......................................... 289.5 333.7 348.3
AQI total cost............................................ 0 0 0
[[Page 22906]]
AQI revenue minus cost.................................... 289.5 333.7 348.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Columns may not sum due to rounding.
Economic effects under each of the three alternatives would derive
from the increase or reduction in costs borne by affected importers and
international passengers because of the changes in AQI user fees and
concurrent reduced reliance on appropriated funding of AQI user fees.
Impacts would depend on the magnitude of the changes, and for
importers, on the ability of suppliers to pass along or absorb the
costs, and for inbound international passengers, on the ability of
airlines and vessels to do likewise. In theory, higher user fees
increase the cost of imports and the supplier may have incentive to
send fewer goods to the United States or international passengers may
have less incentive to travel to the United States. Lower user fees, in
theory, create the opposite incentives.
The proposed changes in user fees are very small in comparison to
the overall value of the commodities imported or the price of an
international ticket, and therefore are expected to have negligible
impact on imports or the number of international passengers. Estimated
changes in user fee revenue relative to the output of the affected
sectors represent, in total, a decline of about two-hundredths of one
percent, and range from a decline of about six-thousandths of one
percent in the trucking industry to a decline of about one-tenth of one
percent in the airline industry.\2\ We cannot determine what would be
the effect of the projected reductions in appropriated funding of AQI
services, but observe that the reductions may counterbalance the
negligible impacts of the user fee increases to some extent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Short-run impacts of the proposed fee changes are estimated
to represent the following percentage changes from current output,
by affected industry: Trucking industry, -0.006 percent; rail
industry, 0.035 percent; vessel cargo industry, -0.005 percent;
cruise ship industry, 0.003 percent; and air cargo and passenger
industry, -0.102 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Output and employment impacts for FY 2014 under the three
alternatives, shown in table 11, were modeled for APHIS by a contracted
consultancy. The model results indicate that U.S. output and employment
would decline under all three alternatives, with the smallest declines
expected under the preferred alternative. Modeled output and employment
effects for FYs 2015-2017, as well as output effects by class for FY
2014, are similarly shown in the body of the RIA. We expect the
economic effects of the proposed user fee revisions for several of the
classes, if they occur at all, to be extremely small.
Table 11--Modeled Short-Run Direct Effects for U.S. Output and
Employment of the Three AQI User Fee Alternatives, FY 2014
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Change in output Change in employment
(million dollars) (jobs)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Preferred alternative -$94 -1,090
(proposed rule)............
Alternative 2............... -122 -1,301
Alternative 3............... -126 -1,400
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fee increases themselves and the newly charged fees for cruise
passengers and for monitoring and conducting treatments are not costs
to the economy as a whole, but rather transfer payments. Transfer
payments are monetary payments from one group to another that do not
affect total resources available to society. While individual importers
or passengers may experience financial burden from an increase in user
fees (or relief when a fee is reduced), the AQI services are already
being provided and therefore they are already counted as government
costs. A fee rate adjustment to support full cost recovery is
consistent with the intent of the relevant statues and regulations.
The increase in user fee funding of AQI services and closer
alignment, by class, of user fee revenues and costs would be the
principal outcomes of the proposed rule. For the 4 years FYs 2014-2017,
user fee funding of AQI services under the proposed rule is projected
to be $530.6 million more and appropriated funding of AQI services is
projected to be $241.2 million less than would occur with continuation
of the current fee schedule.
Increased reliance on user fee funding means that APHIS would more
fully meet its statutory mandate to prescribe and collect cost-based
fees for providing AQI services, including maintaining a reasonable
reserve. It also means that appropriated funds that would be used to
pay for AQI services under the existing user fee schedule may be
available for other Federal uses. We are unable to determine how those
appropriated funds that would no longer be used to pay for AQI services
under the proposed rule may be otherwise used. We expect that the
proposed increase in user fee funding and the decrease in appropriated
funding would have small distributional effects that may be largely
offsetting.
Firms most likely to be impacted by this rule are transportation
businesses within the truck, rail, sea, and air cargo sectors that
import goods into the United States. While the Small Business
Administration has set guidelines for the definition of small
businesses within each of those sectors, the size data do not
distinguish between transportation firms that operate internationally
and those firms that only
[[Page 22907]]
operate within the United States. However, the effects of the proposed
rule on firms within the transportation sector are expected to be
limited, regardless of firm size. In addition, at least some portion of
increased user fees may be passed on to consumers.
We invite public comment on the proposed rule, including comments
on the expected impacts for small entities and how the proposed rule
may be modified to reduce the burden for small entities consistent with
the rule's objectives. Any comment suggesting changes to the proposed
rule should be accompanied by supporting evidence and an explanation of
why the changes should be considered and supporting evidence.
Executive Order 12988
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988,
Civil Justice Reform. If this proposed rule is adopted: (1) All State
and local laws and regulations that are inconsistent with this rule
will be preempted; (2) no retroactive effect will be given to this
rule; and (3) administrative proceedings will not be required before
parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule contains no new information collection or recordkeeping
requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.).
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 354
Animal diseases, Exports, Government employees, Imports, Plant
diseases and pests, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Travel and transportation expenses.
Accordingly, we are proposing to amend 7 CFR part 354 as follows:
PART 354--OVERTIME SERVICES RELATING TO IMPORTS AND EXPORTS; AND
USER FEES
0
1. The authority citation for part 354 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7701-7772, 7781-7786, and 8301-8317; 21
U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 49 U.S.C. 80503; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.
0
2. Section 354.3 is amended as follows:
0
a. By revising the tables in paragraphs (b)(1), (c)(1), (d)(1), and
(e)(1).
0
b. In paragraph (b)(1), by removing the words ``, not to exceed 15
payments in a calendar year (i.e., no additional fee will be charged
for a 16th or subsequent arrival in a calendar year),''.
0
c. In paragraph (c)(3)(i), by removing the words ``20 times'' and
adding the words ``40 times'' in their place.
0
d. By revising paragraphs (f)(1), (f)(2)(i), (f)(8), and adding
paragraph (h).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 354.3 User fees for certain international services.
* * * * *
(b) Fee for inspection of commercial vessels of 100 net tons or
more. (1) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effective dates Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beginning [effective date of final rule]..................... $825
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
(c) Fee for inspection of commercial trucks. (1) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effective dates Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beginning [effective date of final rule]..................... $8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
(d) Fee for inspection of commercial railroad cars. (1) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effective dates Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beginning [effective date of final rule]..................... $2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
(e) Fee for inspection of commercial aircraft. (1) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effective dates Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beginning [effective date of final rule]..................... $225
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
(f) Fee for inspection of international passengers. (1) Except as
specified in paragraph (f)(2) of this section, each passenger aboard a
commercial aircraft or cruise ship who is subject to inspection under
part 330 of this chapter or 9 CFR, chapter I, subchapter D, upon
arrival from a place outside of the customs territory of the United
States, must pay an AQI user fee. The AQI user fee for each arrival is
shown in the following table:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effective dates \1\ Passenger type Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beginning [effective date of final Commercial aircraft.... $4
rule].
Beginning [effective date of final Cruise ship............ 2
rule].
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Persons who issue international airline and cruise line tickets or
travel documents are responsible for collecting the AQI international
airline passenger user fee and the international cruise ship passenger
user fee from ticket purchasers. Issuers must collect the fee
applicable at the time tickets are sold. In the event that ticket
sellers do not collect the AQI user fee when tickets are sold, the air
carrier or cruise line must collect the user fee that is applicable at
the time of departure from the passenger upon departure.
(2) * * *
(i) Crew members who are on duty aboard a cruise ship;
* * * * *
(8) Limitation on charges. Airlines and cruise lines will not be
charged reimbursable overtime for passenger inspection services
required for any aircraft or cruise ship on which a passenger arrived
who has paid the international passenger AQI user fee for that flight
or cruise.
* * * * *
(h) Fee for conducting and monitoring treatments. (1) Each importer
of a consignment of articles that require treatment upon arrival from a
place outside of the customs territory of the United States, either as
a preassigned condition of entry or as a remedial measure ordered
following the inspection of the consignment, must pay an AQI user fee.
The AQI user fee is charged on a per-treatment basis, i.e., if two or
more consignments are treated together, only a single fee will be
charged, and if a single consignment is split or must be retreated, a
fee will be charged for each separate treatment conducted. The AQI user
fee for each treatment is shown in the following table:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effective dates Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beginning [effective date of final rule]..................... $375
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Treatment provider. (i) Private entities that provide AQI
treatment services to importers are responsible for collecting the AQI
treatment user fee from the importer for whom the service is provided.
Treatment providers must collect the AQI treatment fee applicable at
the time the treatment is applied.
[[Page 22908]]
(ii) When AQI treatment services are provided by APHIS, APHIS will
collect the AQI treatment fee applicable at the time the treatment is
applied from the person receiving the services. Remittances must be
made by check or money order, payable in United States dollars, through
a United States bank, to ``The Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service.''
(3) Collection of fees. (i) In cases where APHIS is not providing
the AQI treatment and collecting the associated fee, AQI user fees
collected from importers pursuant to paragraph (h) of this section
shall be held in trust for the United States by the person collecting
such fees, by any person holding such fees, or by the person who is
ultimately responsible for remittance of such fees to APHIS. AQI user
fees collected from importers shall be accounted for separately and
shall be regarded as trust funds held by the person possessing such
fees as agents, for the beneficial interest of the United States. All
such user fees held by any person shall be property in which the person
holds only a possessory interest and not an equitable interest. As
compensation for collecting, handling, and remitting the AQI treatment
user fees, the person holding such user fees shall be entitled to any
interest or other investment return earned on the user fees between the
time of collection and the time the user fees are due to be remitted to
APHIS under this section. Nothing in this section shall affect APHIS'
right to collect interest from the person holding such user fees for
late remittance.
(4) Remittance and statement procedures. (i) The treatment provider
that collects the AQI treatment user fee must remit the fee to [address
to be added in final rule].
(ii) AQI treatment user fees must be remitted to [address to be
added in final rule] for receipt no later than 31 days after the close
of the calendar quarter in which the AQI user fees were collected. Late
payments will be subject to interest, penalty, and handling charges as
provided in the Debt Collection Act of 1982, as amended by the Debt
Collection Improvement Act of 1996 (31 U.S.C. 3717).
(iii) The remitter must mail with the remittance a written
statement to [address to be added in final rule]. The statement must
include the following information:
(A) Name and address of the person remitting payment;
(B) Taxpayer identification number of the person remitting payment;
(C) Calendar quarter covered by the payment; and
(D) Amount collected and remitted.
(iv) Remittances must be made by check or money order, payable in
United States dollars, through a United States bank, to ``The Animal
and Plant Health Inspection Service.''
* * * * *
Done in Washington, DC, this 21st day of April 2014.
Gary Woodward,
Deputy Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs.
[FR Doc. 2014-09466 Filed 4-24-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P