Veterinary Services User Fees, 1941-1945 [2025-00421]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 6 / Friday, January 10, 2025 / Notices
Communication Activity System
(SNICAS).
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION:
Sensitive but unclassified.
[Docket No. APHIS–2023–0058]
SYSTEM LOCATION:
Veterinary Services User Fees
The Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service (APHIS), within the
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA),
maintains records in a Governmentapproved cloud server accessed through
secure data centers in the continental
United States. Paper files are held at
various Plant Protection and Quarantine
(PPQ) Smuggling Interdiction and Trade
Compliance national, district, and field
offices.
AGENCY:
SYSTEM MANAGER(S):
Deputy Administrator of Plant
Protection and Quarantine, APHIS,
USDA, 4700 River Road, Riverdale, MD
20737.
*
*
*
*
*
EXEMPTIONS PROMULGATED FOR THE SYSTEM:
The Agency has exempted this system
from subsections (c)(3); (d); (e)(1);
(e)(4)(G), (H), and (I); and (f) of the
Privacy Act pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
552a(k)(2). The exemptions will be
applied only to the extent that the
information in the system is subject to
exemption pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
552a(k)(2).
khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with NOTICES
HISTORY:
Smuggling Interdiction and Trade
Compliance (SITC) National Information
Communication Activity System
(SNICAS), USDA/APHIS–21, was
published as a new system in its
entirety on July 11, 2022, (87 FR 41098–
41101, Docket No. APHIS–2014–0062).
A report on the modified system of
records, required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), as
implemented by Office of Management
and Budget Circular A–108, was sent to
the Chairman and Ranking Member of
the House Committee on Oversight and
Reform, Chairman and Ranking
Member of the Senate Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs, and the Administrator of the
Office of Management and Budget’s
Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs.
Done in Washington, DC, this 12th day of
December 2024.
Michael Watson,
Administrator, Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 2025–00335 Filed 1–8–25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–34–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:28 Jan 08, 2025
Jkt 265001
Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA).
ACTION: Final notice.
The Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service (APHIS) is
announcing adjusted user fee rates for
the costs of providing certain goods and
services, including veterinary diagnostic
goods and services and veterinary
services for imports and exports of live
animals and animal products. This
action is necessary because the
regulations provide that APHIS will
issue such a notice. This action ensures
that the fees charged more closely align
with the costs of providing the goods or
services, thus ensuring program
solvency.
DATES: The fee rates in this notice go
into effect January 10, 2025.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
information on the user fee activities
covered by this notice, contact Ms. Lisa
Slimmer, User Fee Financial Team
Manager, Veterinary Services Money
Management, 920 Main Campus Drive,
Raleigh, NC 27606; (919) 414–7205.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
Background
The regulations in 9 CFR part 130
(referred to below as the regulations or
the user fee regulations), cover user fees
to reimburse the U.S. Department of
Agriculture’s (USDA’s) Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)
for the costs of providing veterinary
diagnostic services and import/export
related services for live animals, animal
products and byproducts, poultry, birds,
germplasm, organisms, and vectors.
These user fees are authorized by
section 2509(c) of the Food, Agriculture,
Conservation, and Trade Act (FACT
Act) of 1990, as amended (21 U.S.C.
136a(c)), which provides that the
Secretary of Agriculture may, among
other things, prescribe regulations and
collect fees to recover the costs of
providing import/export related services
for animals, animal products and
byproducts, birds, germplasm,
organisms, and vectors, and for
veterinary diagnostics relating to the
control and eradication of
communicable diseases of livestock or
poultry within the United States.
Since fiscal year 1992, APHIS has
received no directly appropriated funds
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
1941
to cover the cost of certain veterinary
diagnostics or to provide import/export
related services for animals, animal
products and byproducts, birds,
germplasm, organisms, and vectors. Our
ability to provide these services
depends on user fees. User fees are
associated with providing services for
live animal, animal product, bird, and
germplasm imports and exports and the
user fees fund, among other things,
quarantine services, the processing of
import permit applications, port of entry
inspections, inspections and approvals
of import/export facilities and
establishments, endorsements of export
certificates, and services related to
emergency situations that arise during
the export or import process.
On August 1, 2023, APHIS published
a final rule in the Federal Register that
revised the regulations (88 FR 49994–
50002, Docket No. APHIS–2021–0052,
referred to below as the August 2023
final rule).1 This final rule removed
tables providing the individual fees
from the regulations and instead
indicated that they are posted on the
following website: www.aphis.usda.gov/
business-services/vs-fees. It also
provided that, on an annual basis,
APHIS would propose changes to the
fee rates through publication of a notice
in the Federal Register.
On November 8, 2024, we published
the first such notice in the Federal
Register (89 FR 88697, Docket No.
APHIS–2023–0058, referred to below as
the November 2024 notice). 2
We solicited comments on the notice
for 30 days, ending on December 9,
2024. We received 33 comments by that
date from industry groups and private
citizens.
General Comment
Four of the commenters supported the
fee increases articulated in the notice.
One of these commenters asked if the
revenue generated by the fee increases
would be used to reopen an USDA
APHIS office in Conyers, Georgia.
We are uncertain what office the
commenter is referring to because the
USDA APHIS office in Conyers, Georgia
is currently open.
Similarly, a commenter asked us if the
additional revenue generated by the fees
would go to additional staffing of
1 To view the final rule, go to https://
www.regulations.gov/document/APHIS-2021-00520014.
2 To view the notice or the comments that we
received, go to https://www.regulations.gov/docket/
APHIS-2023-0058. Additionally, please note that on
November 22, 2024, we issued a correction to the
notice to provide a proposed fee that was
inadvertently omitted from table 21 in the initial
notice.
E:\FR\FM\10JAN1.SGM
10JAN1
khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with NOTICES
1942
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 6 / Friday, January 10, 2025 / Notices
personnel at ports of entry, particularly
those along the southern border.
The fees collected are allocated, in
part, to staffing port environs. However,
due to the nature of fee remittance and
the Federal hiring process, it may take
time before additional personnel are
hired and stakeholders experience the
benefits associated with the additional
staffing.
Twenty-nine commenters disagreed
with the proposed user fees for various
reasons. We discuss these comments
below, by topic.
Several commenters stated that they
would either have to assume the
financial burden associated with the fee
increases as part of their business
model, or pass them off to other parties
in their supply chain. The commenters
stated that these impacts could
adversely impact international trade.
We acknowledge that the parties
subject to the user fees will have to
assume the costs of the increased fees,
and could pass this cost differential
through to other parties in their supply
chain. However, the commenters did
not state that the fees had been
miscalculated. Additionally, as we
stated in the August 2023 final rule, the
November 2024 notice, and this
document, APHIS has received no
directly appropriated funds to cover the
cost of certain veterinary diagnostics or
to provide import/export related
services for animals, animal products
and byproducts, birds, germplasm,
organisms, and vectors. Our ability to
provide these services depends on user
fees. In addition, as discussed later in
this notice, the fees must be changed in
order to ensure that the program
remains solvent and there are no
disruptions of the services provided.
A number of commenters stated that
the customer service associated with
some of the services funded by the fees
was suboptimal and/or nonstandardized. Of these, several
commenters recommended that APHIS’
Veterinary Services (VS) provide service
standards and guidelines for user fee
activities to ensure consistency of
services provided. In a similar vein,
several commenters stated that import/
export-related services were often
technically difficult and inexperienced
APHIS personnel could take longer to
do the task, leading to disparate and
potentially inflated levels of effort, and,
in turn, higher fees.
The fees are based on average level of
effort associated with the service. This
helps ensure that the fees are not set
against outlying scenarios that may not
be indicative of usual level of effort.
With that being said, APHIS exercises
multiple controls to ensure that work is
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:28 Jan 08, 2025
Jkt 265001
done in an efficient and standardized
manner. This includes requiring
specialized experience or its equivalent
as a condition of hiring, and standard
operating procedures for employees in
the form of VS guidance documents
(VSGs). While some of these VSGs are
internal-facing, APHIS has made many
of them publicly available for the sake
of transparency and as a service to the
general public. For example, VSGs
related to the import and export of
equines are found here: https://
www.aphis.usda.gov/live-animalimport/equine/vs-guidance. Finally,
because commenters did not provide
information regarding the services they
claimed were occurring suboptimally or
in a non-standard manner, APHIS is
unable to evaluate these claims further.
One commenter who stated that they
were currently dissatisfied with the
service provided by APHIS stated that
the fees should not be raised until
customer satisfaction increases.
Such a delay runs the risk of
disruption of the services provided or,
in a worst-case scenario, program
insolvency due to insufficient funds,
which would run counter to the
commenter’s request for increased
customer service. Based on current and
projected revenue, the program runs the
risk of such disruptions if the fees are
not increased by early spring 2025.
Several commenters stated that
advance notification was necessary
regarding any regulatory changes to the
fee structure or possible increases in
fees. One commenter requested at least
12 months advance notification, while
others stated that this should be at least
12 to 24 months before the fees are
raised. The commenter asking for at
least 12 months advance notification
characterized the fee increases in the
November 2024 notice as an abrupt
policy change and without prior notice.
On October 3, 2022, we issued the
proposed rule on which the August
2023 final rule revising the regulations
was based (87 FR 59731–59740, Docket
No. APHIS–2021–0052, referred to
below as the October 2022 proposed
rule). In it, we indicated the nature of
the regulatory revisions contemplated,
and stated ‘‘we anticipate that, since
APHIS’ import/export and veterinary
diagnostic user fees have not been
updated for more than 10 years, there
will be a change in the fees when APHIS
applies this new approach.’’ (87 FR
59732). We also stated that we intended
to issue a notice annually proposing
actual fee rates. In the August 2023 final
rule, we again indicated that we would
publish an annual notice, and stated
that it was the Agency’s intent to issue
initial and second notices adjusting the
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
fees on an annual basis. (88 FR 49995).
Finally, our November 2024 notice
proposing the updated fee rates itself
had a public comment period. In light
of the foregoing, we believe that there
was adequate notification provided of
the changes to the regulations, the
likelihood of fee increases, and the
specific nature of the increases; we
therefore disagree that the proposed fee
increases were an abrupt policy change.
Moreover, as noted above, further delay
of issuance of the adjusted fees runs the
risk of disruption of the services
provided or, in a worst-case scenario,
program insolvency due to insufficient
funds. Based on current and projected
revenue, the program runs the risk of
such disruptions if the fees are not
increased by early spring 2025.
Several commenters stated that
APHIS should have engaged
stakeholders prior to proposing to revise
the fees.
APHIS has consistently apprised
stakeholders of the need to revise the
current fees. Additionally, we note that
both the October 2022 proposed rule
and the November 2024 notice
referenced above provided an
opportunity for stakeholder feedback in
the form of public comment. Finally,
APHIS issued notifications of the
availability of both the October 2022
proposed rule and the November 2024
notice using our Stakeholder Registry.
To subscribe to the Stakeholder
Registry, please visit https://public.
govdelivery.com/accounts/
USDAAPHIS/subscriber/new. APHIS
strives to ensure that any changes in our
policies/regulations are communicated
early and robustly through the
Stakeholder Registry and other outreach
mechanisms.
One commenter suggested that an
advisory group be established relative to
the user fee regulations.
While outside the scope of this notice,
we will take this suggestion into
consideration.
Several commenters suggested that
APHIS consider phased implementation
with an altered fee structure that would
allot additional time for industries to
adapt to the new fees. One commenter
stated we should consider
implementation a year after publishing,
and another commenter suggested
implementation over several years.
The costs of providing veterinary
diagnostic and import/export related
services is unsustainable at the current
fee rates, and the program runs the risk
of disruption of the services provided
or, in a worst-case scenario, program
insolvency due to insufficient funds.
Based on current and projected revenue,
the program runs the risk of such
E:\FR\FM\10JAN1.SGM
10JAN1
khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 6 / Friday, January 10, 2025 / Notices
disruptions if the fees are not increased
by early spring 2025. This precludes
prolonged phased implementation of
the fees.
Several commenters recommended
that we tier services. Tiering suggestions
included lower fees for smaller
businesses, high-volume consumers of
the service for which the fee is assessed,
the species in question, or biosecurity
compliance history.
As noted in the November 2024
notice, APHIS sets user fees based on
the average level of effort identified to
complete each service, for which a user
fee is assessed, referred to as the direct
time factor in minutes. To determine the
direct time factor in minutes for each
service, we conducted labor surveys for
each of the organizations providing the
services. APHIS does not charge
different fees based on the size of an
organization receiving the service, or the
volume of times the organization
receives the services. One of the primary
reasons for this is to ensure that crosssubsidization of differing fee areas does
not occur; cross-subsidization is
prohibited by the FACT Act.
APHIS does charge different fees for
different species of animals when the
service provided for one species of
animal is disaggregated from services
provided to other species of animals.
For example, we charge different user
fees for different species of animals and
birds receiving standard housing, care,
feed, and handling while quarantined in
an APHIS-owned or operated animal
import center or quarantine facility.
However, disaggregation is not always
possible depending on the service in
question. We discuss this at greater
length later in this notice.
Several commenters suggested that
some of the services for which fees are
currently assessed could be subdivided
into further fee classes based on level of
effort. For example, one commenter
suggested that export health certificates
could be assessed different fees based
on whether or not the certificates
require additional attestations, test
results, or other certifications.
With regard to the commenter’s
example, APHIS currently does
subdivide the user fee for export health
certificates based on whether or not the
certificate requires additional
endorsements, certificates, or
verification of tests or vaccinations. This
was previously set forth in the
regulations themselves, and was
presented in tables 24 and 25 of the
November 2024 notice.
If a fee is not currently subdivided, it
is because the fee was not subdivided
previously in the regulations. APHIS
did not amend the fee categories in the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:28 Jan 08, 2025
Jkt 265001
August 2023 final rule. Rather, as noted
previously, we moved the current fee
categories from the regulations to a
website. However, APHIS is open to the
consolidation or subdivision of fee
categories when aggregation or
disaggregation of the services provided
is possible. These would be announced
as part of the annual notice to adjust the
fees in future notices.
Conversely, several commenters noted
that we divided several user fee services
into simple versus complex based on
the number of hours needed to complete
them. The commenters appeared to
assume that these were new
subcategories that the Agency would
use in order to artificially increase level
of effort and charge more fees.
The terms existed in the regulations
prior to the August 2023 final rule and
were simply ported from the regulations
as a result of that final rule. The terms
still have the meaning that they had
while part of the regulations, and APHIS
has no intent to change its practices to
artificially render the services complex.
Additionally, as noted elsewhere, fees
were set based on average level of effort,
in order to control for outlying
scenarios.
Several commenters asked why fees
for services provided for their class of
animals or products were greater than
the same service provided for other
classes of animals or products.
As noted in the November 2024
notice, the differing proposed adjusted
fees are the result of differing average
levels of effort needed to complete each
service. The same service can take
different average levels of effort to
complete for different classes of animal
or products. For example, the average
level of effort associated with the
inspection of imported cattle differs
from that associated with horses. This
can be the result of many factors,
including, but not limited to increased
technical complexity associated with
the task for a certain class of animals or
products, specialized requirements that
must be met and/or evaluated that are
not applicable to other classes of
animals or products, and, particularly in
the case of endorsement of export
certificates, extensive and nonstandardized documentation and
attestations.
A commenter asked how the cost-ofliving adjustment (COLA) and consumer
price index (CPI) percentages referenced
in the November 2024 notice were
calculated and stated that this was not
explained thoroughly in the notice. The
manner in which COLA and CPI are
calculated for purposes of the user fee
regulations was discussed at length in
October 2022 proposed rule to revise the
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
1943
regulations, and the terms cost of living
and Consumer price index are defined
in the regulations themselves.
The same commenter asserted that we
needed to provide justification in the
November 2024 notice that COLA and
CPI adjustments directly impact direct
and indirect costs to the Agency.
We disagree. The relationship was
discussed in the October 2022 proposed
rule to revise the regulations.
Although many commenters stated
they understood the need for fee
increases in general, several
commenters raised concerns regarding
the increase in user fees for their
respective industries. Several
commenters noted that the notice
provided cost calculation tables for
certain fees, but not for others, and
asked that the final notice provide the
relevant cost calculations that led to
each fee. Other commenters stated that
the data provided in the November 2024
notice was insufficient to assess
whether the proposed fee was justified
and asked for additional source data to
evaluate the fee. Specific fee classes that
were flagged as needing additional
information included those for new and
amended import permits, those for
disease tests for imported equines, those
for inspection of horses intended for
export, those for export health
certificates for bovine germplasm, and
those for endorsement of export health
certificates.
We believe that the October 2022
proposed rule and the August 2023 final
rule provided the cost components used
to calculate each fee, as well as the
nature of the underlying Agency costs in
each component. The examples in the
November 2024 notice were illustrative
to show the real costs in each
component for various fee types.
However, in response to these
requests and in the interest of full
transparency, we are making all cost
data on which the fees were based
available at www.aphis.usda.gov/
business-services/vs-fees. Please note
that, due to the size of the files, they
must be downloaded before viewing.
A commenter noted that the notice
did not address reimbursable overtime
rates, and provided comment on these
rates. However, we stated in the October
2022 proposed rule that reimbursable
overtime would not be part of the
notice-based process under which the
November 2024 notice was issued, but
rather would be adjusted periodically
through a separate rulemaking process.
A commenter suggested that we
amend the duration for which import
permits are valid. This is outside the
scope of both this notice and the user
E:\FR\FM\10JAN1.SGM
10JAN1
1944
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 6 / Friday, January 10, 2025 / Notices
khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with NOTICES
fee regulations under which this notice
was issued.
A commenter suggested that APHIS
not require permit amendments, which
are assessed a user fee, for import
permits for equines when a change of
expected itinerary occurs. This likewise
is outside the scope of both this notice,
and the user fee regulations under
which this notice was issued.
A commenter suggested that all export
health certificates should be
electronically generated and filed.
To the extent that our trading partners
allow this practice, we will pursue it.
However, we note that foreign nations
are sovereign to set their own import
requirements for agricultural products,
including the form of export health
certificates that they will accept.
A commenter referenced a 2024
United States Animal Health
Association (USAHA) resolution related
to equine imports, and asked for a
comprehensive review report to be
supplied to the industry related to the
Agency’s use of personnel resources in
order for the industry to be able to
evaluate the merits of the November
2024 notice.
The commenter is referring to
Resolution 7 passed at the 2024 Annual
USAHA conference, found here: https://
usaha.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/
2024-USAHA-Resolutions-7.pdf. The
resolution called for ‘‘a comprehensive
formal official review of all programs
and units involved in the international
movement of equine and equid
products,’’ including a review of
personnel resources, management
protocols, policy and procedure
documents and protocols, international
movement data, and memoranda of
understanding, derogations and waivers.
This request significantly exceeds the
scope of this notice and is not necessary
in order to evaluate whether the fees
have been calculated correctly. In this
regard, we are making all source data
used to calculate the fees publicly
available in tandem with this final
notice.
Comments Regarding Specific Costs
and Fees
In our November 2024 notice, we
indicated that factors leading to the
increase of the fees included increased
level of effort and expertise associated
with providing different services. As an
illustrative example, we indicated that
export health certificates had
historically been VS forms that allowed
information to be presented in a
standardized way. However, in recent
years, many countries have changed
their import requirements and now
require country and species-specific
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:28 Jan 08, 2025
Jkt 265001
health certificates. We also noted that
the certificates can now vary widely in
terms of the information they contain,
the requirements they cite, and the type
of certificate that can be used. We
provided further that all export health
certificates must now be verified for
each animal or shipment of product
being exported. We noted that all of
these factors had increased the level of
effort needed to complete the work, and
increased the need for subject matter
expertise to ensure the work addresses
the additional complexities now
involved.
Several commenters stated that
endorsement of export health
certificates for bovine germplasm had
become more streamlined, rather than
more complex, and argued that fees
should have gone down, rather than
risen, if based on the level of
complexity.
Endorsement of export health
certificates for bovine germplasm falls
within the larger category of
endorsement of export health
certificates for animal products and is
not disaggregated from endorsements for
export health certificates of other types
of products, for which level of effort and
complexity has increased.
Additionally, we note that increased
level of complexity was not the sole
factor leading to the increased fees.
Rather, the fees were set based on all
cost components listed in the
regulations, and all cost components
associated with the fees have increased
since they were last set.
Several commenters stated that
subject matter expertise was not
specifically needed to endorse export
health certificates for animal products.
We disagree that subject matter
expertise is not needed for the
endorsement of export certificates for
animal products. Some of the
endorsements are lengthy in terms of
documentation and highly complex.
Moreover, many countries specifically
require endorsement by individuals
with a certain level of credentials,
technical expertise, and/or experience.
While APHIS does attempt to ensure
these are actually required for the
endorsements in question through trade
negotiations and the development of
export protocols, as noted previously,
foreign countries are sovereign and may
set their own import requirements.
In our November 2024 notice, we
stated that the total information
technology (IT) costs included in the
update were $6,461,071.38 for ImportExport to ensure funding is available as
costs are actualized.
A commenter asked us what IT
improvements had been budgeted in
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
this estimate, and how industry and
APHIS would be able to use them.
The costs include not only
development of new IT and equipment
costs, but also operation and
maintenance costs, new information
technology and equipment costs. With
that being said, projected projects
include:
• APHIS–VS Trade System
Modernization design and development,
including live animal exports and
imports, animal import center
reservations, and product import and
export certificates and facility
inspections.
• Further development of APHIS’
EFile system, which handles APHIS’
permitting processes.
• Further development and identified
enhancements to APHIS’ Veterinary
Export Health Certification System, also
known as VEHCS.
• Design and development of the User
Fee invoicing system.
A commenter asked why the fee for
housing, care, feed, and handling of
miniature horses while in importrelated quarantine was increasing at a
greater rate than the fee for similar
services for non-miniature equines.
They also inquired why there is not a
depreciation of the fee for miniature
horses for instances of prolonged care,
as there is for non-miniature equines.
As noted in the paragraphs below
table B in the November 2024 notice,
this is because the fee for such services
for miniature horses is based on an
alternate fee structure for instances
when there is no identifiable volume in
the previous year, when the fee is rarely
charged, or when APHIS cannot readily
identify level of effort. In such
instances, we will calculate the fee
based on the last available historic data,
including inflation, program, agency,
department and support costs, imputed
costs, and reserve.
There is not a depreciation of the fee
for instances of prolonged care for
miniature horses, as there is for nonminiature equines, because there was
not such a depreciation for miniature
horses previously in the regulations, as
there was for non-miniature equines. As
noted previously, the August 2023 final
rule did not amend the fee categories,
but, rather, moved the current fee
categories from the regulations to a
website.
In the November 2024 notice, we
proposed to increase the fees for
processing import permit applications.
Several commenters stated that
import permits for their class of animal
or animal products and/or their
exporting country were routine and
processing fees should not have
E:\FR\FM\10JAN1.SGM
10JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 6 / Friday, January 10, 2025 / Notices
increased to the extent that we
proposed.
The processing of import permits is a
service where disaggregation based on
the class of animal or animal product or
the exporting country in question is not
possible. The fees were calculated based
on the average level of effort to complete
the issuance of import permits.
Additionally, as a matter of
transparency, we are making all cost
data on which the fees were based
available at www.aphis.usda.gov/
business-services/vs-fees.
Therefore, in accordance with
§ 130.3(a), we are updating the fees as
proposed and without modification.
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.
Done in Washington, DC, this 6th day of
January 2025.
Donna Lalli,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 2025–00421 Filed 1–8–25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–34–P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Final Record of Decision for the
Revised Land Management Plan for the
Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests
Forest Service, Agriculture
(USDA).
ACTION: Notice of approval of the
Revised Land Management Plan for the
Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests.
AGENCY:
Heath Perrine, Acting Forest
Supervisor for the Nez Perce-Clearwater
National Forests, Northern Region,
signed the final Record of Decision
(ROD) for the Revised Land
Management Plan (LMP) for the Nez
Perce-Clearwater National Forests. The
final ROD documents the rationale for
approving the Revised LMP and is
consistent with the Reviewing Officers’
responses to objections and instructions.
DATES: The Revised LMP for the Nez
Perce-Clearwater National Forests will
become effective 30 days after the
publication of this notice of approval in
the Federal Register (36 CFR
219.17(a)(1)).
SUMMARY:
To view the final ROD,
Final Environmental Impact Statement
(FEIS), Revised LMP, and other related
documents, please visit the Nez PerceClearwater National Forests website at:
https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/nezperce
clearwater/landmanagement/planning/
?cid=FSEPRD1206684. The Forest
Service will also publish a legal notice
of approval in the newspaper of record,
Lewiston Morning Tribune, and post a
copy of this legal notice on the Nez
Perce-Clearwater National Forests’
website listed above.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sara
Daugherty, Forest Planner, Nez PerceClearwater National Forests, by email at
sara.daugherty@usda.gov or by phone at
(208) 963–4206.
Individuals who use
telecommunication devices for the deaf
(TDD) may call the Federal Information
Relay Service (FIRS) at (800) 877–8339,
24 hours a day, every day of the year,
including holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Nez
Perce-Clearwater National Forests in the
Northern Region spans six ranger
districts and covers approximately four
million acres across seven counties in
north central Idaho, stretching from the
Bitterroot Mountains on the Idaho and
Montana border to the east, Salmon
River to the south, Hells Canyon to the
west, and the Palouse Prairie and North
Fork Clearwater River basin to the
north. The Nez Perce-Clearwater
ADDRESSES:
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Land Management Plan Direction for
Old-Growth Forest Conditions Across
the National Forest System;
Withdrawal
Forest Service, Department of
Agriculture.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
Notice; withdrawal.
The United States Department
of Agriculture is withdrawing its notice
of intent to prepare an environmental
impact statement (EIS) for the Land
Management Plan Direction for OldGrowth Forest Conditions Across the
National Forest System.
SUMMARY:
khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with NOTICES
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jennifer McRae, Planning Team Leader,
at 202–791–8488.
Individuals who use
telecommunications devices for the
hearing impaired may call 711 to reach
the Telecommunications Relay Service,
24 hours a day, every day of the year,
including holidays.
Christopher French,
Deputy Chief, National Forest System.
[FR Doc. 2025–00390 Filed 1–8–25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3411–15–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:28 Jan 08, 2025
Jkt 265001
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
1945
National Forests range in elevation from
1,000 to over 8,900 feet and support
diverse ecosystems and uses. The Nez
Perce-Clearwater National Forests
contain habitats essential for a wide
variety of species and serves critical
headwaters of the Clearwater River. The
Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests
also provide opportunities for
recreation, timber harvesting, livestock
grazing, and mineral development that
contribute to the quality of life and
economies of the surrounding
communities.
The Revised LMP was shaped by the
best available scientific information,
current laws, and public, governmental,
and tribal input. It was developed
pursuant to the 2012 Forest Service
Planning Rule (36 CFR 219) and will
replace the current Forest Plans that
were released in 1987. The Revised LMP
includes desired conditions, objectives,
standards, guidelines, management
approaches, management area
allocations, and land suitability for
project and activity decision-making,
which will guide resource management
activities on the Nez Perce-Clearwater
National Forests. It also includes
wilderness recommendations and
identifies eligible and suitable wild and
scenic river segments.
The Nez Perce-Clearwater National
Forests initiated LMP revision in 2013
and engaged with the public and tribal,
federal, state, and local governments.
The Forests consulted with the Nez
Perce Tribe during the planning process,
ensuring tribal-related plan direction
accurately reflects the Nez PerceClearwater National Forests’ tribal trust
relationship and ensures that the Treaty
with the Nez Perce of 1855 is honored.
Between 2012 and 2020, the Nez PerceClearwater National Forests conducted
26 formal public comment and informal
public feedback opportunities. The
Forests received and analyzed more
than 33,000 public comments.
Hundreds of people attended 45 inperson and virtual public meetings,
open houses, and webinars.
A 90-day public comment period on
the draft LMP and associated draft EIS
was initiated on December 20, 2019, and
subsequently extended 30 days. The
Forests used these comments to inform
and the preferred alternative for the
FEIS and Revised Plan. A draft ROD,
Revised LMP, and FEIS were released
on November 28, 2023, initiating a 60day objection filing period that closed
January 29, 2024. The Forest Service
received approximately 275 eligible
objections to the draft ROD and 5
objections filed by 13 individuals and
organizations to the list of species of
conservation concern. The Reviewing
E:\FR\FM\10JAN1.SGM
10JAN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 6 (Friday, January 10, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1941-1945]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-00421]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
[Docket No. APHIS-2023-0058]
Veterinary Services User Fees
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA).
ACTION: Final notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is
announcing adjusted user fee rates for the costs of providing certain
goods and services, including veterinary diagnostic goods and services
and veterinary services for imports and exports of live animals and
animal products. This action is necessary because the regulations
provide that APHIS will issue such a notice. This action ensures that
the fees charged more closely align with the costs of providing the
goods or services, thus ensuring program solvency.
DATES: The fee rates in this notice go into effect January 10, 2025.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on the user fee
activities covered by this notice, contact Ms. Lisa Slimmer, User Fee
Financial Team Manager, Veterinary Services Money Management, 920 Main
Campus Drive, Raleigh, NC 27606; (919) 414-7205.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The regulations in 9 CFR part 130 (referred to below as the
regulations or the user fee regulations), cover user fees to reimburse
the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service (APHIS) for the costs of providing veterinary
diagnostic services and import/export related services for live
animals, animal products and byproducts, poultry, birds, germplasm,
organisms, and vectors. These user fees are authorized by section
2509(c) of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act (FACT
Act) of 1990, as amended (21 U.S.C. 136a(c)), which provides that the
Secretary of Agriculture may, among other things, prescribe regulations
and collect fees to recover the costs of providing import/export
related services for animals, animal products and byproducts, birds,
germplasm, organisms, and vectors, and for veterinary diagnostics
relating to the control and eradication of communicable diseases of
livestock or poultry within the United States.
Since fiscal year 1992, APHIS has received no directly appropriated
funds to cover the cost of certain veterinary diagnostics or to provide
import/export related services for animals, animal products and
byproducts, birds, germplasm, organisms, and vectors. Our ability to
provide these services depends on user fees. User fees are associated
with providing services for live animal, animal product, bird, and
germplasm imports and exports and the user fees fund, among other
things, quarantine services, the processing of import permit
applications, port of entry inspections, inspections and approvals of
import/export facilities and establishments, endorsements of export
certificates, and services related to emergency situations that arise
during the export or import process.
On August 1, 2023, APHIS published a final rule in the Federal
Register that revised the regulations (88 FR 49994-50002, Docket No.
APHIS-2021-0052, referred to below as the August 2023 final rule).\1\
This final rule removed tables providing the individual fees from the
regulations and instead indicated that they are posted on the following
website: www.aphis.usda.gov/business-services/vs-fees. It also provided
that, on an annual basis, APHIS would propose changes to the fee rates
through publication of a notice in the Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ To view the final rule, go to https://www.regulations.gov/document/APHIS-2021-0052-0014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 8, 2024, we published the first such notice in the
Federal Register (89 FR 88697, Docket No. APHIS-2023-0058, referred to
below as the November 2024 notice).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ To view the notice or the comments that we received, go to
https://www.regulations.gov/docket/APHIS-2023-0058. Additionally,
please note that on November 22, 2024, we issued a correction to the
notice to provide a proposed fee that was inadvertently omitted from
table 21 in the initial notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We solicited comments on the notice for 30 days, ending on December
9, 2024. We received 33 comments by that date from industry groups and
private citizens.
General Comment
Four of the commenters supported the fee increases articulated in
the notice. One of these commenters asked if the revenue generated by
the fee increases would be used to reopen an USDA APHIS office in
Conyers, Georgia.
We are uncertain what office the commenter is referring to because
the USDA APHIS office in Conyers, Georgia is currently open.
Similarly, a commenter asked us if the additional revenue generated
by the fees would go to additional staffing of
[[Page 1942]]
personnel at ports of entry, particularly those along the southern
border.
The fees collected are allocated, in part, to staffing port
environs. However, due to the nature of fee remittance and the Federal
hiring process, it may take time before additional personnel are hired
and stakeholders experience the benefits associated with the additional
staffing.
Twenty-nine commenters disagreed with the proposed user fees for
various reasons. We discuss these comments below, by topic.
Several commenters stated that they would either have to assume the
financial burden associated with the fee increases as part of their
business model, or pass them off to other parties in their supply
chain. The commenters stated that these impacts could adversely impact
international trade.
We acknowledge that the parties subject to the user fees will have
to assume the costs of the increased fees, and could pass this cost
differential through to other parties in their supply chain. However,
the commenters did not state that the fees had been miscalculated.
Additionally, as we stated in the August 2023 final rule, the November
2024 notice, and this document, APHIS has received no directly
appropriated funds to cover the cost of certain veterinary diagnostics
or to provide import/export related services for animals, animal
products and byproducts, birds, germplasm, organisms, and vectors. Our
ability to provide these services depends on user fees. In addition, as
discussed later in this notice, the fees must be changed in order to
ensure that the program remains solvent and there are no disruptions of
the services provided.
A number of commenters stated that the customer service associated
with some of the services funded by the fees was suboptimal and/or non-
standardized. Of these, several commenters recommended that APHIS'
Veterinary Services (VS) provide service standards and guidelines for
user fee activities to ensure consistency of services provided. In a
similar vein, several commenters stated that import/export-related
services were often technically difficult and inexperienced APHIS
personnel could take longer to do the task, leading to disparate and
potentially inflated levels of effort, and, in turn, higher fees.
The fees are based on average level of effort associated with the
service. This helps ensure that the fees are not set against outlying
scenarios that may not be indicative of usual level of effort. With
that being said, APHIS exercises multiple controls to ensure that work
is done in an efficient and standardized manner. This includes
requiring specialized experience or its equivalent as a condition of
hiring, and standard operating procedures for employees in the form of
VS guidance documents (VSGs). While some of these VSGs are internal-
facing, APHIS has made many of them publicly available for the sake of
transparency and as a service to the general public. For example, VSGs
related to the import and export of equines are found here: https://www.aphis.usda.gov/live-animal-import/equine/vs-guidance. Finally,
because commenters did not provide information regarding the services
they claimed were occurring suboptimally or in a non-standard manner,
APHIS is unable to evaluate these claims further.
One commenter who stated that they were currently dissatisfied with
the service provided by APHIS stated that the fees should not be raised
until customer satisfaction increases.
Such a delay runs the risk of disruption of the services provided
or, in a worst-case scenario, program insolvency due to insufficient
funds, which would run counter to the commenter's request for increased
customer service. Based on current and projected revenue, the program
runs the risk of such disruptions if the fees are not increased by
early spring 2025.
Several commenters stated that advance notification was necessary
regarding any regulatory changes to the fee structure or possible
increases in fees. One commenter requested at least 12 months advance
notification, while others stated that this should be at least 12 to 24
months before the fees are raised. The commenter asking for at least 12
months advance notification characterized the fee increases in the
November 2024 notice as an abrupt policy change and without prior
notice.
On October 3, 2022, we issued the proposed rule on which the August
2023 final rule revising the regulations was based (87 FR 59731-59740,
Docket No. APHIS-2021-0052, referred to below as the October 2022
proposed rule). In it, we indicated the nature of the regulatory
revisions contemplated, and stated ``we anticipate that, since APHIS'
import/export and veterinary diagnostic user fees have not been updated
for more than 10 years, there will be a change in the fees when APHIS
applies this new approach.'' (87 FR 59732). We also stated that we
intended to issue a notice annually proposing actual fee rates. In the
August 2023 final rule, we again indicated that we would publish an
annual notice, and stated that it was the Agency's intent to issue
initial and second notices adjusting the fees on an annual basis. (88
FR 49995). Finally, our November 2024 notice proposing the updated fee
rates itself had a public comment period. In light of the foregoing, we
believe that there was adequate notification provided of the changes to
the regulations, the likelihood of fee increases, and the specific
nature of the increases; we therefore disagree that the proposed fee
increases were an abrupt policy change. Moreover, as noted above,
further delay of issuance of the adjusted fees runs the risk of
disruption of the services provided or, in a worst-case scenario,
program insolvency due to insufficient funds. Based on current and
projected revenue, the program runs the risk of such disruptions if the
fees are not increased by early spring 2025.
Several commenters stated that APHIS should have engaged
stakeholders prior to proposing to revise the fees.
APHIS has consistently apprised stakeholders of the need to revise
the current fees. Additionally, we note that both the October 2022
proposed rule and the November 2024 notice referenced above provided an
opportunity for stakeholder feedback in the form of public comment.
Finally, APHIS issued notifications of the availability of both the
October 2022 proposed rule and the November 2024 notice using our
Stakeholder Registry. To subscribe to the Stakeholder Registry, please
visit https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USDAAPHIS/subscriber/new.
APHIS strives to ensure that any changes in our policies/regulations
are communicated early and robustly through the Stakeholder Registry
and other outreach mechanisms.
One commenter suggested that an advisory group be established
relative to the user fee regulations.
While outside the scope of this notice, we will take this
suggestion into consideration.
Several commenters suggested that APHIS consider phased
implementation with an altered fee structure that would allot
additional time for industries to adapt to the new fees. One commenter
stated we should consider implementation a year after publishing, and
another commenter suggested implementation over several years.
The costs of providing veterinary diagnostic and import/export
related services is unsustainable at the current fee rates, and the
program runs the risk of disruption of the services provided or, in a
worst-case scenario, program insolvency due to insufficient funds.
Based on current and projected revenue, the program runs the risk of
such
[[Page 1943]]
disruptions if the fees are not increased by early spring 2025. This
precludes prolonged phased implementation of the fees.
Several commenters recommended that we tier services. Tiering
suggestions included lower fees for smaller businesses, high-volume
consumers of the service for which the fee is assessed, the species in
question, or biosecurity compliance history.
As noted in the November 2024 notice, APHIS sets user fees based on
the average level of effort identified to complete each service, for
which a user fee is assessed, referred to as the direct time factor in
minutes. To determine the direct time factor in minutes for each
service, we conducted labor surveys for each of the organizations
providing the services. APHIS does not charge different fees based on
the size of an organization receiving the service, or the volume of
times the organization receives the services. One of the primary
reasons for this is to ensure that cross-subsidization of differing fee
areas does not occur; cross-subsidization is prohibited by the FACT
Act.
APHIS does charge different fees for different species of animals
when the service provided for one species of animal is disaggregated
from services provided to other species of animals. For example, we
charge different user fees for different species of animals and birds
receiving standard housing, care, feed, and handling while quarantined
in an APHIS-owned or operated animal import center or quarantine
facility. However, disaggregation is not always possible depending on
the service in question. We discuss this at greater length later in
this notice.
Several commenters suggested that some of the services for which
fees are currently assessed could be subdivided into further fee
classes based on level of effort. For example, one commenter suggested
that export health certificates could be assessed different fees based
on whether or not the certificates require additional attestations,
test results, or other certifications.
With regard to the commenter's example, APHIS currently does
subdivide the user fee for export health certificates based on whether
or not the certificate requires additional endorsements, certificates,
or verification of tests or vaccinations. This was previously set forth
in the regulations themselves, and was presented in tables 24 and 25 of
the November 2024 notice.
If a fee is not currently subdivided, it is because the fee was not
subdivided previously in the regulations. APHIS did not amend the fee
categories in the August 2023 final rule. Rather, as noted previously,
we moved the current fee categories from the regulations to a website.
However, APHIS is open to the consolidation or subdivision of fee
categories when aggregation or disaggregation of the services provided
is possible. These would be announced as part of the annual notice to
adjust the fees in future notices.
Conversely, several commenters noted that we divided several user
fee services into simple versus complex based on the number of hours
needed to complete them. The commenters appeared to assume that these
were new subcategories that the Agency would use in order to
artificially increase level of effort and charge more fees.
The terms existed in the regulations prior to the August 2023 final
rule and were simply ported from the regulations as a result of that
final rule. The terms still have the meaning that they had while part
of the regulations, and APHIS has no intent to change its practices to
artificially render the services complex. Additionally, as noted
elsewhere, fees were set based on average level of effort, in order to
control for outlying scenarios.
Several commenters asked why fees for services provided for their
class of animals or products were greater than the same service
provided for other classes of animals or products.
As noted in the November 2024 notice, the differing proposed
adjusted fees are the result of differing average levels of effort
needed to complete each service. The same service can take different
average levels of effort to complete for different classes of animal or
products. For example, the average level of effort associated with the
inspection of imported cattle differs from that associated with horses.
This can be the result of many factors, including, but not limited to
increased technical complexity associated with the task for a certain
class of animals or products, specialized requirements that must be met
and/or evaluated that are not applicable to other classes of animals or
products, and, particularly in the case of endorsement of export
certificates, extensive and non-standardized documentation and
attestations.
A commenter asked how the cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) and
consumer price index (CPI) percentages referenced in the November 2024
notice were calculated and stated that this was not explained
thoroughly in the notice. The manner in which COLA and CPI are
calculated for purposes of the user fee regulations was discussed at
length in October 2022 proposed rule to revise the regulations, and the
terms cost of living and Consumer price index are defined in the
regulations themselves.
The same commenter asserted that we needed to provide justification
in the November 2024 notice that COLA and CPI adjustments directly
impact direct and indirect costs to the Agency.
We disagree. The relationship was discussed in the October 2022
proposed rule to revise the regulations.
Although many commenters stated they understood the need for fee
increases in general, several commenters raised concerns regarding the
increase in user fees for their respective industries. Several
commenters noted that the notice provided cost calculation tables for
certain fees, but not for others, and asked that the final notice
provide the relevant cost calculations that led to each fee. Other
commenters stated that the data provided in the November 2024 notice
was insufficient to assess whether the proposed fee was justified and
asked for additional source data to evaluate the fee. Specific fee
classes that were flagged as needing additional information included
those for new and amended import permits, those for disease tests for
imported equines, those for inspection of horses intended for export,
those for export health certificates for bovine germplasm, and those
for endorsement of export health certificates.
We believe that the October 2022 proposed rule and the August 2023
final rule provided the cost components used to calculate each fee, as
well as the nature of the underlying Agency costs in each component.
The examples in the November 2024 notice were illustrative to show the
real costs in each component for various fee types.
However, in response to these requests and in the interest of full
transparency, we are making all cost data on which the fees were based
available at www.aphis.usda.gov/business-services/vs-fees. Please note
that, due to the size of the files, they must be downloaded before
viewing.
A commenter noted that the notice did not address reimbursable
overtime rates, and provided comment on these rates. However, we stated
in the October 2022 proposed rule that reimbursable overtime would not
be part of the notice-based process under which the November 2024
notice was issued, but rather would be adjusted periodically through a
separate rulemaking process.
A commenter suggested that we amend the duration for which import
permits are valid. This is outside the scope of both this notice and
the user
[[Page 1944]]
fee regulations under which this notice was issued.
A commenter suggested that APHIS not require permit amendments,
which are assessed a user fee, for import permits for equines when a
change of expected itinerary occurs. This likewise is outside the scope
of both this notice, and the user fee regulations under which this
notice was issued.
A commenter suggested that all export health certificates should be
electronically generated and filed.
To the extent that our trading partners allow this practice, we
will pursue it. However, we note that foreign nations are sovereign to
set their own import requirements for agricultural products, including
the form of export health certificates that they will accept.
A commenter referenced a 2024 United States Animal Health
Association (USAHA) resolution related to equine imports, and asked for
a comprehensive review report to be supplied to the industry related to
the Agency's use of personnel resources in order for the industry to be
able to evaluate the merits of the November 2024 notice.
The commenter is referring to Resolution 7 passed at the 2024
Annual USAHA conference, found here: https://usaha.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/2024-USAHA-Resolutions-7.pdf. The resolution called for
``a comprehensive formal official review of all programs and units
involved in the international movement of equine and equid products,''
including a review of personnel resources, management protocols, policy
and procedure documents and protocols, international movement data, and
memoranda of understanding, derogations and waivers. This request
significantly exceeds the scope of this notice and is not necessary in
order to evaluate whether the fees have been calculated correctly. In
this regard, we are making all source data used to calculate the fees
publicly available in tandem with this final notice.
Comments Regarding Specific Costs and Fees
In our November 2024 notice, we indicated that factors leading to
the increase of the fees included increased level of effort and
expertise associated with providing different services. As an
illustrative example, we indicated that export health certificates had
historically been VS forms that allowed information to be presented in
a standardized way. However, in recent years, many countries have
changed their import requirements and now require country and species-
specific health certificates. We also noted that the certificates can
now vary widely in terms of the information they contain, the
requirements they cite, and the type of certificate that can be used.
We provided further that all export health certificates must now be
verified for each animal or shipment of product being exported. We
noted that all of these factors had increased the level of effort
needed to complete the work, and increased the need for subject matter
expertise to ensure the work addresses the additional complexities now
involved.
Several commenters stated that endorsement of export health
certificates for bovine germplasm had become more streamlined, rather
than more complex, and argued that fees should have gone down, rather
than risen, if based on the level of complexity.
Endorsement of export health certificates for bovine germplasm
falls within the larger category of endorsement of export health
certificates for animal products and is not disaggregated from
endorsements for export health certificates of other types of products,
for which level of effort and complexity has increased.
Additionally, we note that increased level of complexity was not
the sole factor leading to the increased fees. Rather, the fees were
set based on all cost components listed in the regulations, and all
cost components associated with the fees have increased since they were
last set.
Several commenters stated that subject matter expertise was not
specifically needed to endorse export health certificates for animal
products.
We disagree that subject matter expertise is not needed for the
endorsement of export certificates for animal products. Some of the
endorsements are lengthy in terms of documentation and highly complex.
Moreover, many countries specifically require endorsement by
individuals with a certain level of credentials, technical expertise,
and/or experience. While APHIS does attempt to ensure these are
actually required for the endorsements in question through trade
negotiations and the development of export protocols, as noted
previously, foreign countries are sovereign and may set their own
import requirements.
In our November 2024 notice, we stated that the total information
technology (IT) costs included in the update were $6,461,071.38 for
Import-Export to ensure funding is available as costs are actualized.
A commenter asked us what IT improvements had been budgeted in this
estimate, and how industry and APHIS would be able to use them.
The costs include not only development of new IT and equipment
costs, but also operation and maintenance costs, new information
technology and equipment costs. With that being said, projected
projects include:
APHIS-VS Trade System Modernization design and
development, including live animal exports and imports, animal import
center reservations, and product import and export certificates and
facility inspections.
Further development of APHIS' EFile system, which handles
APHIS' permitting processes.
Further development and identified enhancements to APHIS'
Veterinary Export Health Certification System, also known as VEHCS.
Design and development of the User Fee invoicing system.
A commenter asked why the fee for housing, care, feed, and handling
of miniature horses while in import-related quarantine was increasing
at a greater rate than the fee for similar services for non-miniature
equines. They also inquired why there is not a depreciation of the fee
for miniature horses for instances of prolonged care, as there is for
non-miniature equines.
As noted in the paragraphs below table B in the November 2024
notice, this is because the fee for such services for miniature horses
is based on an alternate fee structure for instances when there is no
identifiable volume in the previous year, when the fee is rarely
charged, or when APHIS cannot readily identify level of effort. In such
instances, we will calculate the fee based on the last available
historic data, including inflation, program, agency, department and
support costs, imputed costs, and reserve.
There is not a depreciation of the fee for instances of prolonged
care for miniature horses, as there is for non-miniature equines,
because there was not such a depreciation for miniature horses
previously in the regulations, as there was for non-miniature equines.
As noted previously, the August 2023 final rule did not amend the fee
categories, but, rather, moved the current fee categories from the
regulations to a website.
In the November 2024 notice, we proposed to increase the fees for
processing import permit applications.
Several commenters stated that import permits for their class of
animal or animal products and/or their exporting country were routine
and processing fees should not have
[[Page 1945]]
increased to the extent that we proposed.
The processing of import permits is a service where disaggregation
based on the class of animal or animal product or the exporting country
in question is not possible. The fees were calculated based on the
average level of effort to complete the issuance of import permits.
Additionally, as a matter of transparency, we are making all cost data
on which the fees were based available at www.aphis.usda.gov/business-services/vs-fees.
Therefore, in accordance with Sec. 130.3(a), we are updating the
fees as proposed and without modification.
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.
Done in Washington, DC, this 6th day of January 2025.
Donna Lalli,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 2025-00421 Filed 1-8-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P