[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 129 (Wednesday, July 8, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 32391-32400]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-16146]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
7 CFR Part 354
[Docket No. APHIS-2006-0137]
RIN 0579-AC22
User Fees; Export Certification for Plants and Plant Products
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are amending the user fee regulations by adjusting the fees
charged for export certification of plants and plant products. We are
increasing these user fees for fiscal years 2010 through 2012 to
reflect the anticipated costs associated with providing these services
during each year. We are also adding a new user fee for Federal export
certificates for plants and plant products that an exporter obtains
from a State or county cooperator in order to recover our costs
associated with that service. Finally, we are making several
nonsubstantive changes to the regulations for clarity. These changes
will enable us to properly recover the costs of providing export
certification services for plants and plant products.
DATES: Effective Date: October 1, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning program
operations, contact Mr. Marcus McElvaine, Senior Export Specialist,
Phytosanitary Issues Management, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 140,
Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; (301) 734-8414. For information concerning
rate development, contact Mrs. Kris Caraher, User Fee Section,
Financial Services Branch, Financial Management Division, MRPBS, APHIS,
4700 River Road Unit 55, Riverdale, MD 20737-1232; (301) 734-0882.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On June 12, 2007, we published in the Federal Register (72 FR
32223-32230, Docket No. APHIS-2006-0137) a proposal \1\ to amend the
user fee regulations in 7 CFR 354.3 by adjusting the fees charged for
export certification of plants and plant products. We proposed to
increase these user fees for fiscal years (FYs) 2007 through 2012 to
reflect the anticipated costs associated with providing these services
during each year. We also proposed to add a new user fee for Federal
export certificates for plants and plant products that an exporter
obtains from a State or county cooperator in order to recover our costs
associated with that service and to make some additional nonsubstantive
changes to the regulations for greater clarity. The proposed changes
were intended to enable us to properly recover the costs of providing
export certification services for plants and plant products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ To view the proposed rule and the comments we received, go
to http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocketDetail&d=APHIS-2006-0137.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We solicited comments concerning our proposal for 60 days ending
August 13, 2007. We received 75 comments by that date. They were from
producers, exporters, research institutions, relief agencies, and
representatives of State
[[Page 32392]]
and county governments. They are discussed below by topic.
A number of commenters stated that the adjustments to the existing
fees, together with the addition of the proposed new fee for
certificates issued on behalf of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service (APHIS) by State and county cooperators, would increase both
the paperwork burden and the cost of doing business for exporters of
various products, including seeds, hardwood lumber, cotton, beans,
daylilies, and rice, thus making U.S. exports less competitive than
they are now. It was also stated that the proposed fees would adversely
affect small entities, since many of these exporters are small,
according to the Small Business Administration's (SBA's) criteria.
We do not anticipate that the rule will entail any increase in the
paperwork burden for the exporters referred to above, and the
commenters did not provide details or examples to the contrary. Payment
of the increased fees may increase the up-front costs of doing business
for some entities; however, these entities benefit from the export
certification services we provide, without which their goods would not
be allowed into the importing countries. The fees are necessary in
order for us to recover the cost of providing these services. Potential
impacts of the fee adjustments on small entities, which we anticipate
to be small, are discussed in the full economic analysis and in the
summary of it presented later in this document. Because the costs APHIS
incurs in providing export services vary according to the type or value
of the shipment but are the same regardless of whether the exporter is
a large or small entity, we cannot offer discounts to the latter if we
are to recover our costs fully.
As we noted in the Supplementary Information section of the June
2007 proposed rule, the user fees supporting the Export Program have
not been adjusted since 1996, and, due to inflation and other factors,
we have not been fully recovering the cost of providing our export
services in recent years. Since 1996, the increase in the cost of
administering the Export Program has actually outpaced the inflation
rate. Many new overseas markets for U.S. agricultural commodities have
opened up since then, and U.S. exports have increased correspondingly,
both in overall volumes and in the variety of commodities being
exported. Our workload has increased due to the increase in volumes of
exports, and the need to review and evaluate new commodities for export
and new foreign country phytosanitary requirements has made the
background work required to issue export certificates more complex.
Some commenters stated that the adjusted user fees will increase
production costs for growers.
The cost of obtaining a phytosanitary certificate to export a
commodity is not a direct production cost. While we do recognize that
the adjusted fees will raise the costs of doing business, as noted
earlier, affected entities also benefit from the export services we
provide. Moreover, we need to recover fully the costs of providing
those services. Because we last raised user fees in 1996, we have not
been fully recovering these costs.
A few commenters expressed the concern that the increased fees
could adversely affect the activities of hunger relief agencies and
research institutions. Such institutions sometimes export high-value
shipments but for noncommercial purposes.
We do not agree with this comment. Under most circumstances,
shippers are subject to the higher commercial fees if the value of
their shipment exceeds $1,250. Commercial shipment is defined in Sec.
354.3(a), however, as a shipment for gain or profit. As long as they
can provide the proper documentation to demonstrate that there are no
profits associated with their shipments, relief agencies and research
institutions are, and would continue to be, subject to the
significantly lower rates applicable to noncommercial shipments even if
the value of a shipment exceeds $1,250. To qualify for the
noncommercial rate, the exporter, shipper, or broker must present one
of the following documents: CCC 512, Notice of Commodity Availability;
KC 269, Notice to Deliver; or KC 269-A, Forwarding Notice. Offering
additional discounts or exemptions for relief agencies and research
institutions would not allow us to recover the costs associated with
the export certification services that we provide them.
Some commenters stated that our proposed fee increases were
unjustified because many of the inspections that need to be performed
before phytosanitary export certificates can be issued are conducted
under compliance agreement by personnel not affiliated with APHIS'
Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) program.
Because it is still necessary for us to recover the costs
associated with administering such compliance agreements, which we are
not doing under the current fee structure, we will not be making any
changes to the final rule as a result of these comments. Compliance
agreements, which are voluntary, are intended to help exporters to ship
their products more quickly. Such agreements do not alleviate APHIS'
costs for reviewing certificates and overseeing and administering the
export program.
A commenter suggested that increasing the export certification user
fees may actually be detrimental to our efforts to prevent the spread
of plant pests and diseases because exporters may attempt to ship their
goods without phytosanitary certificates in order to avoid paying the
fees.
Export certification is a service provided by APHIS to enable
exporters to ship their goods to foreign countries that require such
certification. An exporter who elects to ship without a phytosanitary
certificate that is required by the importing country runs the risk of
having the consignment rejected or destroyed.
Some commenters viewed our proposed incremental fee increases each
fiscal year as potentially confusing and burdensome. It was suggested
that, rather than raise the fees each year, we do so only once, setting
each of them somewhere in the middle range of our projections. Thus,
for example, rather than having our fees for commercial shipments rise
from $99 to $106 over the period covered by the rulemaking, as we
projected in the June 2007 proposed rule, we might set the fee at $103
initially and not make any further adjustments.
We do not agree that the incremental fee increases are confusing or
burdensome. The regulations will clearly indicate that on set days, the
fees will increase. Federal Register notices will be issued before the
fees are increased each year to remind users of the upcoming
adjustments. Setting the fees years in advance is actually beneficial
to industry because it allows entities to plan and budget accordingly.
Setting a single fee for the entire period covered by this rulemaking
in the middle range of the fee scale, as suggested by the commenters,
would not allow us to recover our costs fully in the later years.
One commenter stated that the initial fee increases should be
implemented over 2 years, rather than 1, to soften their impact on
industry.
We agree with this commenter that a 2-year phase-in period will be
less burdensome to industry than an immediate implementation of the
full fees, since, under the June 2007 proposed rule, the steepest, and
thus potentially the most burdensome, proposed fee increases would have
gone into effect in the first year of the period covered by the
rulemaking.
[[Page 32393]]
Accordingly, under this final rule, the initial increases and the new
administrative fee will be phased in over a 2-year period. For reasons
discussed in greater detail below, the initial fee changes will go into
effect at the beginning of FY 2010 rather than upon publication of this
final rule. The fees for FY 2010 will be set at a level reflecting half
the necessary increase, meaning that the fees will not cover our full
costs during that fiscal year and that the remaining costs will have to
be covered using other funds. The full fees will be in place at the
beginning of FY 2011, which will be the first year in which they will
provide for full recovery of export program costs.
A commenter noted that many exporters request multiple and often
similar phytosanitary certificates at one time. Many exporters that
ship on a regular basis batch their requests for phytosanitary
certificates, a practice that makes the certification process easier
and more economical for APHIS than would be the case when requests are
submitted singly. Neither the existing nor the proposed fee structures
recognize these savings, however. It was suggested that when requests
for certificates are batched, thereby lowering APHIS' processing costs
per certificate, charging the same fee for each certificate is not
justified.
We will not be making any changes to the final rule in response to
this comment, though we may reconsider this issue in the future. As
explained in the preamble to the June 2007 proposed rule, we estimate
our future costs based on data from prior fiscal years, and we
calculate our user fees by dividing the sum of the costs of providing
each service by the projected volumes. We base our fee calculations on
the total estimated volume of certificates endorsed to arrive at the
same fee for each fee category, regardless of the level of complexity
of one certification versus another or the similarity of subsequent
certifications to ones already completed. Adding a new certificate
category and a correspondingly lower fee for certifications that are
considered similar to ones already endorsed is not desirable due to our
averaging approach to rate-setting and is contrary to our goal of
having a simplified fee structure.
A commenter stated that if APHIS commits an error that makes it
necessary to replace an export certificate, the shipper or producer
should not be liable for any additional fees.
We agree with this comment. It has been, and will continue to be,
our practice not to charge additional fees in such cases. We also would
not charge additional fees when an error by a State or county
cooperator that has issued a certificate on APHIS' behalf necessitates
a replacement certificate. If a certificate, whether issued directly by
APHIS or on behalf of APHIS by a State or county cooperator, needs to
be replaced for other reasons, e.g., as a result of a request by an
exporter, the normal fees would apply.
A commenter questioned the justification for the increases in our
existing fees, stating that APHIS' costs for providing export
certification services should decrease over time, rather than increase
as we are projecting, due to technological advances, such as full
implementation of the Phytosanitary Certificate Issuance and Tracking
System (PCIT).
We do anticipate that the further development and wider use of the
PCIT will enable us to realize some cost savings. As we noted in the
June 2007 proposed rule, however, the fee adjustments are needed to
enable us to recover the full costs of our export certification
programs. These costs include ones that we may incur for the
development of new technologies, as well as, among others, salaries and
benefits, utilities, rents, and office equipment, and information
systems development, all of which tend to rise from year to year. We
review our costs and fees periodically, however, and will consider
future rulemaking to reduce the fees if wider use of the PCIT results
in sufficient cost savings to justify such a reduction. Any collections
in excess of our costs will remain in the account to be used only for
export phytosanitary services. The need for us to maintain a reasonable
reserve in this account is discussed in greater detail below.
A commenter stated that, because of the size and magnitude of our
proposed fees, they should be considered a tax.
We do not agree with this comment. A tax is money paid by the
general public to support general Government operations. A user fee is
money paid for a specific Government service by the beneficiary of that
service and is designed to recover the costs of providing that service.
The user fees covered by this rulemaking are paid by exporters who
benefit from our export certification services, which enable them to
have their goods allowed entry by the countries of destination. The
fees, in turn, allow us to recover the full costs of providing these
services.
A commenter stated that our export certification user fees should
be applied only to offset the costs of the issuance of the actual
certificate and not to cover departmental charges and other program
costs. Therefore, according to this commenter, the fees should be lower
than those we are proposing.
We do not agree with this comment. We have a congressional mandate
to recover our full program costs by means of user fees. As explained
in the proposed rule and noted above, these include direct labor and
various other costs.
Some commenters stated that information on how we calculated our
reserve funds was lacking in the proposed rule, while others questioned
the need for the reserve or viewed the amounts to be set aside as
excessive.
We do not agree with these commenters. As we noted in the June 2007
proposed rule, a reasonable reserve is needed to ensure that we have
sufficient operating funds in cases of fluctuations in activity volumes
or unanticipated events that could impact the export certification
program. After calculating our projected costs for the period covered
by this rulemaking using prior year costs, added inflationary factors,
and planned new costs, we then added in the cost of maintaining that
reserve. We anticipate that our user fees will generate a reserve fund
of 5 percent per year, an amount that will provide for the maintenance
of up to 3 to 5 months' operating expenses. We intend to monitor the
reserve balance closely and propose adjustments in our fees as
necessary to bring these user fees into line with our actual program
costs. If we determine that any fees are too high and are contributing
to unreasonably high reserve levels, we will undertake rulemaking to
lower the fees as quickly as possible through our required rulemaking
process. Conversely, if it becomes necessary to increase any fees
because reserve levels are being drawn too low, we will undertake
rulemaking to increase the fees.
A large number of commenters raised issues specific to the new
administrative fee for certificates issued by State or county
cooperators on APHIS' behalf. Commenters questioned the justification
for the new fee and stated that the amount was too high, having been
calculated using erroneous data on volumes. Others expressed concern
over the financial and other burdens that may be faced by State and
county governments in collecting the fees from exporters and remitting
them to APHIS, the mechanics of the collection and remittance
processes, and the legal and constitutional authority of the States and
counties to collect such fees on behalf of APHIS.
Some commenters questioned the justification for this new fee on
the grounds that most of the administrative costs of issuing export
certificates are
[[Page 32394]]
already borne by States or counties and that APHIS does not provide
significant oversight of the process of issuing phytosanitary
certificates. In the view of these commenters, the administrative costs
to APHIS for the issuance of export certificates on its behalf by State
and county cooperators were not of sufficient magnitude to justify the
fee.
The administrative fee is intended to cover the direct labor and
administrative support costs incurred by APHIS when export certificates
are issued on its behalf by State and county cooperators.
Administrative support costs generally include the following: Local
clerical and administrative activities, indirect labor hours
(supervision of personnel and time spent doing work that is not
directly connected with the service but which is nonetheless
necessary); travel and transportation for personnel; supplies,
equipment, and other necessary items; and training. Agency overhead is
the pro rata share, attributable to a particular service of the
management and support costs for all Agency activities. Included are
the costs of providing budget and accounting services (tracking
volumes, rate setting, policy etc.), management support, including the
Administrator's office and support at the regional level, personnel
services, public information service, and liaison with Congress.
Additional costs that pertain specifically to phytosanitary
certificates issued on APHIS' behalf by State and county cooperators
include the costs APHIS incurs in training State and county personnel
to issue the certificates, in maintaining the export requirement
database (a database containing the shipping requirements of foreign
countries, which serves as a resource for certifying officials and U.S.
exporters), and in conducting reviews of the program.
A couple of commenters suggested that in instances where State or
county fees would apply in addition to the APHIS administrative fee,
APHIS should collect both fees and then reimburse the State or county
for its portion on a quarterly or monthly basis. The commenters
suggested that such a practice would help to minimize confusion and
duplication of effort on the part of exporters, who would then only
receive one invoice per certificate issued.
This functionality is now available within the PCIT. Additional
information may be obtained from the PPQ program operations personnel
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Some commenters stated that our volume estimates for certificates
issued by State and county cooperators appeared to be low. The proposed
rule projected that a lower number of certificates would be issued by
State and county cooperators in 2007 than the report by Kadix Systems,
discussed in the June 2007 proposed rule, stated were actually issued
in 2003. The commenters believed that the Kadix figure is a more
accurate measure of the number of certificates issued by State and
county cooperators than are our volume estimates. If the actual volumes
are significantly higher than our estimates, the commenters stated,
then the actual revenues that will accrue to APHIS as a result of these
fees will also be considerably higher than what we projected.
Therefore, we should set the administrative fee at a lower level.
After considering these comments, we reviewed our data in order to
identify true export certificate user fee costs and volumes. We used
prior year accounting data from the Financial Foundation Information
System and the Financial Data Warehouse/Brio reports, which track and
record expenses that support the Phytosanitary Export Certificate user
fee program. We then added to those costs any planned new source
funding, such as new staffing costs (plus support costs for new
staffing) and automation initiatives (e.g., further development of the
PCIT and the export requirement database); training; and the pro rata
share of the distributable accounts such as agency overhead,
departmental charges, rent, economic assumptions, and a reasonable
amount to be recovered in the reserve account. We then split our total
costs for each fiscal year into each individual certification category.
We based our projected volumes for certificates issued by State and
county cooperators in FY 2007 on Work Accomplishment Data System data,
which were provided by PPQ's Eastern and Western regional offices. Our
projections allowed for a general trade increase of 1 percent each
year. We assumed that 87 percent of customers, on average, will use the
PCIT and that 13 percent will not. We split the volumes based on these
percentages and divided the total costs by the volumes to calculate the
administrative fee for phytosanitary certificates issued by States and
counties using the PCIT and those not using the system.
We also determined, as a result of our review, that the number of
State and county-issued Federal phytosanitary certificates had been
underestimated and that, consequently, the proposed administrative fee
was too high. We have therefore recalculated the administrative fee
based on a revised State/county volume estimate of 367,137. For those
States and counties issuing phytosanitary certificates through the
PCIT, the administrative fee will initially be $3 per certificate under
the 2-year phase-in and will subsequently rise to $6 in FYs 2011 and
2012. For those States and counties issuing paper phytosanitary
certificates, the administrative fee will be $6 per certificate
initially and will subsequently rise to $12 in FYs 2011 and 2012. Since
all phytosanitary certificates issued directly by APHIS must be issued
through the PCIT, the two-level administrative fee applies only to
State- and county-issued export certificates.
The reason for adopting a two-tiered fee structure is because there
are many more costs associated with paper phytosanitary certificates
than there are with those issued electronically through the PCIT. Paper
phytosanitary certificates entail additional costs for printing,
distributing, controlling, and reviewing the paper certificates, as
well as billing, collection, recordkeeping, storage, and archiving. On
the other hand, PCIT-issued phytosanitary certificates will be
maintained in the automated system, with issuance, collection, and
accounting functions all handled at the same time. This process is much
more cost-effective than issuing paper certificates.
Some commenters suggested that the new administrative fee is
unjustified because it shifts costs from APHIS to States and counties.
Collecting the new administrative fee and remitting it to APHIS
could entail some new administrative and recordkeeping costs for State
and county governments, especially for those that do not use the PCIT.
We anticipate, however, that in most cases, these costs will ultimately
be recovered from exporters--the users and beneficiaries of our export
services--in the form of increased State or county user fees.
Some representatives of State and county governments stated that
collecting the administrative fee on APHIS' behalf could place a
significant financial burden on States and counties, the magnitude of
which we underestimated. Some States and counties, according to their
representatives, do not have adequate personnel or funds to collect the
fees.
While we recognize that there could be some additional burden on
States and counties, States and counties can avoid the costs associated
with collection activity by using the PCIT. The PCIT provides the
States and counties with a more efficient and cost-effective means of
collecting, tracking, and remitting the fees than does the use of paper
certificates.
[[Page 32395]]
Some commenters indicated that States and counties may also lack
mechanisms for tracking and collecting the administrative fee and
remitting the revenues to APHIS. It was also stated that information
was lacking in the proposed rule regarding how these processes will
work. One commenter cited in particular a lack of detail on allowable
time intervals for States or counties to remit fees to APHIS.
The June 2007 proposed rule, in Sec. 354.3(g)(3)(i), indicated
that the fee may be remitted directly to APHIS by the exporter through
the PCIT, or, if the PCIT is not used, the State or county issuing the
export certificate is responsible for collecting the administrative fee
and remitting it monthly to APHIS at the address given.
A commenter stated that the proposed rule was unclear about whether
State or county cooperators issuing paper certificates would be charged
by APHIS for blocks of certificates.
The instructions for remittance to APHIS by States and counties of
fees collected on APHIS' behalf for paper certificates, contained in
Sec. 354.3(g)(3) of the proposed rule, did not distinguish between
remittances for individual certificates and blocks of certificates.
States or counties may issue blocks of paper export certificates and
charge the exporter for them in accordance with their own regulations.
A commenter suggested that we should either delay imposing the
administrative fee for certificates issued by State and county
cooperators until the PCIT is in wide use or we should use the
submitted copies of Federal phytosanitary certificates to invoice
shippers directly for the proposed fee.
We do not agree with this comment. The PCIT has been available for
over 2 years, and its use is now mandatory for all APHIS-issued
phytosanitary certificates. Over 20 percent of all phytosanitary
certificates issued in 2007 were issued through the PCIT. The
advantages offered by the system should provide ample incentive for all
States and counties to adopt it.
Some commenters discussed issues of legal and/or constitutional
authority in relation to the administrative fee. There are States and
counties, it was suggested, that may not have the legal authority to
collect the administrative fee on behalf of a Federal agency. Changes
to State or county laws or regulations may be needed, in such cases, to
allow for such collection activity. In addition, the States and
counties are operating under memoranda of understanding with APHIS that
do not direct them to collect the fees. One commenter questioned
whether APHIS has the constitutional authority to mandate that a State
or county charge a particular amount for an export certificate.
We will not be making any changes to the final rule in response to
these comments. States and counties would not have to change their laws
or regulations if the certificate is issued through the PCIT and the
exporter can pay the administrative fee directly to APHIS. In addition,
APHIS has been reaching out to State and county governments on this
issue for more than 4 years in order to give those governments adequate
time to prepare for the implementation of this new fee. We will
continue to work with States and counties to help them overcome any
legal hurdles to implementation.
A number of commenters raised issues related to the effect of the
proposed rule on specific industries. Among those who commented were
representatives of producers and exporters of such products as table
grapes and tree fruit, hardwood, cotton, seeds, grain and oilseed, and
southern pine lumber.
Some commenters stated that the industries they represented would
be burdened more than others by the fee adjustments. It was suggested
that California-based producers and exporters of table grapes and tree
fruit would be particularly affected by the new administrative fee
because those are the leading commodities exported from the State. A
representative of the hardwood industry stated that hardwood exporters
do not have the option of sending bulk shipments, unlike exporters of
other agricultural commodities, due to the weight of the shipments and
the phytosanitary requirements of foreign countries. The increase in
the cost per container resulting from the adjusted fees, it was stated,
would greatly increase the costs of doing business for hardwood
exporters.
We do not agree with these comments. It is to be expected that
producers and exporters of commodities such as table grapes and tree
fruit, who use our export services frequently, will account for a
larger share of the fees we collect than those that use the services
less frequently. Neither that industry nor the hardwood industry is
being singled out, however. The fees are the same for all individuals
and/or entities and are designed to enable us to recover the full costs
of providing the export certification services that both the table
grapes and tree fruit and the hardwood industry use and from which they
both benefit.
It was stated that export certification fees for cotton should not
be raised. Commenters who took this position believed that the cotton
industry's self-inspection programs justify keeping the fees as they
are. It was also suggested that APHIS now has only a limited role in
the certification procedure for cotton exports. The current compliance
agreement between the industry and APHIS has transferred a significant
amount of the workload and the costs from the agency to the industry.
These transfers of workload and costs, according to the commenters,
should be considered by APHIS in setting the fees.
As noted earlier in this document, voluntary compliance agreements
do not eliminate the labor and other costs APHIS incurs in reviewing
certificates and overseeing and administering the export program. We
still need to recover those costs, whether or not a compliance
agreement is in effect.
A commenter stated that the costs we incur for certification
programs for cotton exports could be adequately managed if APHIS would
direct the current export certification user fees collected from the
cotton industry to develop the PCIT further.
We are currently working on improving and expanding the
capabilities of the PCIT so that it can be of greater benefit to all
users.
Commenters representing the seed industry stated that entities that
are involved in the National Seed Health System or that use the PCIT
should pay lower fees than other entities because both those programs
help increase efficiency and cut costs for APHIS.
It is true that the National Seed Health System and the PCIT help
increase efficiency and cut costs. We will consider this comment and
may address the issue again in future rulemaking.
Representatives of the grain and oilseed industries stated that the
export user fee adjustments should not apply to their commodities
because most of the costs of the sampling, examination, and
documentation needed to complete phytosanitary certification are
provided for under separate user fees paid to USDA's Grain Inspection,
Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA).
It is true that exporters of these commodities pay separate user
fees to GIPSA and that GIPSA performs the majority of the work required
to complete phytosanitary certification. At the present time, however,
we do not have the ability to isolate the costs that remain for APHIS
after GIPSA's work is performed and cannot exempt any specific
industries or businesses from our user fee adjustments. Although we
have attempted to minimize the cost of
[[Page 32396]]
our services, thereby keeping APHIS user fees at the lowest possible
level, allowing such exemptions could result in shortfalls and service
cutbacks. However, we will take these comments under consideration and
reassess our fees as needed.
A commenter advocated eliminating phytosanitary inspections for
southern pine lumber, and adopting the same policy as we use with heat
treatment certificates for lumber destined for European Union
countries.
Such inspections are performed to meet the requirements of the
importing countries rather than those of APHIS. APHIS is not able to
drop or change these inspection requirements unilaterally.
Some commenters asserted that the June 2007 proposed rule did not
provide enough information on how we calculated our projected costs and
fees. One commenter stated that not enough information was presented in
the proposed rule to determine which of 12 new cost categories cited by
the Kadix report were included in determining our base costs. Another
commenter cited a lack of information on costs attributable to new
staffing and information technology initiatives. It was suggested that
users might be more receptive to new or increased user fees if they
could a see more detailed breakdown of our costs.
We do not agree with this comment. The SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of the June 2007 proposed rule contained an extensive
discussion of our user fee accounting procedures. This discussion
included an explanation of the types of program costs we incur and our
procedures for identifying prior year costs and projecting future
costs. We also included a table that contained estimated costs, broken
down by category, for FY 2007.
A commenter stated that the process of developing the June 2007
proposed rule was flawed. Industry input was lacking, according to this
commenter, and the process as a whole should have been more
transparent.
We have followed our standard rulemaking process, including
allowing stakeholders an opportunity to comment on our proposed
changes. This final rule reflects our consideration of stakeholders'
comments.
Miscellaneous
The June 2007 proposed rule contained projected export
certification user fees for FYs 2007 through 2012. Because FY 2009 is
more than half complete, this final rule contains projected fees for
the period from FY 2010 through FY 2012. We considered beginning the
phase-in of the new fees prior to October 1, 2009, which marks the
beginning of FY 2010, and then raising the fees to the full amount on
that date. We decided against that alternative, however, because it
would have entailed two fee increases within a relatively short time
period. We estimate the opportunity loss of beginning the phase-in of
the new fees on October 1, 2009, as opposed to earlier, to be less than
2.9 percent of the program's operational value, an amount we do not
consider significant enough to warrant the possible confusion that
increasing the fees twice within a short period of time could cause.
The tables in Sec. 354.3(g) in this final rule have been revised
accordingly, as have our revenue projections in the economic summary
below and in the full economic analysis.
Additionally, in this final rule, Sec. 354.3(h), which lists
circumstances under which APHIS will issue refunds of, or credits for,
user fees to shippers who pay for blocks of export certificates to
cover commercial shipments, is removed and reserved. As noted above, we
are now using the PCIT whenever we issue export certificates directly
to shippers and thus are no longer issuing blocks of paper
certificates.
Therefore, for the reasons given in the proposed rule and in this
document, we are adopting the proposed rule as a final rule, with the
changes discussed in this document.
Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. The rule
has been determined to be significant for the purposes of Executive
Order 12866 and, therefore, has been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget.
We have prepared an economic analysis for this rule. The economic
analysis provides a cost-benefit analysis, as required by Executive
Order 12866, and a final regulatory flexibility analysis that examines
the potential economic effects of this rule on small entities, as
required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The economic analysis is
summarized below. Copies of the full analysis are available on the
Regulations.gov Web site (see footnote 1 in this document for a link to
Regulations.gov) or by contacting the people listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
Under this rule, the user fee for the certification of commercial
or re-export shipments will increase from $50 to $77 in FY 2010. With
additional yearly adjustments, the fee will increase to $104 in FY 2011
and $106 in FY 2012. This rule will also increase the user fee for low-
value commercial or re-export shipments (valued at less than $1,250)
and noncommercial shipments, from $23 to $42 in FY 2010, and through
yearly increases, to $60 in FY 2011 and $61 in FY 2012. The user fee
for a replacement certificate will increase from $7 to $11 in FY 2010
and then to $15 in subsequent years. In addition, this rule will
establish an administrative user fee for each certificate issued on
behalf of APHIS by a U.S. State or county. This fee for FY 2010 will be
set at $3 when a certificate is issued through the PCIT and at $6 for a
paper certificate. These fees will rise to $6 and $12, respectively,
the following year.
The changes set forth in this rule are intended to recover the full
costs of providing our export certification services, which are
currently being provided for less than their actual costs. As noted
earlier, our export user fees have not been adjusted since 1996. The
volume of exports of agricultural commodities has been growing since
then. More and more foreign countries are requiring phytosanitary
certification for the products they import, and their phytosanitary
requirements are becoming increasingly numerous and complex. All of
these factors contribute to increasing the costs to APHIS of providing
these services. If APHIS were to continue to collect user fees using
the rates in effect prior to this rulemaking, over the time period
covered by this rule, total collections would be approximately $25
million, which is nearly $33 million below the level of the projected
costs of the program over that timeframe. This difference represents
the shortfall in cost recovery that would occur absent the fee changes.
The export certification services covered in this rule are provided
to exporters of plants and plant products. These exporters include
those entities shipping plants and plant products to foreign
destinations for commercial as well as noncommercial purposes. These
exporters will be affected by this rule. In addition, State and county
governments providing export certification services will be affected.
A wide variety of commodities are potentially eligible for
certification under the APHIS export certification program. Eligibility
requirements vary by commodity and, in some cases, by the degree of
processing or treatment needed. Eligible commodities generally include
live plants, fresh and some dried fruits, vegetables and nuts,
unroasted coffee, cereal grains, milling products, oil seeds, raw
sugar, tobacco, wood, and cotton. We cannot place a specific value on
the commodities that have been certified for export. However,
[[Page 32397]]
in 2007, exports of the covered commodity categories were valued at
nearly $57 billion. In addition, products in these commodity categories
valued at nearly $2 billion were re-exported in 2007.
The user fee increases in this rule should increase collections in
each year covered. The increased revenues will go to cover the
projected costs of administering the program and to build a reserve to
ensure that we have sufficient operating funds in cases of program
cessation or fluctuations in activity volumes. The initial fee
increases cover cost increases that have occurred since the last
revision of these fees, in addition to some of the cost increases
expected to occur in FY 2010. In FY 2012, the new fees for commercial
and re-export certification could generate $9.2 million in additional
revenue; the new fees for noncommercial and low-value commercial and
re-export certification could generate $333,000 in additional revenue;
the new fee for replacing any certificate could generate $58,000 in
additional revenue; and the new fee for administering State- and
county-issued certificates could generate an additional $2.6 million in
revenue.
To the extent that the changes in user fees impact exporters'
operational costs, any entity that utilizes APHIS' export certification
services subject to user fees will be impacted. The degree to which any
entity may be affected depends on its market power (the ability to
which costs can be either absorbed or passed on to buyers). While the
lack of information on profit margins and operational expenses of the
affected entities and the supply responsiveness of the affected
industries prevents the precise prediction of the scale of impacts,
some conclusions on overall impacts to domestic and international
commerce can be drawn.
The percentage increases in user fees will be large. In all cases,
the increases will at least double the existing user fees by FY 2012.
About one-half of the increases will occur in FY 2010. If the increase
in user fees cannot be passed on, the profit margins of some entities
may decline as user fees are increased. However, these fees have not
been updated since 1996, and there are now considerable differences
between the true costs of providing export certification services and
the user fees APHIS has been charging. When a user fee does not cover
all associated costs, those costs are shifted away from those receiving
and benefiting from the service and onto APHIS, and thus, ultimately,
to the taxpayer.
As noted above, this rule will increase the user fee for commercial
export and re-export certification from $50 to $77 in FY 2010.
Subsequent increases will raise the fee to $106 by FY 2012. These
changes could generate additional annual collections of $9.2 million in
FY 2012. To put these numbers in perspective, this fee category is
projected to generate total collections of $17.3 million in FY 2012.
This equates to less than 0.03 percent of the $58 billion in eligible
commodities that were exported or re-exported in 2007.
Exporters of plants and plant products are the domestic entities
most affected by this rule. Exporters of plants and plant products are
part of the wholesale trade sector of the U.S. economy. These entities
either sell goods on their own account (export merchants) or arrange
for the sale of goods owned by others (export agents and brokers).
While the increase in the commercial export and re-export certification
fee is large in percentage terms, it is very small relative to the
revenues generated by exporters of plants and plant products. This is
evident from the average firm revenues for some of the main industries
that will be affected by the rule. By this measure the impact of the
fee increases on entities should be limited. Exporters of wood fall
under the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code
423310, ``Lumber, plywood, millwork, and wood panel merchant
wholesalers.'' The average firm in this category had sales of $11.6
million in 2002. Exporters of fruits and vegetables fall under NAICS
code 424480, ``Fresh fruit and vegetable merchant wholesalers.'' The
average firm in this category had sales of $10 million in 2002.
Exporters of grains, such as corn, wheat, oats, barley, and unpolished
rice, dry beans, and soybeans fall under NAICS code 424510, ``Grain and
field bean merchant wholesalers.'' The average firm in this category
had sales of $28 million in 2002. Exporters of leaf tobacco are covered
under NAICS code 4245902, ``Leaf tobacco merchant wholesalers.'' The
average firm in this category had sales of $8.1 million in 2002.
Exporters of cotton are under NAICS code 4245904, ``Cotton merchant
wholesalers.'' The average firm in this category had sales of $35.3
million in 2002. Exporters of plant seeds and plant bulbs are under
NAICS code 424910, ``Farm supplies merchant wholesalers.'' The average
firm in this category had sales of $11 million. Exporters of flowers
and nursery stock are under NAICS code 424930, ``Flower, nursery stock,
and florists' supplies merchant wholesalers.'' The average firm in this
category had sales of $2.4 million in 2002. Exporters of various other
farm product raw materials, such as Christmas trees, fall under NAICS
code 4249904, ``Other nondurable goods merchant wholesalers.'' The
average firm in this category had sales of $2.2 million in 2002.
The total impact of the fee increases on an exporter will be
directly proportional to their participation in international trade.
The greater the number of internationally shipped consignments in need
of certification, the more export certification fees will be incurred
to facilitate that movement.
Consignments presented for export certification range widely in
value and shipment size, even within the same general commodity
classification. Therefore, the impact of the fee increases on specific
commodity exports cannot be usefully generalized. The impact will vary
depending on the size and value of the consignment. An exporter seeking
certification for a consignment that comprises an entire loaded
container ship will be less impacted than one seeking certification for
a single shipping container of the same commodity. With a higher-valued
commodity, the fee increase will be smaller relative to the value of
the consignment than it will be for a lower-valued commodity of the
same size shipment.
This fee will increase by a total of 108 percent over the covered
period, but the total dollar value of the fee increase, $56, represents
a small fraction of the value of many consignments. To put the fee
increase in perspective, a few commodity examples based on single
container consignments are presented below. In order to present
consistent examples, we assume that a shipment presented for
certification is represented by the capacity of a single shipping
container. It should be noted that in many cases this will give a
significant overestimate of the impact of the fee changes on a given
shipment as many agricultural products are shipped in bulk
consignments. Bulk carriers have capacities of 10 to 1,000 or more
times that of a single shipping container. Certification fees incurred
and their significance as part of the overall costs of exporting may be
reduced by consolidating formerly multiple consignments into single
consignments for certification.
A 40' by 9'6'' shipping container has a capacity of about 26,040
kilograms (kg) or 76.6 cubic meters (m\3\). In 2006, the average value
of corn shipments from the U.S. was $0.12 per kg. Therefore, a 26,040
kg shipment of corn
[[Page 32398]]
would have been valued at $3,222. The total fee increase over the
entire time period covered in this rule represents 1.7 percent of this
value. In 2006, the average value of wheat exports from the United
States was $0.18 per kg. Thus, a 26,040 kg shipment would have been
valued at $4,707. The total fee increase over the entire time period
covered in this rule represents 1.2 percent of this value. The average
value of fresh grapes exported from the United States in 2006 was $1.79
per kg. Therefore, a half-container, or 13,020 kg, shipment of grapes
(the value is calculated in this manner due to the packaging
requirements for transporting fresh grapes), would have been valued at
$23,241. The total fee increase over the entire time period covered in
this rule represents 0.2 percent of this value. In 2006, the average
value of logs exported from the United States was $150.16 per m\3\.
Therefore, a 76.6 m\3\ shipment of logs would have been valued at
$11,502. The total fee increase over the time period covered in this
rule represents 0.5 percent of this value. The average value of
railroad crossties exported from the United States in 2006 was $93.83
per m\3\. Thus, a 76.6 m\3\ shipment of crossties would have been
valued at of $7,187. The total fee increase over the time period
covered in this rule represents 0.8 percent of this value. The average
value of sawn lumber exported from the United States in 2006 was
$421.29 per m\3\. Therefore, a 76.6 m\3\ shipment of sawn lumber would
have been valued at $32,271. The total fee increase over the time
period covered in this rule represents 0.17 percent of this value.
If a commercial export or re-export shipment is valued at less than
$1,250, the fee for certification will increase in FY 2010 from $23 to
$42. The new fee will represent at least 3.3 percent of the value of
the shipment. The impact of the fee increase may be mitigated to the
degree that multiple low-value shipments can be consolidated into
single shipments for certification.
This rule will increase the user fee for noncommercial export and
re-export certification from $23 to $42 in FY 2010, to $60 in FY 2011,
and to $61 by FY 2012. Combined with the changes for low-value
commercial shipments (valued at less than $1,250), these changes could
generate additional annual collections of about $333,000 in FY 2012.
These fees will increase by a total of 161 percent. However, it is
estimated that only about 8,500 of these certificates are issued
annually.
This rule will increase the user fee for replacing any export
certificate from $7 to $11 in FY 2010 and to $15 in FYs 2011 and 2012.
These changes could generate additional annual collections of about
$58,000. While this increase is a doubling of the fee, its impact
should be small, as there are fewer than 8,000 certificates replaced
annually.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires that agencies specifically
consider the economic impact of their rules on small entities. As we
have previously noted, exporters of plants and plant products are the
domestic entities most affected by this rule and are part of the
wholesale trade sector of the U.S. economy. The overwhelming majority
of U.S. wholesalers of plants and plant products (ranging from 96 to 99
percent for the various NAICS categories discussed above) fall under
the SBA's definition of small entities. The total impact of the changes
contained in this rule should be small for these entities. The fee
changes represent a tiny fraction of the value of the shipments of
plants and plant products. Exports and re-exports of eligible
commodities were valued at more than $58 billion in 2007, as noted
previously. By contrast, the total increase in annual collections from
user fees in this rule will be about $12 million by FY 2012.
While the increases in the fees are large in percentage terms, they
are small relative to the revenues generated by wholesalers of plants
and plant products. This is evident from the average revenues of firms
with fewer than 100 employees in some of the main industries that will
be affected by the rule. By this measure, the impact of the fee
increases on entities should be limited. About 58 percent of lumber
wholesalers (NAICS 423310) had between 5 and 100 employees in 2002.
Average annual sales by these firms were $9.8 million. About 37 percent
had between 5 and 20 employees and average annual sales of about $5
million. About 95 percent of fresh fruit and vegetable wholesalers
(NAICS 424480) had fewer than 100 employees in 2002. Average annual
sales by these firms were $7.1 million. About 74 percent had fewer than
20 employees and average annual sales of about $4 million. About 98
percent of grain and field bean wholesalers (NAICS 424510) had fewer
than 100 employees in 2002. Average annual sales by these firms were
$11.9 million. About 82 percent had fewer than 20 employees and average
annual sales of $6.5 million. About 85 percent of leaf tobacco
wholesalers (NAICS 4245902) had fewer than 10 employees in 2002.
Average annual sales by these firms were $3.1 million. About 80 percent
of cotton wholesalers (NAICS 4245904) had fewer than 10 employees in
2002. Average annual sales by these firms were $10.2 million. About 69
percent of farm supplies wholesalers (NAICS 424910) had fewer than 10
employees in 2002. Average annual sales by these firms were $1.7
million. Average annual sales of flowers and florist supplies
wholesalers (NAICS 424930) were $2.7 million in 2002. About 83 percent
of other nondurable goods wholesalers (NAICS 4249904) had fewer than 10
employees in 2002. Average annual sales by these firms were $976,000.
Another 6 percent of these firms had from 20 to 99 employees. Average
annual sales by these firms in 2002 were $11 million.
This rule will impose an administrative user fee for each
certificate issued on behalf of APHIS by a State or county. This fee
will be set at $3 when a certificate is issued through the PCIT in FY
2010 and at $6 in FYs 2011 and 2012. The fee for a paper certificate
will be $6 in FY 2010 and $12 thereafter. States and counties issue a
significant percentage of the phytosanitary certificates written.
APHIS' activities support the State and county operations, as well as
nationwide export certification functions. Because we have not been
charging a user fee for such certificates, we have not been recovering
our costs for printing, distributing, and tracking the paper
certificates that we provide to the States and counties to issue on our
behalf or our associated overhead costs. The users who obtain export
certification from a State or county only pay for the State or county's
costs to deliver the certificate, and nothing to support the program at
the Federal level.
These new administrative fees could generate additional annual
collections of $2.6 million in FYs 2011 and 2102. States and counties
that do not use the PCIT are likely to incur administrative and
recordkeeping costs in collecting the administrative fees associated
with paper certificates and remitting them to APHIS. To the extent that
a State or county increases the fees it charges to incorporate the
administrative fee and passes the cost on to exporters, it will shift
the burden of the fee to the user. However, the additional costs to
States and counties should be low because, in most cases, mechanisms
are already in place for collecting export certification fees. In
addition, the PCIT is available for use by States and counties to issue
certificates, thus enabling them to avoid the administrative and
recordkeeping costs referred to above.
Any fee charged for export certification services performed by a
[[Page 32399]]
State or county is determined by the individual State or county
performing the service. Thirty-five States have charges for issuing
certificates. Twelve States have fee structures that duplicate APHIS'
fee structure. Currently, States and counties charge from $0 to $212
for a commercial certificate, with the average charge about $28; and
from $0 to $50 for a noncommercial certificate, with the average charge
about $19. States and counties currently charge from $0 to $75, with
the average charge about $16, to replace a commercial certificate, and
from $0 to $50, with an average of about $15, to replace a
noncommercial certificate. These fees could change following the
implementation of this rule to incorporate the Federal administrative
fee.
About 70 percent of certificates issued in California in 2003 were
written in eight counties, six of which have rate structures currently
higher than those of APHIS. Only 10 States and 2 California counties do
not have current legislative authority to charge for certificates.
These 10 States and 2 counties account for approximately one-tenth of
the certificates issued by States and counties in a given year.
In assessing the need for this rule, we considered alternatives to
the chosen course of action. These alternatives are discussed below.
One alternative to this rule would have been to leave the
regulations unchanged. In this case, the fees would remain unchanged.
However, these fees were last updated in 1996 and no longer recover the
full cost of providing certification services. Routine increases in the
cost of doing business, such as inflation, replacing equipment, and
maintaining databases, have occurred since the last update, and volumes
have increased as well. If APHIS were to continue to collect user fees
at the current rates in FY 2010 through FY 2012, total collections
would be about $33 million short of projected program costs over that
period. Therefore, this alternative was rejected.
Another alternative to this rule would have been not to add an
administrative user fee for each certificate issued on behalf of APHIS
by a U.S. State or county official. However, APHIS' activities support
the State and county operations, as well as the national export
certification program. The costs to APHIS that are associated with
State- and county-issued certificates have not been recovered up to
now. The users who obtain export certification from a State or county
only pay for the State or county's costs, and nothing to support the
program at the national level. Therefore, this alternative was not
pursued.
Executive Order 12372
This program/activity is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance under No. 10.025 and is subject to Executive Order 12372,
which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local
officials. (See 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V.)
Executive Order 12988
This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988,
Civil Justice Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts all State and local laws
and regulations that are inconsistent with this rule; (2) has no
retroactive effect; and (3) does not require administrative proceedings
before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This final rule contains no 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.
0
Accordingly, we are amending 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. In paragraph (a), by removing the definitions of export certificate
for processed plant products, phytosanitary certificate, and
phytosanitary certificate for reexport, and adding a new definition of
certificate, in alphabetical order, to read as set forth below.
0
b. In paragraph (g), by removing paragraphs (g)(2) and (g)(5); by
redesignating paragraphs (g)(3) and (g)(4) as (g)(4) and (g)(5),
respectively; and by revising paragraph (g)(1) and adding new
paragraphs (g)(2) and (g)(3) to read as set forth below.
0
c. By removing and reserving paragraph (h).
Sec. 354.3 User fees for certain international services.
(a) * * *
* * * * *
Certificate. Any certificate issued by or on behalf of APHIS
describing the condition of a shipment of plants or plant products for
export, including but not limited to Phytosanitary Certificate (PPQ
Form 577), Export Certificate for Processed Plant Products (PPQ Form
578), and Phytosanitary Certificate for Reexport (PPQ Form 579).
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(1) For each certificate issued by APHIS personnel, the recipient
must pay the applicable AQI user fee at the time and place the
certificate is issued.
(2) When the work necessary for the issuance of a certificate is
performed by APHIS personnel on a Sunday or holiday, or at any other
time outside the regular tour of duty of the APHIS personnel issuing
the certificate, in addition to the applicable user fee, the recipient
must pay the applicable overtime rate in accordance with Sec. 354.1.
(3)(i) Each exporter who receives a certificate issued on behalf of
APHIS by a designated State or county inspector must pay an
administrative user fee, as shown in the following table. The
administrative fee can be remitted by the exporter directly to APHIS
through the Phytosanitary Certificate Issuance and Tracking System
(PCIT), provided that the exporter has a PCIT account and submits the
application for the export certificate through the PCIT. If the PCIT is
not used, the State or county issuing the certificate is responsible
for collecting the fee and remitting it monthly to the U.S. Bank,
United States Department of Agriculture, APHIS, AQI, P.O. Box 979043,
St. Louis, MO 63197-9000.
[[Page 32400]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount per shipment
---------------------
Effective dates PCIT not
PCIT used used
------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 1, 2009, through September 30, 2010....... $3 $6
October 1, 2010, through September 30, 2011....... 6 12
Beginning October 1, 2011......................... 6 12
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(ii) The AQI user fees for an export or reexport certificate for a
commercial shipment are shown in the following table.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
Effective dates per
shipment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 1, 2009, through September 30, 2010.................. $77
October 1, 2010, through September 30, 2011.................. 104
Beginning October 1, 2011.................................... 106
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(iii) The AQI user fees for an export or reexport certificate for
a low-value commercial shipment are shown in the following table. A
commercial shipment is a low-value commercial shipment if the items
being shipped are identical to those identified on the certificate; the
shipment is accompanied by an invoice which states that the items being
shipped are worth less than $1,250; and the shipper requests that the
user fee charged be based on the low value of the shipment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
Effective dates per
shipment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 1, 2009, through September 30, 2010.................. $42
October 1, 2010, through September 30, 2011.................. 60
Beginning October 1, 2011.................................... 61
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(iv) The AQI user fees for an export or reexport certificate for a
noncommercial shipment are shown in the following table.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
Effective dates per
shipment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 1, 2009, through September 30, 2010.................. $42
October 1, 2010, through September 30, 2011.................. 60
Beginning October 1, 2011.................................... 61
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(v) The AQI user fees for replacing any certificate are shown in
the following table.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount per
Effective dates certificate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 1, 2009, through September 30, 2010................ $11
October 1, 2010, through September 30, 2011................ 15
Beginning October 1, 2011.................................. 15
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Done in Washington, DC, this 30th day of June 2009.
Cindy Smith,
Acting Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs.
[FR Doc. E9-16146 Filed 7-7-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P