Download:
pdf |
pdf38596
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Table of Contents
Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service
7 CFR Part 354
[Docket No. APHIS–2022–0023]
RIN 0579–AE71
User Fees for Agricultural Quarantine
and Inspection Services
Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
We are amending the user fee
regulations associated with the
agricultural quarantine and inspection
(AQI) program. Specifically, we are
adjusting the fees for certain AQI
services that are provided in connection
with certain commercial vessels,
commercial trucks, commercial railroad
cars, commercial aircraft, and
international passengers arriving at
ports in the customs territory of the
United States or precleared or
preinspected at a site outside the
customs territory of the United States;
adjusting the caps on prepaid fees
associated with commercial trucks and
commercial railroad cars; and removing
certain fee exemptions that are no
longer justifiable based upon pathway
analyses of risk. We are also revising
requirements pertaining to remittances
and statements. Specifically, we will
require monthly rather than quarterly
remittances for the commercial aircraft
fee, international air passenger fee, and
international cruise passenger fee,
clarify our requirements, and provide
for electronic payments and statements.
We are also including in the regulations
information on agents responsible for
ensuring compliance with paying the
user fees and the requirement for
entities to notify the Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service in the event
they have a change in personnel
responsible for fee payments. These
changes are necessary to recover the
costs of the current level of AQI activity,
to account for actual and projected
increases in the cost of doing business,
to increase fee payer accountability, and
to more accurately align fees with the
costs associated with each fee service.
DATES: This rule is effective October 1,
2024, except for the removal of section
§ 354.3(e)(2)(iv), which is effective on
April 1, 2025.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
George Balady, Senior Regulatory Policy
Specialist, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River
Road, Unit 36, Riverdale, MD 20737;
(301) 851–2338; [email protected].
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES5
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:22 May 06, 2024
Jkt 262001
• Background
Æ General Issues
Æ Economic Comments
Æ Revisions to Regulatory Definitions
Æ Commercial Vessels
Æ Commercial Trucks
Æ Commercial Railroad Cars
Æ Commercial Aircraft
Æ International Passengers Arriving at
Airports and Seaports
Æ AQI Treatment Monitoring
Æ Records Retention
Æ Severability
• Executive Orders 12866, 13563 and 14094,
and Regulatory Flexibility Act
Æ Air Passengers
Æ Commercial Aircraft
Æ Small Aircraft Exemption
Æ Commercial Vessels
Æ Canadian Barge Exemption
Æ Commercial Trucks
Æ Commercial Railroad Cars
Æ International Cruise Vessel Passengers
Æ Treatment Monitoring
Background
Section 2509(a) of the Food,
Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade
(FACT) Act of 1990 (21 U.S.C. 136a)
authorizes the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service (APHIS) to prescribe
and collect user fees for agricultural
quarantine and inspection (AQI)
services. Congress amended the FACT
Act on April 4, 1996, and May 13, 2002.
The FACT Act, as amended,
authorizes APHIS to prescribe and
collect user fees for AQI services
provided in connection with the arrival,
at a port in the customs territory of the
United States, of certain commercial
vessels, commercial trucks, commercial
railroad cars, commercial aircraft, and
international passengers. According to
the FACT Act, as amended, these user
fees should be ‘‘sufficient’’ ‘‘to cover the
cost of’’:
• Providing AQI services ‘‘in
connection with the arrival at a port in
the customs territory of the United
States’’ of the conveyances and the
passengers listed above;
• Providing ‘‘preclearance or
preinspection at a site outside the
customs territory of the United States’’
to the conveyances and the passengers
listed above; and
• Administering 21 U.S.C. 136a,
concerning the ‘‘collection of fees for
inspection services.’’
In addition, the FACT Act, as
amended, contains the following
requirements:
• The amount of the fees shall be
‘‘commensurate with the costs of [AQI]
services with respect to the class of
persons or entities paying the fees.’’
• The cost of AQI services ‘‘with
respect to passengers as a class’’ shall
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
‘‘include the cost of related inspections
of the aircraft or other vehicle.’’
The user fees for the AQI activities
described above are contained in 7 CFR
354.3, ‘‘User fees for certain
international services.’’ APHIS’
regulations regarding user fees relating
to imports and exports, as well as
overtime services, are found in 7 CFR
part 354.
On August 11, 2023, we published in
the Federal Register (88 FR 54796–
54827, Docket No. APHIS–2022–0023) a
proposal 1 to amend the user fee
regulations by adjusting the fees for
certain AQI services that are provided in
connection with certain commercial
vessels, commercial trucks, commercial
railroad cars, commercial aircraft, and
international passengers arriving at
ports in the customs territory of the
United States; adjusting the caps on
prepaid fees associated with commercial
trucks and commercial railroad cars;
removing certain fee exemptions that
are no longer justifiable based upon
pathway analyses of risk; and
restructuring the treatment monitoring
fee.
We also proposed to revise
requirements pertaining to remittances
and statements. Specifically, we
proposed to require monthly rather than
quarterly remittances for the
commercial aircraft fee, international air
passenger fee, and international cruise
passenger fee, clarify our requirements,
and provide for electronic payments and
statements. We also proposed to include
in the regulations information on agents
responsible for ensuring compliance
with paying the user fees and the
requirement for entities to notify APHIS
in the event they have a change in
personnel responsible for fee payments.
We proposed these changes to recover
the costs of the current level of AQI
activity, to account for actual and
projected increases in the cost of doing
business, to increase fee payer
accountability, and to more accurately
align fees with the costs associated with
each fee service.
We solicited comments concerning
our proposal for 60 days ending October
10, 2023. We received 70 comments by
that date. They were from airlines,
shipping companies, treatment
providers, industry associations, and
private citizens. Eighteen commenters
generally supported the proposed rule,
while 15 generally opposed it. The
remaining commenters, while
commenting on the provisions of the
1 To view the proposed rule, supporting
documents, and the comments we received, go to
www.regulations.gov. Enter APHIS–2022–0023 in
the Search field.
E:\FR\FM\07MYR5.SGM
07MYR5
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
proposed rule, did not articulate a
position in favor or against it. The
comments are discussed below by topic.
Based on the comments that we
received, we have made the following
modifications to the proposed rule in
this final rule:
• We have lowered the fees for
commercial vessels, commercial aircraft,
and international air passengers based
on our determination that, while
aggregate cost was correct (the
numerator for the fee rate), there were
more instances in which AQI services
were provided in these modes (the
denominator for the fee rate) than we
had initially calculated.
• We have established a commercial
vessel fee specific to commercial vessels
operating within the Great Lakes or in
the region along the coastline from
Alaska to Oregon, provided that certain
conditions are met.
• We have decided not to revise our
regulations governing the treatment
monitoring fee at this time.
• We have decided not to specify the
method by which airlines and cruise
ships must refund passenger user fees
assessed for trips not taken.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES5
General Issues
Several commenters who supported
the proposed rule agreed with the
proposed rule that additional personnel
were needed at ports of entry to reduce
workload on individual employees. One
of these commenters stated that port
personnel at certain ports of entry
currently routinely must work overtime
to conduct inspections.
As we stated in the proposed rule, the
increased fees will provide for
additional staffing at ports of entry.
One of these commenters also said
that APHIS’ regulations governing
reimbursable overtime also needed to be
updated.
Changes to APHIS’ regulations
governing reimbursable overtime are
outside of the scope of this rulemaking.
However, we do note that our user fee
model did consider staffing at ports in
order to address the staffing shortages
highlighted by the commenter and
reduce the need for individual
employees to work overtime to conduct
inspections. We discuss the staffing
model at greater length below.
Several commenters, while supportive
of the proposed rule, took the view that
the regulations imposed a protective
tariff on imports. Similarly, several
other commenters stated that they were
domestic producers who supported the
proposal and construed the regulations
as a mechanism to reduce import
volume.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:22 May 06, 2024
Jkt 262001
User fees are not tariffs, nor are they
intended as a mechanism to reduce
import volume. Although the AQI user
fees pertain to international trade, user
fees are a cost-recovery mechanism
employed more broadly than just in the
international trade context. They are a
fee that a party charges to an entity
receiving a service in order to recover
the costs associated with providing the
service. User fees are often imposed by
a government, but not always. For
example, a toll collected on a privately
owned toll road would fit the definition
of a user fee. As we highlighted in the
preamble of the proposed rule (88 FR
54799, August 11, 2023), user fees are
currently used throughout the Federal
Government to recover the costs of
many Federal services, both
international and domestic.
Several domestic producers stated
that the services funded by the fees are
necessary in order to keep plant pests,
noxious weeds, and pests and diseases
of livestock from being introduced into
or further disseminated within the
United States. We agree. AQI services
are essential to protect American
agriculture and natural resources from
the introduction or further
dissemination of plant pests, noxious
weeds, and pests and diseases of
livestock. Furthermore, as we
mentioned in the proposed rule,
programs to control or eradicate pests
once they become established in the
United States can be costly for the
Agency to administer.
One commenter construed the
proposed rule to include a notice-based
process by which the fees would be
adjusted after October 1, 2028. We did
not propose to establish a notice-based
process to adjust the fees in the
proposed rule. We did state in the
proposed rule that we intend to initiate
a separate rulemaking to propose noticebased adjustments to the fees to be
implemented after October 1, 2028.
One commenter stated that the exact
language of paragraph (a)(1)(A) of the
FACT Act provides authority to recover
the cost of AQI services provided to ‘‘an
international passenger, commercial
vessel, commercial aircraft, commercial
truck, or railroad car,’’ while our
proposed rule stated that it provided
authority to recover the cost of services
provided to commercial vessels,
commercial trucks, commercial railroad
cars, commercial aircraft, and
international passengers. The
commenter argued that the word
‘‘international’’ in the FACT Act could
be read to apply to all the commercial
means of conveyance listed, and not just
passengers.
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
38597
Insofar as the services are provided to
the listed means of conveyance that are
entering the United States from outside
the United States, the services are
provided to the listed means of
conveyance that are operating
‘‘internationally’’ in the standard
dictionary definition of that term.
(Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary,
for example, defines ‘‘international’’ to
mean, among other things, ‘‘of, relating
to, or affecting two or more nations.’’) 2
Accordingly, whether or not the term
‘‘international’’ in the FACT Act is read
restrictively to refer solely to passengers
or more generally to apply to both
passengers and the listed means of
conveyance does not change the
approach in this final rule.
The same commenter stated that
inspection of animals, animal products,
plants, and plant products that enter the
United States from Canada may violate
trade agreements between the two
countries. The commenter did not
specify which trade agreements it
considered to be violated.
APHIS is unaware of any trade
agreement that precludes either the
United States or Canada from
conducting sanitary or phytosanitary
inspection and quarantine services. To
the contrary, the U.S.-Mexico-Canada
Agreement, or USMCA, allows for
inspection of imported commodities
among the three nations.
Several commenters stated that our
proposed implementation date of
January 1, 2024, would be difficult or
impossible for their businesses to
absorb, and requested more time to
allow for adequate budget planning and
adjustment of contracts with customers.
Two commenters suggested that,
regardless of what fiscal year is chosen
for implementation, the implementation
date should be within the June to
November timeframe to minimize
disruption to service contracts for that
year.
Because the publication of this final
rule occurred after January 1, 2024, we
have elected to set October 1, 2024, as
our implementation date. In the
proposed rule, this was the date that the
second phase of the increased fees was
scheduled to take effect. The October 1
date corresponds to the beginning of
APHIS’ fiscal year (FY), and it occurs
within the June to November timeframe
requested by the commenters. In
general, on October 1, 2024, we will
revise the fees to set them at the level
specified in the proposed rule beginning
on that date. That is, for most fee
classes, we are starting at phase 2 of the
2 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/
international.
E:\FR\FM\07MYR5.SGM
07MYR5
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES5
38598
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
proposed fees, but otherwise finalizing
them as proposed. However, for reasons
discussed below, the user fees for
commercial vessels, commercial aircraft,
international air passengers, and
treatment monitoring will differ from
those proposed.
The same commenters who asked that
the implementation date be within the
June to November time frame asked for
at least a 1-year delay in the
implementation of this rulemaking to
allow for budget planning.
As noted in the proposed rule, the
AQI program ran an average deficit of
over $166 million annually for FY 2017
through FY 2019. During the COVID–19
pandemic, decreased international
travel further exacerbated these deficits,
and the program had to rely on
emergency appropriated supplemental
funds to cover program costs. Even in a
post-pandemic environment, current
revenue projections indicate that the
fees must be raised by the outset of FY
2025 to avoid possible disruptions to
program delivery due to insufficient
funds. Due to these exigencies, we
cannot delay the implementation of the
new fees for such a prolonged period.
We note, however, that we have elected
to have a later effective date of April 1,
2025, for the removal of a provision
exempting commercial aircraft with 64
or fewer seats meeting certain
conditions from paying the user fee for
their mode of conveyance. We have
determined that this later effective date
can be implemented without disruption
to program delivery.
Two commenters stated that the fee
increases should be phased in over a 5to-10-year period.
We note that we are phasing in the fee
increases; the final fee increase will
occur more than 4 years after the
issuance of this final rule. A more
prolonged phase-in schedule would
adversely impact cost recovery and is
not feasible to sustain program
operations.
Commenters stated that the proposed
increases are not warranted in the
current inflation/recession prone
environment and associated impacts to
industry.
The fee increases are necessary to
help achieve full cost recovery for the
AQI services provided to the parties
subject to the fees. AQI user fee-funded
activities operated at a substantial
deficit before the COVID–19 pandemic,
and the pandemic exacerbated this
deficit to the extent that emergency
supplemental appropriations were
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:22 May 06, 2024
Jkt 262001
needed to cover program costs.
Moreover, APHIS notes that the AQI
program is subject to the same
inflationary pressures as other sectors of
the economy. Costs associated with AQI
personnel compensation and benefits,
equipment and materials, rents, leases,
utilities, contracts, and other direct and
indirect costs have all increased since
APHIS last adjusted the AQI user fees in
December 2015. Since December 2015,
the consumer price index for all urban
consumers has increased over 30
percent,3 and the AQI program is
unsustainable at the current fee rates.
Finally, we note that a commenter, a
small business owner, indicated that
businesses routinely factor the impact of
compliance with Federal, State, and
local laws and regulations into their
business models, and take into account
changes in compliance costs. The
commenter’s contention that this is a
common business practice was
supported by several commenters who
represented regulated entities and
indicated they would need to adjust
billing and contracts depending on the
implementation date of a final rule.
Several commenters stated that
instead of raising user fees, APHIS
should find alternate funding sources
(for example, appropriated funds) for
AQI activities.
As we explained in the proposed rule,
the FACT Act of 1990 was passed by
Congress and signed by the President for
the express purpose of the AQI program
becoming self-funding through the
prescription and collection of user fees.
While emergency appropriated
supplemental funds were provided
during the COVID–19 pandemic to
mitigate low balances in the accounts,
Congress indicated in the
appropriations bills that they were to
address pandemic-related exigencies,
and we cannot depend on
appropriations to cover the cost of AQI
activities on a routine and ongoing
basis.
Many commenters asked accounting
questions relating to how the fees were
developed. We will address specific
comments below by topic. In general,
these questions are answered in the
APHIS AQI cost model data that was
cited in the proposed rule and made
available on the APHIS website at:
https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/
ourfocus/business-services/aqi-user3 The CPI Inflation Calculator is available on the
Bureau of Labor Statistics website at https://
www.bls.gov/.
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
fees/aqi-fee-types/aqi-user-fee-reports.
This data was comprehensive; for
example, the FY 2017 commercial
aircraft rollup report contains over
190,000 lines of highly detailed cost
data. To that end, we also provided a
dedicated AQI cost model video
instructing the public on how to
properly read the data; these video
instructions were also available at
https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/
ourfocus/business-services/aqi-userfees/aqi-fee-types/aqi-user-fee-reports.
APHIS also referenced the data in
stakeholder webinars conducted during
the comment period; information about
the dates and subjects of these webinars
is available on the APHIS website at
https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/
ourfocus/business-services/aqi-userfees/aqi-fee-types/aqi-userfee-proposedrule-webinars as are links to recordings
of the webinars. The data availability
and link also were provided via
stakeholder announcement and, as
previously mentioned, further explained
via a dedicated AQI cost model video
and corresponding stakeholder
announcement. APHIS web analytics
showed an increase in AQI cost model
data web traffic following each of the
above engagements.
Several commenters stated that
APHIS should have discussed any costcutting measures we had identified or
considered in addition to the proposed
fee increases.
To address the current challenges, the
AQI program has implemented ways to
increase efficiency. These efficiencies
reduced AQI program costs, and these
cost savings were realized in the FY
2017 through FY 2019 period. As a
result, the cost data that APHIS used to
develop the AQI user fee rates in this
rulemaking, and which serve as the
‘‘baseline,’’ include these program cost
savings. The most significant way we
have increased inspection efficiency is
by using Risk Based Sampling (RBS).
RBS is an advanced statistical approach
that adapts to increase inspection rates
of higher risk products and reduce
inspection rates of proven lower risk
products. Table 1 below shows the time
savings for our trade and U.S. Customs
and Border Protection (CBP) inspectors
across all monitored pathways, without
compromising agriculture safeguarding
efforts. APHIS and CBP redirect this
saved time to intensive activities with
greater phytosanitary risk, such as
physical inspections and regulated
garbage monitoring.
E:\FR\FM\07MYR5.SGM
07MYR5
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
Celery
26%
23%
Avocado
93%
77%
Broccoli
58%
52%
Date
38%
34%
Papaya
85%
73%
Mushroom
85%
81%
Carrot
88%
76%
Overall
77%
67%
The AQI program has identified other
ways to increase efficiency in recent
years. For example, CBP, through
various initiatives, has increased its
targeting efficiency rates to
approximately 63 percent. In doing so,
CBP deployed new approaches that
significantly improved their ability to
identify and inspect non-compliant
material compared to random selection.
APHIS and CBP have also facilitated
more timely clearance of agricultural
cargo by improving our processes to
grant authority to inspectors and pest
identifiers to make regulatory decisions
at ports, rather than by national
specialists in other locations. We also
implemented advanced digital imaging
to expedite pest identifications that in
the past would have required physically
shipping specimens, shaving days off of
the pest identification process.
APHIS also increased its electronic
capacity to process cargo. Of all the
government agencies that set import
requirements, APHIS had the greatest
number of forms and documents
required to clear cargo. APHIS joined
CBP’s Automated Commercial
Environment single window initiative,
making it easier for importers to
electronically provide information
critical for AQI clearance prior to
importation, reducing expense and
clearance time. Additionally, we have
structured regulatory requirements into
an advanced database, and automated
permit issuance to reduce the
processing time for most Plants and
Plant Products permits from 5 to 7 days
to 1 day or less. APHIS eFile issues up
to 85 percent of the Plants and Plant
Products permits to applicants in less
than 1 minute.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
CBP
20:22 May 06, 2024
Jkt 262001
Program and process efficiencies are
just one aspect of the AQI program’s
efforts to become more effective and
efficient at a lower cost. Personnel
compensation and benefits are the
single largest cost in the AQI program,
and so effective use of personnel time is
essential to keep costs down without
compromising the mission. CBP found
that their Agriculture Specialists were
increasingly spending time on
administrative activities, taking them
away from core inspection and
regulatory functions. To address this,
CBP piloted using technicians (full
performance level GS–08) to free
Agriculture Specialists (full
performance level GS–12) to spend
more time on inspection-related
activities. CBP’s staffing and workload
analysis found that adding one
technician frees up 1.49 CBP
Agriculture Specialists. The 731
Technicians in CBP’s staffing plan free
up the equivalent of 1,089 Agriculture
Specialists, resulting in a cost savings of
nearly $81 million per year.
Despite these efforts to increase
efficiencies, anticipated AQI operational
costs would far surpass AQI anticipated
revenue unless the fees are raised in the
manner specified in this final rule.
A commenter stated that APHIS
should provide greater transparency for
capital costs. The commenter expressed
concerns over what was included in the
capital costs, the allocation of those
costs, and capital costs associated with
non-AQI programs. The commenter
stated that the proposed rule should
have explained how capital costs were
factored into fee calculations.
We disagree with the commenter. As
we explained in the proposed rule, there
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
is no reserve component in the fee rates
in this proposed rule. Rather, the fee
rates in the proposed rule were set at
levels intended only to result in fee
collections that cover the cost of
providing agricultural quarantine and
inspection services and the costs of
administering the program, and
personnel and capital planning cost
components have been added to the cost
model.4 Adding these cost components
to the model ensures that the program
can be fully staffed in future years and
ensures that future-looking capital costs
can be offset as they are actualized,
without recourse to use of a generalpurpose reserve to pay for these costs.
In the AQI cost model that accompanied
the proposed rule, we included capital
costs in the cost model at level 26 for
APHIS and level 27 for CBP, all cost
objects with an identification code
starting with ‘‘26’’ or ‘‘27’’ are planned
capital spending costs. Likewise, we
note that an overall summary of planned
capital spending costs could also be
found in the supporting document at
https://www.regulations.gov/document/
APHIS-2022-0023-0035 that was made
available during the comment period.
As an additional measure, APHIS has
included the planned capital
expenditure costs in a series of
summary tables in this document.
Capital costs include items such as
facility design, development and
maintenance costs; new information
technology and equipment costs, and
AQI program outreach expansion and
4 The programmatic need and legal basis for the
application of fees to capital costs was discussed in
further detail in the proposed rule, the relevant
sections of which the agency incorporates by
reference here. See 88 FR 54797–98, 54800–801.
E:\FR\FM\07MYR5.SGM
07MYR5
ER07MY24.080
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES5
Table 1: Estimated RBS Time Savings
Commodity
Trade
38599
38600
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
improvement costs. The AQI Program’s
top 10 capital projects are:
1. Design and construct two new plant
inspection stations;
2. Design and construct a new multifunction laboratory and containment
facility;
3. Upgrades and updates to the eFile
system;
4. Beltsville facility infrastructure
improvements;
5. Design and construct new plant
pathogen diagnostic methods lab;
6. Design and construct new national
plant germplasm greenhouse;
7. Design and construct new
identification laboratory;
8. New Preclearance and Offshore
Programs IT System;
9. Engage in an outreach campaign,
Clean Clears Quicker, to emphasize the
importance of regulatory compliance;
and
10. Establish Federal oversight of the
existing Don’t Pack A Pest outreach
campaign.
APHIS has treated capital costs as an
overhead cost and allocated capital
costs according to frontline Full Time
Equivalent (FTE) hours because any
capital projects would support the AQI
program proportionately to frontline
AQI FTEs. With respect to shared
facilities, that is, facilities which house
or support both AQI and non-AQI
functions—the planned capital costs in
the AQI activity-based cost model only
include those costs attributable to the
AQI program. Moreover, a portion of
those costs are allocated to non-fee
areas. Non-fee areas are those AQI
activities for which there is no fee. The
largest non-fee areas are privately
owned vehicle (POV) and POV
passenger clearance, and pedestrians.
The AQI program allocates costs to nonfee areas for the express purpose of
ensuring that the payers of AQI user fees
do not pay for the costs associated with
non-fee areas. Rollup reports associated
with non-fee areas are available to the
public on the APHIS website at https://
www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/
business-services/aqi-user-fees/aqi-feetypes/aqi-user-fee-reports alongside the
rollup reports for the fee areas. CBP’s
appropriation covers CBP’s costs
associated with AQI activities in non-fee
areas. The rest are covered by trust
funds that we have entered into
pursuant to regulations issued under
authority of the Plant Protection Act (7
U.S.C. 7711 et seq.), such as those in 7
CFR 319.37–22 for plants for planting
and those in 7 CFR 319.56–6 for fruits
and vegetables, or are part of other
APHIS programs and appropriations
and are not included in costs factored
into the AQI User Fees.
We note, additionally, that the
commenter assumed that the AQI
program is fully funded and staffed
currently, which is not the case.
A commenter stated that they worked
with CBP personnel who were
underused at a port of entry, and
questioned whether additional CBP
staffing was warranted in light of their
experience. While not directly
challenging the validity of this claim,
several other commenters asserted that,
at other ports of entry, throughput is
substantial and CBP employees often
work overtime to ensure timely delivery
of services. One commenter stated that
some ports of entry only currently
employ a single inspector to conduct
AQI inspections.
Our data does not support the
commenter’s anecdotal experience that
CBP personnel are underused. CBP’s
staffing models, which are addressed at
greater length directly below, evaluated
workload and throughputs at ports of
entry throughout the United States.
CBP’s staffing models underscore that
many ports of entry have workload
demands that currently exceed regular
FTE hours.
Several commenters noted that a
significant amount of each fee would go
to staffing. The commenters stated that
it was not clear from the proposed rule
how the additional staffing levels
needed were arrived at, and how they
would be used in providing AQI
services.
Additional staffing costs were
included in the AQI cost model at level
35 and level 451 for APHIS and level
452 for CBP; all cost objects with an
identification code starting with ‘‘35’’ or
‘‘45’’ are additional staffing costs. We
summarized CBP’s additional staffing
requirements by fee area in table 1 of the
proposed rule, which we have
reproduced as table 2 below.
Table 2. CBP Staffing
CBP FTEs
Total FTEs as
Additional
Total Projected
of FY 2019
FTEs Required FY2028 FTE
341
1,665
1,324
819
438
1,257
356
247
603
155
258
413
74
107
33
28
22
6
362
70
432
3,071
1,434
4,505
Air Passengers
Commercial Aircraft
Commercial Vessel
Commercial Truck
Commercial Rail
Cruise Vessel Passenger
Other (Non-Fee Areas)
Totals
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:22 May 06, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\07MYR5.SGM
07MYR5
ER07MY24.081
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES5
Pathway/Conveyance
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
Table 3. APHIS Staffing
APHIS FTEs
Pathway/Conveyance
CBP’s staffing models calculated
additional personnel needs based on
estimated throughput as calculated in
light of actual workload, in order to
ensure that bottlenecks do not occur in
port operations. APHIS summarized its
additional personnel needs by fee area
in table 2 of the proposed rule, which
we have reproduced as table 3 below.
The bulk of additional APHIS personnel
are field positions, including botany,
entomology and plant pathology
Total FTEs as of FY 2019
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES5
Commercial Aircraft
Commercial Vessel
Air Passengers
Commercial Truck
Treatments
Commercial Rail
Cruise Vessel Passenger
Other (AQI Non-Fee Areas)
Totals
392
208
193
153
57
34
6
43
1,086
identifiers, veterinary medical officers,
and plant health safeguarding
specialists. Increased frontline staffing
also requires additional support staff to
accommodate additional workload in
areas such as human resources,
financial management, and employee
training. Finally, some additional policy
and operational personnel will also be
needed to accommodate the additional
throughput. Our data in tables 2 and 3
account for these factors.
Additional
Total Projected
FTEs
FY 2028 FTE
Required
200
592
91
299
93
286
62
215
55
112
14
48
4
10
25
68
544
1,630
A commenter noted that the proposed
rule was based on cost data from FY
2017 through FY 2019 and asked how
budget shortfalls or surpluses in FY
2013 through FY 2016 and FY 2020
through FY 2022 may have impacted the
setting of the AQI user fees.
APHIS does not set AQI user fees
based upon prior year shortfalls or
surpluses. Under an activity-based
costing methodology, APHIS uses actual
program costs per fiscal year plus
anticipated costs for capital planning
and additional staffing allocated to each
fee and non-fee area, then takes the total
costs in each fee area and divides that
total cost by the number of projected
units (a unit being a commercial vessel,
commercial truck, commercial railroad
car, commercial aircraft, an
international air or cruise passenger, or
a treatment). The unit costs for 3
consecutive fiscal years are adjusted for
inflation to today’s dollars (in this
rulemaking, June 2022), and then these
adjusted unit costs are averaged.
Finally, APHIS adjusted the average
unit cost (that is, June 2022 dollars) for
projected inflation, (that is, future
dollars) for FY 2025 through FY 2028.6
As we explained above, non-fee areas
are those AQI activities for which there
is no fee. The largest non-fee areas are
privately owned vehicle (POV) and POV
passenger clearance, and pedestrians.
The AQI program allocates costs to nonfee areas for the express purpose of
ensuring that the payers of AQI user fees
do not pay for the costs associated with
non-fee areas. Rollup reports associated
with non-fee areas are available to the
public on the APHIS website at https://
www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/
business-services/aqi-user-fees/aqi-feetypes/aqi-user-fee-reports alongside the
rollup reports for the fee areas. CBP’s
appropriation covers most of the costs
associated with non-fee areas.
The same commenter stated that it
appeared that cost data from FY 2014
through FY 2016 and FY 2020 through
FY 2022 had a role in the proposed fees,
although it was difficult to discern
exactly to what degree.
APHIS did not use cost data from FY
2014 through FY 2016 for the proposed
rule because we had newer cost data on
which to rely. APHIS also did not use
cost data for FY 2020 through FY 2022
because, as we suggested in the
proposed rule, these fiscal years were
not a period of normal operations.
A commenter stated that the proposed
fees did not appear to follow the
inflation rate since the fees were last
updated. The commenter stated that,
were the fees calculated in such a
manner, they would be significantly
lower than proposed.
The fees were not calculated solely by
applying intervening inflation. APHIS
used actual cost data for FY 2017
through FY 2019 by user class, future
costs for planned capital expenditures,
and additional staffing, and divided that
by the number of users per fiscal year
to arrive at a unit cost. We then adjusted
those unit costs to June 2022 dollars,
averaged the unit costs across the 3
fiscal years, and finally adjusted that
average unit cost for projected inflation.
5 This model is described in the document
‘‘Agriculture Resource Optimization: Fiscal Year
2020 Report to Congress’’ available on CBP’s
website at https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/
publications/cbp_-_agriculture_resource_
optimization_0.pdf.
6 See the document titled ‘‘Projected Fees for
Agricultural Quarantine Inspections, FY 2024–
2028’’ which we made available with the proposed
rule at https://www.regulations.gov/document/
APHIS-2022-0023-0010.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:22 May 06, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\07MYR5.SGM
07MYR5
ER07MY24.082
CBP uses two statistical workload
models to determine AQI staffing needs
by environment. The Agriculture
Specialist Resource Allocation Model 5
(AgRAM) calculates staffing needs for
CBP Agriculture Specialists, and the
Mission Operations Support Resource
Allocation Model (MOSRAM) calculates
the staffing needs for support positions
such as CBP Agriculture Technicians
and other support positions.
38601
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES5
38602
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
We made comprehensive rollup reports
for the cost components of each fee
available as supplemental documents
for the proposed rule. The reports are
available on the APHIS website at
https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/
ourfocus/business-services/aqi-userfees/aqi-fee-types/aqi-user-fee-reports.
In addition, we have included summary
tables for each fee area below as a quick
visual reference regarding fee
development.
A commenter stated that all AQI user
fees should be capped.
Capping all AQI user fees would
undermine full cost recovery, one of the
aims of the FACT Act. As we indicated
in the proposed rule, while we cap fees
for two AQI modes, prepaid commercial
railroad cars and prepaid commercial
truck crossings (transponder), this is
due to their unique operational
exigencies. For example, we pointed out
that in the absence of a commercial
truck transponder, CBP personnel
would have to collect the fee at border
crossings 11 million times annually,
which is operationally untenable.
Several commenters suggested that
APHIS should tier user fees based on
the sanitary and phytosanitary risk
presented by different modes of
conveyance (e.g., commercial aircraft
versus commercial vessel) or different
conveyance types within that mode
(e.g., containerized ship versus noncontainerized ship).
APHIS’ current user fee structure does
charge different fees based on the mode
of conveyance. This is done to preclude
cross-subsidization, and to ensure that
the fees correlate to the AQI services
that each mode receives.
We generally do not consider it
possible to tier fees within a mode of
conveyance. This is because it is not
usually possible to assign a particular
level of sanitary and phytosanitary risk,
and corresponding AQI services, to a
conveyance type that is unique to the
type. To use an example within the
commercial vessel mode, while
agricultural cargo is often carried in
containerized ships, certain types of
agricultural cargo, such as citrus,
bananas, and pineapples, are routinely
shipped in break bulk shipments, in
which the individual boxes are placed
within a commercial vessel’s cargo hull,
rather than in containers. In both
instances, CBP personnel need to
offload and inspect the cargo for plant
pests, noxious weeds, and overall
compliance with APHIS’ regulations.
Likewise, a containerized ship may
carry cargo with a low sanitary and
phytosanitary risk during one shipment,
and a higher sanitary and phytosanitary
risk in a later shipment. The climates of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:22 May 06, 2024
Jkt 262001
different ports of export can be unique,
and a vessel departing from one port of
export during a particular shipment may
face exposure risks to hitchhiking pests
that it does not experience when
departing from a different port. For a
similar reason, the route chosen and the
time of year during which the shipment
takes place may also contribute to
exposure risks.
In instances in which we have
determined that the level of sanitary and
phytosanitary risk is such that AQI
services are not warranted for a
particular conveyance type, we can and
do exempt certain conveyance types
from our user fees. For example, while
we charge commercial railroad cars a
user fee, the regulations have exempted
and will continue to exempt
locomotives and cabooses from the
railroad car fee. Likewise, we do not
charge a commercial vessel fee for
vessels of less than 100 net tons.
Finally, we do note that CBP’s staffing
model accounts for sanitary and
phytosanitary risk, so ports of entry that
routinely inspect means of conveyance
and cargo with a high phytosanitary and
sanitary risk are assigned more
personnel than ports of entry that do
not.
Several commenters suggested that
APHIS could establish different user fee
tiers for methods of conveyance that
carry agricultural cargo versus those that
do not; while other commenters
suggested a base fee, plus additional
fees for extended service based on cargo
carried.
The current method by which APHIS
calculates the AQI user fees, in which
aggregate costs of providing AQI
services are divided by number of
instances in which those services are
provided, generally does not currently
allow for such a distinction between
conveyances carrying agricultural cargo
and those that do not carry agricultural
cargo. To that end, we note that sanitary
and phytosanitary inspections are not
only conducted of the cargo carried by
a method of conveyance, but also the
method of conveyance itself. We also
note that non-agricultural cargo may
present sanitary and phytosanitary risks;
for example, gypsy moth (Lymantria
dispar, also known commonly as
spongy moth) is known to infest stone
and quarry products.
As noted above, cargo is not the sole
factor contributing to the sanitary and
phytosanitary risk associated with a
particular means of conveyance, and the
AQI services required for that means of
conveyance. Port of export, route, and
time of year of the shipment may also
all contribute to increased risk and
extend the AQI services required. As a
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
result, if we were to establish a base fee,
with additional surcharges based on
cargo carried, this would not take all
these risk factors into consideration.
A commenter suggested that fees
should be tiered based on handling
volume at a particular port of entry.
The commenter provided no
information regarding why handling
volume, that is, the number of instances
in which AQI services were provided at
the port, should be considered
indicative of the level of AQI services
provided to individual arrivals and
would provide a better basis for setting
fees than the basis articulated in the
proposed rule. A single, huge container
shipment of cargo that has a significant
sanitary or phytosanitary risk may take
as long to inspect, if not longer, as
several smaller shipments of low-risk
cargo. We also note that variances
throughout the year in handling volume
at particular ports would require the fee
rate to be dynamic, which would lead
to unpredictability in terms of what fee
would be assessed from arrival to
arrival, as well as concomitant
unpredictability in APHIS and CBP’s
revenue stream. It also could lead to
staffing and resource allocation issues at
ports of entry, particularly if owners and
operators began to seek out ports with
the lowest current fee.
A commenter asked how APHIS will
monitor expenditures to ensure the
increased fees are used appropriately.
APHIS employs multiple safeguards
to ensure user fee funds are used
appropriately. For example, from an
operational perspective, APHIS
maintains all AQI fees we collect in
distinct accounts, carefully monitors the
balances in these accounts, and only
uses these funds to pay for our actual
costs for providing these distinct
services. In addition, APHIS will
continue to maintain, evaluate, and
ensure that our internal controls, which
include our expenditure-related
accounts and processes, are operating
properly and in compliance with Office
of Management and Budget (OMB)
Circular A–123, Management’s
Responsibility for Enterprise Risk
Management and Internal Control
requirements. Examples of APHIS
internal controls include verifications,
reconciliations, authorizations and
approvals, and supervisory control
activities. APHIS also complies with
Federal audit requirements which
include audit of expenditure-related
processes and accounts under the Chief
Financial Officers Act of 1990 (CFO Act)
(Pub. L. 101–576), as amended, the
Government Management Reform Act of
1994 (GMRA) (Pub. L. 103–356), as
amended, and the Federal Financial
E:\FR\FM\07MYR5.SGM
07MYR5
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES5
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
Management Improvement Act of 1996
(FFMIA) (Pub. L. 104–208, title VIII), as
amended.
A commenter stated that APHIS
should amend the regulations to assess
a penalty on airlines and cruise lines
that is equivalent to the amount airlines
and cruise lines have failed to lawfully
remit to passengers.
APHIS has no statutory authority to
assess such penalties, nor is this request
within the scope of this rulemaking.
One commenter asked how airline
passengers can assess that their fee was
appropriately set by APHIS when they
are greeted and inspected not by APHIS,
but by CBP.
The Homeland Security Act of 2002
created the Department of Homeland
Security and transferred the function for
AQI clearance of international
passengers and certain other AQI
functions from APHIS to CBP.7 CBP
Officers review passenger manifests,
passenger documentation and interview
arriving international passengers. CBP
Officers also refer passengers of interest
to the AQI program to CBP Agriculture
Specialists who are funded by AQI user
fees for secondary inspection. As stated
previously, rollup reports from the
activity-based cost model are available
for public review on the APHIS website
at https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/
ourfocus/business-services/aqi-userfees/aqi-fee-types/aqi-user-fee-reports.
For example, there are over 92,000 lines
of highly detailed cost data in the FY
2017 international air passenger rollup
report.
Finally, several commenters requested
that APHIS extend the comment period
for the proposed rule.
One of these commenters posed a
series of questions that, the commenter
asserted, APHIS needed to respond to
for the public to provide informed
comments on the proposed rule. These
included questions about whether there
were budget shortfalls or surpluses in
the years 2013–2016 and 2020–2022, if
such shortfalls or surpluses were
factored into the cost-benefit analysis
for the rulemaking, and whether
adjustments for inflation would have
resulted in shortfalls or surpluses in the
years 2016 to the present. The
commenter also asked why the aircraft
fee is increasing if the number of aircraft
arrivals has not changed and if there
was a breakdown of how APHIS
estimated the costs of capital costs and
staffing and how capital costs were
allocated in airport or non-airport
environments.
We disagree with the commenter that
APHIS’ responses to the commenter’s
76
U.S.C. 231.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:22 May 06, 2024
Jkt 262001
questions were necessary to evaluate the
merits of the proposed rule. APHIS
provided all information necessary to
evaluate the proposed rule to the public
in the proposed rule itself and its
supporting documentation. This
included, for example, documentation
regarding how the fee model was
selected and why it was appropriate, the
cost components that led to the
proposed fees using that model, the
rationale for revising particular fee caps,
and the basis for our proposed removal
of exemptions. We note that, between
September 12, 2023, and September 18,
2023, APHIS hosted webinars for the
industries affected by the rulemaking.
During the webinars, we allowed for a
question-and-answer period. We also
recorded the webinars and made them
publicly available on the APHIS website
at https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/
ourfocus/business-services/aqi-userfees/aqi-fee-types/aqi-userfee-proposedrule-webinars. During the webinar for
the commercial aircraft fee, which the
commenter attended, we responded to
each of the commenter’s questions.
Two commenters who requested
extension of the comment period stated
that APHIS provided no information
regarding how the fees were calculated.
We made comprehensive rollup
reports for the cost components of each
fee available as supplemental
documents for the proposed rule. They
were and are available on the APHIS
website at https://www.aphis.usda.gov/
aphis/ourfocus/business-services/aqiuser-fees/aqi-fee-types/aqi-user-feereports.
One commenter who requested
extension of the comment period stated
that APHIS provided no indication of
how the fees would be used.
We disagree. The proposed rule
discussed at length the direct and
indirect costs associated with providing
the AQI services funded by the user
fees.
Economic Comments
Commenters raised several issues
concerning the Regulatory Impact
Analysis that accompanied the
proposed rule. These are addressed in
the final Regulatory Impact Analysis
that accompanies this final rule.
Revisions to Regulatory Definitions
We proposed to revise some existing
definitions and to add new ones to
§ 354.3(a). Specifically, we proposed to
amend the definitions for commercial
railroad car and commercial truck; to
replace the definition of Customs with
one for a definition for Customs and
Border Protection (CBP); and to add
definitions for the terms passenger,
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
38603
reconditioning, and restacking. We
received no comments on these
revisions and additions and will adopt
most of them accordingly. However, as
discussed below, we have decided not
to finalize proposed revisions to our
AQI treatment monitoring fee that
would have, among other things,
charged parties for restacking and
reconditioning services provided in
connection with AQI treatment services.
Because the terms restacking and
reconditioning will not appear in the
regulations as a result of this decision,
there is no longer a need to define these
terms and we have not done so in this
final rule.
Additionally, for reasons that we
discuss below under the section heading
‘‘Commercial Vessels,’’ we are adding
two definitions to the regulations in this
final rule, for the terms Great Lakes and
Cascadia. The revisions to the
commercial vessel fee described below
removed the term barge from the
regulations; as a result, we no longer
need a regulatory definition for the term
and are removing it accordingly.
Commercial Vessels
The AQI program inspects, with some
exceptions, commercial vessels of 100
net tons or more arriving at ports of
entry into the customs territory of the
United States. AQI user fees for
inspection of commercial vessels are
listed in § 354.3(b)(1). We proposed to
increase the user fee per arrival.
We also proposed to eliminate the
exemption for barges from Canada; the
exemption is currently found in
§ 354.3(b)(2)(vi). As discussed in the
pathway analysis that accompanied the
proposed rule, we determined that
barges entering the United States from
Canada pose a phytosanitary risk similar
to barges entering the United States
from origins other than Canada and to
other types of vessels entering from
Canada. Barges from origins other than
Canada and other types of vessels from
Canada are not exempt from AQI user
fees. Other vessels from Canada are
required to pay user fees even when
travelling the same routes and carrying
the same cargo as exempt barges.
Finally, we proposed that the
commercial vessel fee would also not
apply to commercial cruise (passenger)
vessels that carry passengers paying the
international passenger fees under
§ 354.3(f), because the cost of inspecting
the entirety of the vessel is included in
the international cruise passenger fee.
That broad proposed exemption would
replace the existing limited exemption
in § 354.3(b)(2)(i) for certain foreign
passenger vessels. In this respect, the
treatment of commercial vessels is
E:\FR\FM\07MYR5.SGM
07MYR5
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
distinct from that of international
aircraft carrying passengers, which are
not exempt from the commercial aircraft
user fee.
We received 28 comments on these
proposed changes to the commercial
vessel fee. All the commenters were
generally opposed to the proposed
changes.
Most commenters noted that we
proposed to increase the commercial
vessel fee from the current fee of $825
to $3,557.18 in 2028, which was a
higher percent increase than any other
fee.
Several of the commenters stated that
they would support the fee if it was
correlated to service received. The
commenters asserted that the fees
appeared higher than the level of AQI
services they received at ports of entry.
As we discussed in the proposed rule,
our revised cost model for the proposed
fees was based on aggregate full-time
equivalent (FTE) hours spent providing
services, such as inspections, for a
particular user fee class.
Similarly, a commenter suggested that
APHIS should begin to analyze FTE
hours worked by vessel type and revise
the commercial vessel fee based on
these findings before issuing a final rule
to revise the commercial vessel fee.
As we noted above, vessel type is not
necessarily a reliable indicator of the
level of effort needed to provide AQI
services. Cargo, port of departure, route,
time of the year in which the shipment
occurs, and port of arrival all play a
contributing role to determining the
sanitary and phytosanitary risk
associated with the vessel and the
commensurate level of services
warranted. Because these can vary
significantly from shipment to
shipment, if we were to conduct such an
assessment, it would be difficult to
extrapolate generalized, defensible
conclusions about different vessel types
from our current data set, which is
limited to aggregate hours worked
providing AQI services for the
commercial vessel user fee class as a
whole and number of instances of
providing those services. Our current
data is therefore insufficiently granular
to observe those variances. Moreover, as
we mentioned in the proposed rule,
cargo from commercial vessels is
routinely offloaded into a joint holding
area, and inspected en masse. We
mention this in order to underscore that
the assessment requested by the
commenter would need to be conducted
de novo, and cannot be extracted from
the existing data used to calculate the
fee rates, and that it would require a
fundamental reorientation in the
manner in which cargo inspections are
conducted. It is impracticable to
conduct such an assessment at this time,
particularly in light of resource
constraints (as noted above, overtime is
common at some ports of entry just to
meet core inspection functions) and the
economic exigencies facing the AQI
program. To execute the sort of
assessment requested by the commenter,
we would need to hire additional portspecific analytical and billing support,
which requires raising the fees to
support the additional personnel.
One commenter stated that, based on
data that the commenter obtained,
APHIS had appeared to undercount the
number of arrivals of commercial
vessels. The commenter requested that
APHIS use a data set from CBP that they
considered to be more accurate in terms
of characterizing arrivals.
APHIS used the same CBP data set as
the commenter to calculate the
commercial vessel fee. In reviewing the
commenter’s concerns, however, we
realized that coastwise arrivals had been
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES5
Table 4: Commercial Vessel Fee
FY 2025
FY 2026
$2,903.73
$2,981.17
This discovery led APHIS to evaluate
all other data sets in the proposed rule
to ensure that all instances in which the
fee had been assessed were accurate. We
discovered that, for two other proposed
fee increases, those for commercial
aircraft and those for international air
passengers, filtering had also occurred
to remove inspections that occur during
preclearance. We discuss this below, in
the relevant sections of the preamble for
those fees.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:22 May 06, 2024
Jkt 262001
FY2027
$3,059.61
Several commenters opposed the fee
increase because it would have a
disproportionate impact on vessels that
are not ultra large container vessels.8
We acknowledge that the fees may
often have a greater impact on smaller
vessels than larger vessels, but we
disagree that smaller vessels merit a
lower fee just because they are smaller.
Furthermore, we disagree that the
8 See the graph for Container Ship Fleet
Categories at https://agtransport.usda.gov/stories/s/
Ocean-Container-Fleet-Dashboard/pjaw-nxa9.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
inadvertently filtered out of the data set.
Coastwise arrivals refer to arrivals of the
same vessel at a different port of entry,
for which AQI services are provided; for
example, a commercial vessel offloading
cargo at the port of Philadelphia, then
subsequently offloading at the port of
Wilmington, Delaware, would be
making coastwise arrivals. CBP’s vessel
arrival fee is set out in their regulations
at 19 CFR 24.22(b). That fee is collected
from vessels of 100 net tons or more for
each arrival regardless of the number of
arrivals taking place in the course of a
single voyage, with a cap currently set
at $5,955 per calendar year. Because
AQI services are provided at each port
of entry, an AQI user fee is charged for
each coastwise arrival, though we do
not have a cap on those fees. APHIS
charges AQI user fees for each arrival
because a sizable component of the fees
is the inspection of the cargo, usually
after it has been offloaded and is in a
joint inspection area. Some vessels
offload large volumes of cargo at
multiple ports-of-entry during a single
voyage. If the AQI vessel fee were
charged on first arrival only, we would
need to increase the fee even more to
recover costs. We charge at each arrival
to be more equitable to single port-ofentry arrivals versus multiple port-ofentry arrival voyages.
Accordingly, the proposed user fees
should have been calculated by
including coastwise arrivals within total
arrivals. Total program costs, however,
were accurate. When these costs are
divided by the updated arrivals
(including coastwise arrivals), the user
fee is correspondingly lower; the
numerator (costs) has not changed while
the denominator (number of arrivals)
has. Accordingly, in this final rule, the
commercial vessel fee has been lowered
as shown in table 4 below.
Sfmt 4700
FY2028
$3,139.06
existence of smaller vessels did not
factor into the fee calculation. The
commenters often stated as an
assumption that ultra large container
vessels necessitate more intensive AQI
services than commercial vessels that
are not ultra large container vessels.
While this is sometimes the case, size of
vessel is not the sole determinant of the
level of AQI services warranted for a
particular vessel. As we noted above,
cargo, port of departure, route, time of
the year in which the shipment occurs,
E:\FR\FM\07MYR5.SGM
07MYR5
ER07MY24.083
38604
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES5
and port of arrival all play a
contributing role to determining the
sanitary and phytosanitary risk
associated with the vessel and the
commensurate level of services
warranted. APHIS also notes that the
rise of ultra large container vessels was
not the sole factor contributing to this
fee increase. The change in cost
allocation methodology from number of
arrivals to FTE hours was also a
significant factor. As discussed above,
APHIS develops fees using the average
unit cost across 3 fiscal years. In the
case of the commercial vessel fee, the
unit cost is the arrival of a vessel in
foreign trade, including coastwise
arrivals, during a single voyage. The
arrivals of vessels in foreign trade that
were not ultra large container vessels
brought this average cost per arrival
down to the rates in this final rule. If
APHIS had based the new vessel fee
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:22 May 06, 2024
Jkt 262001
rates exclusively on ultra large container
vessel arrivals, the commercial vessel
fee would have been considerably
higher.
Summary tables 5 and 6 for
commercial vessel fee calculation below
show that APHIS used actual cost data
for FY 2017 through FY 2019 for
commercial vessels, future costs for
planned capital expenditures, and
additional staffing, divided by number
of users per fiscal year to arrive at a unit
cost. We then adjusted those unit costs
to June 2022 dollars, averaged the unit
costs across the 3 fiscal years, and
finally adjusted that average unit cost
for projected inflation. The discussion
of fee rates relative to other costs of
doing business was to illustrate relative
economic impact of the fee, and not to
serve as the basis for fee development.
We included the summary tables to be
used as a quick reference regarding fee
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
38605
development. For more comprehensive
cost data information please see the full
rollup reports from the APHIS AQI
activity-based cost model. As we
explained above, these questions are
answered in the APHIS AQI cost model
data that was cited in the proposed rule
and made available on the APHIS
website at: https://www.aphis.usda.gov/
aphis/ourfocus/business-services/aqiuser-fees/aqi-fee-types/aqi-user-feereports.
For October 1, 2024, October 1, 2025,
October 1, 2026, fee rates, APHIS
subtracted the January 1, 2024 rate from
the October 1, 2027 rate, and divided by
4. This amount became the per phase
increase. The per phase increase was
then added to the previous phase
amount until reaching the October 1,
2027 rate.
BILLING CODE 3410–34–P
E:\FR\FM\07MYR5.SGM
07MYR5
38606
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
Table 5: AQI Commercial Vessel Fee Calculation-January 1, 2024 Phase Development
($2,827.29 Fee Rate) 1
FY2017
FY 2018
FY2019
APHIS AQI FTEs
-
-
208
$62,107,626.02
$47,594,065.97
$43,940,334.81
$7,989,045.86
$7,049,512.01
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
-
-
356
Total CBP AQI Program Cost (Level
502)
$100,832,988.9
0
$100,046,141.7
3
$107,973,913.1
6
CBP Capital Planning/Expenditure
Future Costs (Level 27) included in
total program cost above
$1,175,843.82
$840,341.95
$647,978.82
CBP Additional Staffing Future Costs
(Level 452)
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Total AQI Costs (APHIS AQI Costs +
CBP AQI Costs)
$162,940,614.9
2
$147,640,207.6
9
$151,914,247.9
6
61,417
63,521
61,745
Calculated Unit Cost (Total AQI Costs
divided by Number of Commercial
Vessels)
$2,653.02
$2,324.27
$2,460.35
Unit Cost inflated to June 2022 dollars2
$2,984.65
$2,567.35
$2,672.55
Average of Unit Costs in June 2022
dollars (fee basis)
$2,741.52
-
-
Inflation Projected to FY 2024 dollars
$2,827.29
-
-
Total APHIS AQI Program Cost (Level
501)
APHIS Capital Planning/Expenditure
Future Costs (Level 26) included in
total program cost above
$10,224,343.40
APHIS Additional Staffing Future Costs
(Levels 35 and 451)
CBPAQI FTEs
Number of Commercial Vessels
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES5
Within this table, "level" refers to the level in the APHIS AQI Cost Model.
As described in: https://www.regulations.gov/document/APHIS-2022-0023-0010.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:22 May 06, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\07MYR5.SGM
07MYR5
ER07MY24.084
1
2
38607
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
Table 6: AQI Commercial Vessel Fee Calculation- October 1, 2027 Phase Development
($3,139.06 Fee Rate) 1
FY2017
FY 2018
FY2019
-
-
299
$60,364,906.55
$60,565,653.83
$64,170,544.01
APHIS Capital Planning/Expenditure
Future Costs (Level 26) included in
total program cost above
$6,914,630.65
$7,023,455.57
$7,207,822.32
APHIS Additional Staffing Future
Costs (Levels 35 and 451) included
above
$4,924,381.32
$5,063,832.52
$5,217,115.69
-
-
603
$93,959,909.17
$97,907,047.01
$107,864,763.3
4
$765,983.90
$776,039.26
$786,094.63
CBP Additional Staffing Future Costs
(Level 452) included above
$13,378,307.63
$13,553,929.83
$13,729,552.04
Total AQI Costs (APHIS AQI Costs +
CBP AQI Costs)
$154,324,815.7
2
$158,472,700.8
4
$172,035,307.3
5
61,417
63,521
61,745
Calculated Unit Cost (Total AQI Costs
divided by Number of Commercial
Vessels)
$2,512.74
$2,494.81
$2,786.22
Unit Cost inflated to June 2022 dollars2
$2,826.83
$2,755.72
$3,026.57
Average of Unit Costs in June 2022
dollars (fee basis)
$2,869.70
-
-
Inflation Projected to FY 2028 dollars
$3,139.06
-
-
APHIS AQI FTEs + Additional FTEs
required by FY 2028
Total APHIS AQI Program Cost (Level
501)
CBPAQI FTEs
Total CBP AQI Program Cost (Level
502)
CBP Capital Planning/Expenditure
Future Costs (Level 27) included in
total program cost above
Number of Commercial Vessels
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES5
Within this table, "level" refers to the level in the APHIS AQI Cost Model.
As described in: https://www.regulations.gov/document/APHIS-2022-0023-0010.
BILLING CODE 3410–34–C
Notwithstanding the above
discussion, we have determined that
certain commercial vessels that operate
within the Great Lakes, or in the region
along the coastline between Alaska and
Oregon, are uniquely situated and have
created a new commercial vessel fee
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:22 May 06, 2024
Jkt 262001
that is lower than that for other
commercial vessels. This will provide a
degree of regulatory relief for such
vessels that is also aligned with the
sanitary and phytosanitary risk that the
vessels present. We discuss these
changes below.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Several commenters stated that they
operated barges or other shipping
vessels within the Great Lakes, or in the
region along the coastline between
Alaska and Oregon. The commenters
stated that they were uniquely situated
and that assumptions that APHIS
articulated in the proposed rule about
E:\FR\FM\07MYR5.SGM
07MYR5
ER07MY24.085
1
2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES5
38608
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
the commercial vessel industry as a
whole did not apply to them. While we
stated in the proposed rule that total
cargo capacity of the global fleet
expanded by more than 63 percent from
2011 through 2020, the commenters
stated that their vessels had not
increased in size. In fact, vessel
operators within the Great Lakes stated
that the average size of vessels operating
within the Great Lakes had not
increased since the 1970s. Similarly, we
stated in the proposed rule that far
fewer vessels had arrived
internationally from 2011 through 2020
than APHIS had predicted, but the
commenters stated that their average
number of arrivals per year had
remained relatively constant. Further,
we stated in the proposed rule that
individual vessels now took much
longer to inspect than they previously
had, but the commenters stated that
they had experienced no significant
increase in the amount of time
inspections took.
Several commenters stated that visual
inspection of their vessels was often
brief, and a few barge operators stated
that CBP had never boarded their
vessels. Several commenters also
questioned whether the proposed fees
significantly exceeded the level of AQI
services provided to vessels within the
Great Lakes and in the region along the
coastline between Alaska and Oregon.
Two commenters stated that, at face
value, the fee levels appeared to be set
significantly above the level of
inspection services currently provided,
which would be inconsistent with the
FACT Act. Several operators stated that
they seldom, if ever, carried agricultural
cargo. Finally, the commenters stated
that, because they operated solely
within distinct geographical areas
between the United States and Canada,
they pose little to no phytosanitary risk.
(As discussed in this document, the
geographic area covered by the port of
departure, the route, and the port of
arrival all do contribute to the risk
profile associated with a particular
commercial vessel. However, they are
not the sole factors; for example, the
cargo carried may itself present a
sanitary or phytosanitary risk.) To that
end, several commenters stated that
Great Lakes vessels often are too large to
fit through the St. Lawrence seaway lock
system and cannot leave the Great
Lakes; one commenter stated that, even
if they could leave the Great Lakes,
many Great Lakes vessels are not
certified by the United States Coast
Guard to enter the ocean.
Commenters proposed multiple
options to address these stated
differences. One option proposed was to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:22 May 06, 2024
Jkt 262001
entirely exempt vessels operating within
the Great Lakes or in the region along
the coastline between Alaska and
Oregon from the commercial vessel fee.
This exemption would apply to all
vessels operating within the regions,
including container vessels, break bulk
vessels, barges, and all other
commercial vessels. A second option
proposed was to retain the current
exemption for certain Canadian barges.
A third option proposed was to apply
the fee only to vessels carrying
agricultural cargo, and to exempt
commercial vessels that did not carry
agricultural cargo. A fourth option
proposed was to retain the existing
commercial vessel fee for vessels
operating within the Great Lakes or in
the region along the coastline between
Alaska and Oregon, provided that the
vessels were not currently exempt from
paying the fee (e.g., barges), but to add
an additional per-container surcharge or
otherwise scale it in accordance with
ship size. Finally, a fifth option
proposed was to retain the existing fee,
but to adjust it for intervening inflation.
The commenters who provided the fifth
option stated that the cost to inspect
commercial vessels operating within the
Great Lakes or in the region along the
coastline between Alaska and Oregon
should not have increased above the
rate of inflation since the previous fees
were put in place.
After reviewing the comments and
available information, including data
from CBP and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, as well as information
maintained by the shipping industry in
the regions themselves, we agree that
the vessels operating within the Great
Lakes, or in the region along the
coastline between Alaska and Oregon,
merit additional consideration. The
commenters presented information that
they operate in a distinct geographical
area that they seldom depart from, and
sometimes are not physically able to
leave. They also presented information
indicating that their departures and
arrivals are often more frequent than
those of other commercial vessels, and
publicly available information indicates
that the vessels often take the same or
substantially similar routes per
shipment and sometimes carry the same
or substantially similar cargo per
shipment. Based on the risk factors
identified above, the risk from these
vessels is often, although not always,
more well defined. The port of
departure, route, and port of arrival are
often the same or substantially similar:
Many vessels are running out and back
trips across the Great Lakes or along the
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
coastline between Alaska and Oregon,
sometimes multiple times a week.
However, as we discuss below, we
would not say that these vessels are
always less risky. Cargo can be a
significant risk factor. For example,
several areas in Canada are quarantined
for European cherry fruit fly. Cherries
from such areas could present a
phytosanitary risk and vessels carrying
such cargo would likewise present a
risk. For this reason, we disagree with
the first option that proposed to exempt
all such vessels entirely from the
commercial vessel fee. We currently
inspect the vessels for possible sanitary
and phytosanitary risks, and such
vessels can carry cargo with significant
risks. This is true even if the cargo is not
agricultural cargo; as noted above, gypsy
moth or spongy moth (Lymantria
dispar) is known to infest stone and
quarry products, so quarry products
from an area of Canada that is infested
with the moth do present a
phytosanitary risk. For this reason, the
third option also is not viable, because
vessels that do not carry agricultural
cargo may still merit AQI inspections.
Insofar as barge operators did not
provide verifiable, supporting
information that they only carry cargo
with no sanitary or phytosanitary risk,
and do not merit inspection of the
vessel itself, and in light of our aim to
achieve full cost recovery, we have
decided not to retain the barge
exemption, the second option proposed
by commenters.
We also disagree with the fourth
option to assess a per container
surcharge; among other things, this
option would incentivize the use of
break bulk vessels, which do not carry
containers, to carry agricultural
products between Canada and the
United States, because the vessels
would be subject to a lower user fee.
Because of their agricultural cargo,
however, these vessels would still need
an equivalent rate of phytosanitary
inspection. Accordingly, over time, we
consider it likely that this
incentivization would compromise full
cost recovery.
For a similar reason, we also cannot
scale the fee based solely on ship size;
a smaller ship containing break bulk
agricultural products may pose a higher
phytosanitary risk and thus require
more intensive inspection services than
a larger container ship containing no
agricultural products or known host
material for plant pests and noxious
weeds. (That being said, as we
mentioned previously in this document,
commercial vessels of less than 100 net
tons have been, and will continue to be,
exempt from the commercial vessel fee.
E:\FR\FM\07MYR5.SGM
07MYR5
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES5
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
This is true regardless of whether they
originate from Canada or any other
foreign country.)
We see merit in the fifth option,
however. The commenters presented
significant information suggesting that
the commercial vessel fee, as proposed,
may not be appropriate for or
commensurate with the level of AQI
services provided to them. This option
would allow APHIS to account for the
differences stated by the commenters,
and allow APHIS to further assess the
appropriate fee in a future rulemaking.
In so doing, it would effectively keep
the current fee for such vessels, with an
allowance, adjustment for inflation, that
the commenters suggested and that we
agree is appropriate.
However, we do not think this
solution can be applied unilaterally to
all arrivals within the Great Lakes or in
the region along the coastline between
Alaska and Oregon, particularly if the
vessel carries cargo that may present a
significant sanitary or phytosanitary
risk.
Accordingly, in this final rule, we are
pursuing the fifth option, with
appropriate modifications to address the
foregoing considerations. Commercial
vessels traveling solely between the
United States and Canada and either
within the Great Lakes or along the
coastline between Alaska and Oregon
(which we are terming ‘‘Cascadia’’ out
of recognition of the Cascadian
bioregion in which the coastline is
located) would be assessed the
following fee, provided that certain
conditions, set forth below, are met:
$837.51 in FY 2025, $850.03 in FY
2026, $862.54 in FY 2027, and $875.06
in FY 2028.
To qualify for the lower fee rate, a
vessel must meet the following
requirements:
• Is not carrying cargo originating
from countries other than the United
States or Canada.
• Is not carrying plants or plant
products.
• Is not carrying animals or animal
products.
• Is not carrying soil or quarry
products from areas in Canada listed in
7 CFR 319.77–3 as being infested with
gypsy moth. That section of the
regulations governs the importation of
gypsy moth host material.
• Is not carrying wood packaging
material as defined under 7 CFR
319.40–1. In this section of the
regulations, ‘‘wood packaging material’’
is defined as ‘‘Wood or wood products
(excluding paper products) used in
supporting, protecting or carrying a
commodity (includes dunnage).’’
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:22 May 06, 2024
Jkt 262001
All the above types of cargo may
present a sanitary or phytosanitary risk,
and, in instances in which a vessel
carries such cargo, the level of AQI
services provided to address this
possible risk would merit the full
commercial vessel fee.
To clarify to which vessels the
reduced fee could apply, in this final
rule, we are adding definitions for Great
Lakes and Cascadia to the regulations.
We have also prepared maps depicting
the Great Lakes and Cascadia regions
and are making them available as
supporting documents with this final
rule.
We are defining Great Lakes as ‘‘the
Great Lakes of North America and the
waters of the St. Lawrence River west of
a rhumb line drawn from Cap de Rosiers
to West Point, Anticosti Island, and
west of a line along 63° W longitude
from Anticosti Island to the north shore
of the St. Lawrence River.’’ This is
consistent with the U.S. Coast Guard
definition of the region in their
regulations found in 46 CFR 42.05–40.
We are defining Cascadia as ‘‘British
Columbia and those ports of entry into
the United States lying south of
59°26′59.316″ N, north of 43°23′34.152″
N, west of 122°20′31.2″ W, and east of
135°20′2.4″ W.’’ CBP’s regulations in 19
CFR 101.3 designate United States ports
of entry, and the following ports of entry
fall within the area we are defining as
Cascadia:
• Alaska—Juneau;
• Alaska—Ketchikan;
• Alaska—Sitka;
• Alaska—Skagway;
• Alaska—Wrangell;
• Washington—Aberdeen;
• Washington—Anacortes (Puget
Sound);
• Washington—Friday Harbor (Puget
Sound);
• Washington—Longview;
• Washington—Port Angeles (Puget
Sound);
• Washington—Seattle (Puget Sound);
• Washington—Tacoma (Puget
Sound);
• Oregon—Astoria;
• Oregon—Coos Bay;
• Oregon—Newport; and
• Oregon—Portland.
Two commenters stated that they
operated container vessels between New
Jersey and Bermuda, with the majority
of arrivals into the United States being
unloaded containers that previously
contained cargo. The commenters
requested a lower fee for their vessels
and similarly situated operators.
The commenters did not provide
sufficient information to characterize
their operation as uniquely situated or
similarly situated to the Great Lakes and
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
38609
Cascadian vessels described above. To
cite a few examples, it was not clear
whether the containers ever contained
agricultural cargo, and, if so, whether
the empty containers were cleared of all
agricultural debris before return to the
United States. The commenters also did
not mention whether the routes were
direct, and what route was used. Based
on the absence of information necessary
to evaluate the commenter’s claims, we
cannot make the determination that a
lower vessel fee is appropriate for the
commenters operating container vessels
between New Jersey and Bermuda.
APHIS is, however, open to receiving
additional information on this topic and
would consider proposing a revision in
the future.
Finally, one commenter encouraged
APHIS to explore means for electronic
remittance of the commercial vessel fee.
CBP collects the commercial vessel
fee on APHIS’ behalf and offers
electronic remittance through its eCBP
portal (e.cbp.dhs.gov) and its Mobile
Receipts and Collections (MCR) solution
(cbp.gov/trade/priority-issues/revenue/
revenue-modernization/automation368-and-1002-receipts/mcr-faq).
In summary, in response to
comments, we have lowered the
commercial vessel fee overall to account
for coastwise arrivals and have created
a separate commercial vessel fee for
certain vessels operating within the
Great Lakes or along the coast between
Alaska and Oregon.
Commercial Trucks
AQI user fees for inspection of
commercial trucks entering the customs
territory of the United States are listed
in § 354.3(c)(1). The current fee had
been set at $7.29 per truck arrival, with
an option, under paragraph (c)(3), to
prepay an amount 40 times the singlearrival fee to obtain a transponder. We
proposed to adjust the fees in that
paragraph and to set the corresponding
prepaid (transponder) user fees at an
amount 60 times the unrounded fee
rates for each arrival. We further
proposed to clarify that prepayments for
purchases of transponders may be made
at any time during a calendar year. The
proposed rule did not provide, however,
for prorating of the prepayment cost or
allowing credit for individual crossings
made prior to prepayment if the
operator of the commercial truck elects
to prepay during a calendar year. This
is consistent with CBP’s handling of
their truck transponder fee in 19 CFR
24.22(c)(2), and we stated in the
proposed rule that the intent of the
proposed change was to better align our
prepayment requirements with those of
CBP.
E:\FR\FM\07MYR5.SGM
07MYR5
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES5
38610
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
We also proposed to add a sentence
to paragraph (c)(1) stating that the AQI
user fee would apply to all commercial
trucks, regardless of what they are
carrying, including empty trucks and
truck cabs. This addition is already
codified under the current definition of
commercial truck, but the existing
regulations in paragraph (c)(1) do not
state the requirement explicitly; this
revision was intended to clarify
application of the fee.
We received two comments from one
commenter on the proposed changes to
the fees for commercial trucks.
In the supporting documentation that
accompanied the proposed rule, we
indicated that the data that we had
obtained from the Department of
Transportation (DOT) regarding freight
volume per truck between the years
2006 and 2021 suggested a 79 percent
increase in the number of tons per truck
during that time. The commenter stated
that this truck crossing and freight data
did not completely match its own data
and calculations. Specifically, the
commenter indicated that its data
indicated lower carrying capacity per
truck in 2021 (9.63 tons) and an average
of 22,376 more truck crossings per year
between 2006 and 2016. Assuming truck
crossings to be the denominator by
which we determined average freight
volume, the commenter stated that its
data indicated that average freight
volume was in fact lower in 2006
through 2016 than we had presented it
to be. While the commenter conceded
that carrying capacity per truck had
increased between 2006 and 2021, the
commenter stated that carrying capacity
had not increased to the magnitude
presented by APHIS, and that these
discrepancies resulted in an
overestimation of agricultural risk. The
commenter stated that this
overestimation of agricultural risk had
resulted in CBP erroneously believing
that additional personnel were needed
to inspect commercial trucks, and that
the fee would be lower were it adjusted
to reflect actual freight volume.
The commenter did cite data that
differs from the data APHIS cited in the
supporting documentation that
accompanied the proposed rule, and the
data in that supporting documentation
may have been in error. However, the
data the commenter presented does not
directly or indirectly impact how the fee
was set. Neither the disputed numbers
nor the supporting document itself
served as the basis for the fee, nor the
analysis of fee impacts in the initial
economic analysis. The fee for this
conveyance is not derived from the
performance of the industry, nor did we
use cargo capacity as a proxy for the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:22 May 06, 2024
Jkt 262001
level of effort needed to inspect trucks.
As with the other fees, the commercial
truck fee results from total AQI
commercial truck program costs divided
by the number of truck crossings for FY
2017 through FY 2019 to arrive at the
base unit cost.
The commenter itself noted that both
its data and APHIS’ data reported the
same number of truck crossings per year
from 2017 to 2020. As noted above, the
supporting document that the
commenter disputed did not serve as a
basis for the fee. It was intended only to
indicate that the freight volume for
commercial trucks had increased since
2006, a contention that the commenter
did not dispute in principle, only in
degree. The purpose of the supporting
document is to contextualize the
changes in the carrying capacity in the
industry, as well as illustrate the
relative size and impact that the fee
might have on the conveyance as a
whole. To that end, though, we do note
that the commenter’s data does suggest
that commercial trucks may have lower
cargo capacity than our supporting
documentation suggested. We have
evaluated the economic analysis that
accompanies this final rule in light of
that information but determined that its
assumptions and conclusions still hold.
Additionally, this supporting
document was not used as the basis for
the additional CBP staffing needs. As
indicated previously in this document,
CBP’s staffing models calculated
additional personnel needs based on
estimated throughput as calculated in
light of actual workload, in order to
ensure that bottlenecks do not occur in
port operations.
The commenter also expressed
concerns about the transponder cost
increasing from 40 to 60 times the per
arrival fee. The commenter asked how
we would continue to incentivize
transponder use.
As we stated in the proposed rule and
the supporting document, APHIS
determined that the average truck
transponder is used 90 times per year,
cross-referencing truck border-crossing
data and truck transponder purchase
data. Charging 60 times the per crossing
fee is still a 33.3 percent discount,
compared to average transponder use.
We consider a 33.3 percent discount
compared to average transponder use a
sufficient incentive for transponder use.
The same commenter stated that,
because the percentage of increase for
the transponder fee would significantly
surpass the percentage increase for the
individual per-crossing fee, the
transponder would no longer be
incentivized, and commercial truck
operators could abandon the
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
transponder in favor of the single arrival
fee.
The CBP Transponder system does
not track the individual number of
crossings per transponder; instead, it
tracks the total number of crossings.
Collections for single payer and
transponder crossings are separate. The
number of single payer crossings is
determined by dividing single payer
collections by the fee rate. Single payer
crossings are subtracted from total
crossings to determine transponder
crossings. We determined average
transponder crossings by dividing total
transponder crossings by total
transponders purchased (transponder
collections divided by transponder fee).
Given that APHIS found that the average
transponder is used 90 times a year,
charging 60 times the per crossing fee
still significantly incentivizes the
transponder over the per crossing fee for
the average commercial truck operator,
despite the differences in percent
increase between the two fees. It is
possible that some truck operators who
make fewer than 60 crossings will
decide to pay the per crossing fee as a
result of this rulemaking; however, we
do not foresee the transponder being
generally abandoned in the manner
suggested by the commenter.
We acknowledge that we proposed to
raise both the per arrival commercial
truck fee and the multiple that results in
the transponder fee. Additionally, while
we proposed to phase in the increases
to the per arrival fee, we did not
propose to phase in the increase to the
multiple: We proposed that the multiple
would immediately increase from 40
times to 60 times. To help facilitate
transponder use in the first year of
implementation of the revised fee, we
will set the fee at a multiple of 50 times
the individual crossing fee for the
period between October 1, 2024 and
September 30, 2025. We have revised
the regulatory text accordingly.
The commenter stated that APHIS
should work with our counterparts in
Canada and Mexico to develop policies
that will mitigate the risk of pest
importation or other potential threats
while reducing, exempting, or
eliminating fees and other regulatory
costs impacting North America trade.
APHIS works collaboratively with our
colleagues in Canada and Mexico to
develop harmonized polices to mitigate
the risk of pest importation. For
example, APHIS is the United States’
representative to the North American
Plant Protection Organization, or
NAPPO, a regional plant protection
organization. Created in 1976, NAPPO
coordinates the efforts among the
United States, Canada, and Mexico to
E:\FR\FM\07MYR5.SGM
07MYR5
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES5
protect their plant resources from the
entry, establishment, and spread of
harmful plant pests, while facilitating
safe intra- and inter-regional trade.
Through NAPPO, APHIS works closely
with its regional counterparts and
industries to develop harmonized
regional standards and approaches for
managing pest threats.
Additionally, outside of the auspices
of NAPPO, APHIS works closely with
our North American National Plant
Protection Organization (NPPO)
counterparts, the Canadian Food
Inspection Agency (CFIA) and Mexico’s
Servicio Nacional de Sanidad,
Inocuidad y Calidad Agroalimentaria, to
harmonize our approaches to
phytosanitary risk to the extent possible.
Examples of this collaboration include
the United States-Canada GreenhouseGrown Plant Certification Program
(GCP) and the Netherlands bulb
preclearance program. The GCP has
been active since 1996 and allows
greenhouse-grown indoor houseplants
and outdoor bedding plants to move
between Canada and the United States
using a certification label in lieu of a
phytosanitary certificate (PC), provided
the plants meet the phytosanitary
import requirements of both Canada and
the United States. The GCP certification
label eliminates the cost of a PC for
certified nurseries. For the Netherlands
bulb preclearance program, APHIS and
CFIA have harmonized our operational
workplan for imports since 2008.
Finally, as discussed previously in
this document, APHIS has pursued
measures to improve efficiencies and
reduce costs associated with the AQI
program.
However, the commenter’s
assumption that North American trade
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:22 May 06, 2024
Jkt 262001
presents little or no sanitary and
phytosanitary risk that merits AQI
services is incorrect; under APHIS’
regulations in titles 7 and 9 of the Code
of Federal Regulations, there are
numerous restrictions on the
importation of animals, animal
products, plants, and plant products
from Canada and Mexico.
We note also that North American
trade is no longer exclusively North
American; for example, APHIS is aware
that 194 countries send United Statesbound freight through Canada seaports,
and then across the border via truck and
rail. The increased risk posed by
commodities arriving through our North
American trading partners makes it
necessary to increase our level of effort
to safeguard United States agriculture.
This increased effort requires additional
personnel, equipment, and facilities
and, therefore, incurs additional costs.
The AQI program must adjust the fees
to recover these costs. In short, the
elimination or exemption of AQI user
fees for North American trade would
significantly adversely impact full cost
recovery because we would still need to
provide AQI services to address the
sanitary and phytosanitary risks posed
by such trade.
The commenter stated that the
information and data provided by
APHIS does not explain how the
proposed fee increases were calculated
based upon the various services
performed by APHIS inspectors. The
commenter expressed concern that
APHIS did not calculate the proposed
fees based upon the current and future
needs of the agency, but rather upon
what they assume motor carriers can
afford according to operating cost data.
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
38611
The summary tables for the
commercial truck fee calculation (tables
7 and 8 below) show that APHIS used
actual cost data for fiscal years 2017
through 2019 for commercial truck,
future costs for planned capital
expenditures, and additional staffing,
divided by number of truck arrivals per
fiscal year to arrive at a unit cost. We
then adjusted those unit costs to June
2022 dollars, averaged the unit costs
across the 3 fiscal years, and finally
adjusted that average unit cost for
projected inflation. The discussion of
fee rates relative to other costs of doing
business was to illustrate relative
economic impact of the fee, and not to
serve as the basis for fee development.
The summary tables are intended to
be a quick reference regarding fee
development. For more comprehensive
cost data information please see the full
rollup reports from the APHIS AQI
activity-based cost model on the APHIS
website at https://www.aphis.usda.gov/
aphis/ourfocus/business-services/aqiuser-fees/aqi-fee-types/aqi-user-feereports. As we explained above, these
questions regarding how the fees were
arrived at are answered in the APHIS
AQI cost model data that was cited in
the proposed rule and made available
on the APHIS website at the link above.
For October 1, 2024, October 1, 2025,
October 1, 2026, fee rates, APHIS
subtracted the January 1, 2024 rate from
the October 1, 2027 rate, and divided by
4. This amount became the per phase
increase. The per phase increase was
then added to the previous phase
amount until reaching the October 1,
2027 rate.
BILLING CODE 3410–34–P
E:\FR\FM\07MYR5.SGM
07MYR5
38612
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:22 May 06, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\07MYR5.SGM
07MYR5
ER07MY24.086
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES5
Table 7: AQI Commercial Truck Fee Calculation-January 1, 2024 Phase Development ($11.44
Fee Rate 1)2
FY2017
FY2018
FY2019
APHIS AQI FTEs
153
Total APHIS AQI Program Cost (Level $30,780,440.27 $24,897,674.58 $25,285,000.66
501)
APHIS Capital Planning/Expenditure
$5,088,246.91
$4,157,459.56
$4,015,145.86
Future Costs (Level 26) included in
total program cost above
APHIS Additional Staffing Future
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Costs (Levels 35 and 451) included
above
CBPAQI FTEs
155
Total CBP AQI Program Cost (Level
$89,537,890.40 $90,524,826.19 $101,412,832.5
502)
0
CBP Capital Planning/Expenditure
$442,836.74
$311,476.41
$282,101.10
Future Costs (Level 27) included in
total program cost above
CBP Additional Staffing Future Costs
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
(Level 452) included above
Total AQI Costs (APHIS AQI Costs +
$120,318,330.6 $115,422,500.7 $126,697,833.1
CBP AQI Costs)
7
7
6
11,847,586
12,089,169
12,164,733
Number of Commercial Trucks
Calculated Unit Cost (Total AQI Costs
$10.16
$9.55
$10.42
divided by Number of Commercial
Trucks)
Unit Cost inflated to June 2022 dollars 3 $11.42
$10.55
$11.31
Average of Unit Costs in June 2022
$11.09
dollars (fee basis)
Inflation Projected to FY 2024 dollars
$11.44
1 The final single payer fee was rounded down to the next $0.05 (five-cent) increment to facilitate
border operations.
2 Within this table, "level" refers to the level in the APHIS AQI Cost Model.
3 As described in: https://www.regulations.gov/document/APHIS-2022-0023-0010.
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
38613
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES5
BILLING CODE 3410–34–C
Commercial Railroad Cars
In summary, in response to comments
regarding the commercial truck fee, we
have lowered the cost of a transponder
to 50 times the per arrival fee for the
period between October 1, 2024 and
September 30, 2025. The fees are
otherwise being finalized as proposed.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:22 May 06, 2024
Jkt 262001
Fees for inspection of loaded
commercial railroad cars arriving at
land ports in the United States are listed
in current § 354.3(d)(1). The current fee
is $2 per loaded railroad car arrival,
with an option to prepay an amount 20
times the single-arrival fee for all
arrivals of a commercial railroad car
during a calendar year. We proposed to
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
increase the user fee per arrival and to
set the corresponding prepaid user fees
at an amount 48 times the AQI user fee
for each arrival.
As noted above, the existing
regulations in § 354.3(d)(1) refer to AQI
fees for inspection of loaded
commercial railroad cars. In addition to
the fee changes, we proposed to amend
§ 354.3(d)(1) to remove the references to
loaded cars. We proposed this change
E:\FR\FM\07MYR5.SGM
07MYR5
ER07MY24.087
Table 8: AQI Commercial Truck Fee Calculation- October 1, 2027 Phase Development ($15.59
Fee Rate 1)2
FY2017
FY 2018
FY2019
APHIS AQI FTEs + Additional FTEs
215
required by FY 2028
Total APHIS AQI Program Cost (Level
$46,945,077.64 $46,844,072.02 $48,662,846.48
501)
APHIS Capital Planning/Expenditure
$5,224,895.94
$5,286,726.10
$5,293,808.19
Future Costs (Level 26) included in
total program cost above
APHIS Additional Staffing Future
$3,565,295.85
$3,585,850.42
$3,529,879.46
Costs (Levels 35 and 451) included
above
CBPAQI FTEs
413
Total CBP AQI Program Cost (Level
$97,794,153.68 $108,587,662.8 $117,124,406.8
502)
6
5
CBP Capital Planning/Expenditure
$575,583.31
$583,139.22
$590,695.12
Future Costs (Level 27) included in
total program cost above
CBP Additional Staffing Future Costs
$11,201,393.37 $11,348,438.38 $11,495,483.39
(Level 452) included above
Total AQI Costs (APHIS AQI Costs +
$144,739,231.3 $155,431,734.8 $165,787,253.3
CBP AQI Costs)
2
9
3
11,847,586
12,089,169
12,164,733
Number of Commercial Trucks
Calculated Unit Cost (Total AQI Costs
$12.22
$12.86
$13.63
divided by Number of Commercial
Trucks)
Unit Cost inflated to June 2022 dollars 3
$13.74
$14.20
$14.80
$14.25
Average of Unit Costs in June 2022
dollars (fee basis)
Inflation Projected to FY 2028 dollars
$15.59
1 The final single payer fee was rounded down to the next $0.05 (five-cent) increment to
facilitate border operations.
2 Within this table, "level" refers to the level in the APHIS AQI Cost Model.
3 As described in https://www.regulations.gov/document/APHIS-2022-0023-0010.
38614
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES5
because APHIS does not collect AQI
user fees for unloaded railroad cars
under the current regulations; however,
CBP inspects all commercial railroad
cars, loaded and unloaded. We received
no comments on this proposed change
and will adopt it accordingly.
We also proposed to revise paragraph
(d)(4) to provide for submission of
remittance not only by The Association
of American Railroads (AAR), and the
National Railroad Passenger Corporation
(AMTRAK), as is the case in the current
regulations, but by individual railroad
companies as well. This revision would
more closely align our requirements
pertaining to railroad car user fees with
those of CBP as set out in 19 CFR
24.22(d).
We received two comments from one
commenter on the proposed changes to
the fees for commercial railroad cars.
The commenter opposed the proposed
fee increases in general and the increase
to the prepaid railroad car fee in
particular. The commenter noted that,
in the economic analysis that
accompanied the proposed rule, we
indicated that the number of railroad car
arrivals has remained relatively steady,
averaging approximately 3.5 million
from 2014 to 2022. The commenter
questioned why the per arrival fee and
prepaid fee would increase significantly
if arrivals had not commensurately
increased.
The per arrival fee was derived by
dividing the actual programs costs plus
planned capital expenditures and
additional staffing costs (adjusted for
inflation) associated with providing AQI
services for railroad cars by the number
of anticipated arrivals. Accordingly, an
increase or decrease in the forecasted
number of arrivals would not itself have
caused the fee to change, if aggregate
costs remained correlated with arrivals.
However, as stated in the proposed rule,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:22 May 06, 2024
Jkt 262001
the main reason for the per arrival fee
increase for commercial railroad cars is
that what falls under the definition of a
railroad car as set forth in CBP’s
regulations in 19 CFR 24.22(d)(1) is now
much larger than what the current
inspection fee is designed to cover. The
fees were designed to cover inspection
costs for a railroad car that is essentially
a single box on wheels. The typical
railroad car in use today, however,
consists of a multi-unit chassis with
double stacked containers on wheels.
This, in turn, has increased the amount
of cargo in general arriving into the
United States by rail. In sum, although
arrivals have remained relatively
constant, costs have increased
significantly due to the change in size
of railroad cars.
With regard to the increased cost of
the prepaid fee, as stated in the
proposed rule, based upon analysis of
collections and arrival data, the average
railroad car arrives 48.32 times per year.
A prepaid multiple of 48 brings us
significantly closer to full cost recovery
than the present multiple of 20 times
the per arrival fee. APHIS notes,
however, that the prepaid railroad car
user fee is optional, and, as we noted in
the proposed rule, very few railroad
companies use the prepaid option. If an
entity determines that paying per arrival
fee is more advantageous, they may do
so.
The commenter stated that it was not
clear that the fee increases are directly
linked to the need for more resources
and staff to inspect railroad cars
specifically. The commenter noted that
while costs for staffing and capital
resources are noted generally, it is not
clear if those costs are based on deficits
experienced by the agency due to
railroad car inspection duties.
APHIS made available a high-level
cost summary as a supporting document
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
with the proposed rule,9 and
comprehensive rollup reports directly
from the APHIS AQI cost model were
available with the proposed rule on the
APHIS website at https://www.aphis.
usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/businessservices/aqi-user-fees/aqi-fee-types/aqiuser-fee-reports.10 Moreover, the
summary tables for commercial railroad
car fee calculation (tables 9 and 10
below) show that APHIS used actual
cost data for fiscal years 2017 through
2019 for railroad cars, future costs for
planned capital expenditures and
additional staffing, divided by number
of users per fiscal year to arrive at a unit
cost. APHIS adjusted those unit costs to
June 2022 dollars, averaged the unit
costs across the 3 fiscal years, and
finally adjusted that average unit cost
for projected inflation. The summary
tables are intended to be a quick
reference regarding fee development.
For more comprehensive cost data
information please see the full rollup
reports from the APHIS AQI activitybased cost model.
For October 1, 2024, October 1, 2025,
October 1, 2026, fee rates, APHIS
subtracted the January 1, 2024 rate from
the October 1, 2027 rate, and divided by
4. This amount became the per phase
increase. The per phase increase was
then added to the previous phase
amount until reaching the October 1,
2027 rate.
BILLING CODE 3410–34–P
9 The document, titled ‘‘AQI User Fee Input Costs
and Cost Allocation Summary,’’ can be accessed
online at https://www.regulations.gov/document/
APHIS-2022-0023-0035.
10 Due to the size of the files, the rollup reports
are available on the APHIS website at https://
www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/businessservices/aqi-user-fees/aqi-fee-types/aqi-user-feereports. The rollup reports must be downloaded
before viewing.
E:\FR\FM\07MYR5.SGM
07MYR5
38615
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
Table 9: AQI Commercial Railroad Car Fee Calculation- January 1, 2024 Phase Development
($5.81 Fee Rate) 1
FY 2017
FY 2018
FY 2019
-
-
34
$5,566,102.63
$5,071,335.27
$4,677,632.67
APHIS Capital Planning/Expenditure
Future Costs (Level 26) included in total
program cost above
$919,065.79
$844,689.11
$739,573.71
APHIS Additional Staffing Future Costs
(Levels 35 and 451)
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
-
-
33
APHIS AQI FTEs
Total APHIS AQI Program Cost (Level
501)
CBPAQI FTEs
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES5
2
$13,477,545.1
6
$14,727,551.8 $11,212,114.53
7
CBP Capital Planning/Expenditure Future
Costs (Level 27) included in total
program cost above
$83,588.53
$73,542.13
$60,872.95
CBP Additional Staffing Future Costs
(Level 452)
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Total AQI Costs (APHIS AQI Costs +
CBP AQI Costs)
$19,043,647.7
9
$19,798,887.1
4
$15,889,747.2
0
Number of Commercial Railroad Cars
3,435,666
3,603,205
3,755,351
Calculated Unit Cost (Total AQI Costs
divided by Number of Railroad Cars)
$5.54
$5.49
$4.23
Unit Cost inflated to June 2022 dollars2
$6.24
$6.07
$4.60
Average of Unit Costs in June 2022
dollars (fee basis)
$5.63
-
-
Inflation Projected to FY 2024 dollars
$5.81
-
-
Within this table, "level" refers to the level in the APHIS AQI Cost Model.
As described in: https://www.regulations.gov/document/APHIS-2022-0023-0010.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:22 May 06, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\07MYR5.SGM
07MYR5
ER07MY24.088
1
Total CBP AQI Program Cost (Level 502)
38616
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
Table 10: AQI Commercial Railroad Car Fee Calculation- October 1, 2027 Phase Development
($8.72 Fee Rate) 1
FY2017
FY2018
FY2019
-
-
48
Total APHIS AQI Program Cost (Level
501)
$11,058,967.9
5
$11,078,453.9
8
$11,350,202.6
7
APHIS Capital Planning/Expenditure
Future Costs (Level 26) included in total
program cost above
$1,178,174.68
$1,196,264.07
$1,173,902.31
APHIS Additional Staffing Future Costs
(Levels 35 and 451) included above
$773,900.48
$789,228.11
$772,755.87
-
-
107
Total CBP AQI Program Cost (Level 502)
$14,804,044.7
9
$16,284,542.9
6
$13,091,366.2
5
CBP Capital Planning/Expenditure Future
Costs (Level 27) included in total
program cost above
$153,287.10
$155,299.36
$157,311.62
CBP Additional Staffing Future Costs
(Level 452) included above
$2,998,962.09
$3,038,330.62
$3,077,699.15
Total AQI Costs (APHIS AQI Costs +
CBP AQI Costs)
$25,863,012.7
4
$27,362,996.9
3
$24,441,568.9
2
Number of Commercial Railroad Cars
3,435,666
3,603,205
3,755,351
Calculated Unit Cost (Total AQI Costs
divided by Number of Railroad Cars)
$7.53
$7.59
$6.51
Unit Cost inflated to June 2022 dollars2
$8.47
$8.39
$7.07
Average of Unit Costs in June 2022
dollars (fee basis)
$7.98
-
-
Inflation Projected to FY 2028 dollars
$8.72
-
-
APHIS AQI FTEs + Additional FTEs
required by FY 2028
CBP AQI FTEs + Additional FTEs
required by FY 2028
1
Within this table, "level" refers to the level in the APHIS AQI Cost Model.
described in: https://www.regulations.gov/document/APHIS-2022-0023-0010.
2 As
The commenter stated that the
proposed rule did not appear to
consider the use of technology by
APHIS to reduce inspection costs, in
lieu of raising fees, though the
commenter did not specify what kinds
of technology APHIS might use to
reduce inspection costs.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:22 May 06, 2024
Jkt 262001
As we discussed above, the AQI
program has made significant efforts to
reduce program costs while maintaining
a robust agricultural safeguarding
program. APHIS also notes that the
evaluation, procurement, maintenance,
and upgrading of technology also carries
a cost, as well as the cost of training
personnel or the hiring of new
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
personnel skilled in handling the
technology.
In summary, we are finalizing the
commercial railroad car fee as proposed.
Commercial Aircraft
APHIS inspects international
commercial aircraft arriving at airports
in the customs territory of the United
E:\FR\FM\07MYR5.SGM
07MYR5
ER07MY24.089
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES5
BILLING CODE 3410–34–C
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES5
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
States. These inspections cover
commercial aircraft capable of carrying
cargo and passengers, regardless of
whether cargo or passengers are on a
particular flight. AQI user fees for
inspection of commercial aircraft per
arrival are listed in § 354.3(e)(1). The
current fee is $225 per arrival. We
proposed to adjust the fee in that
paragraph to increase the user fee per
arrival.
In addition to the proposed fee
changes, we proposed to remove
paragraph (e)(2)(iv) to eliminate the
current fee exemption for aircraft with
64 or fewer seats.
We also proposed to require monthly,
rather than quarterly, remittances for the
commercial aircraft fee, clarify our
remittance requirements, and provide
for electronic payments and statements.
We further proposed to include in the
regulations information on agents
responsible for ensuring compliance
with paying the user fees and a
requirement for entities to notify APHIS
in the event they have a change in
personnel responsible for fee payments.
We received five comments on these
proposed changes. All the commenters
were generally opposed to the proposed
changes.
A commenter stated that we needed to
disclose the number of aircraft
inspected per inspector and number of
plant pests or noxious weeds found
during these inspections per day,
month, or year, in order to validly assess
the efficacy of the current inspections
and the need for the fee increases.
The number of aircrafts inspected per
inspector is materially irrelevant to
evaluating the base costs for the
proposed fee. In the AQI cost model
used to set the proposed fee, we
evaluated the aggregate time currently
needed to conduct all commercial
aircraft inspections, whether they were
conducted by one inspector or multiple
inspectors at a particular port of entry.
We do note, however, that CBP’s staffing
model indicated that additional staff
were needed to inspect aircraft and air
cargo to match personnel to throughputs
and workload.
As we discussed above, a host of
factors can contribute to the sanitary
and phytosanitary risk associated with a
particular arrival. This includes the
cargo, the country of departure, the
route chosen, the port of entry, and the
time of year when the shipment takes
place. Furthermore, the sanitary and
phytosanitary risk in foreign regions
that ship to the United States is not
static and past import history is not
necessarily indicative of future trends.
A disease or pest of concern not
previously known to exist in the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:22 May 06, 2024
Jkt 262001
country could be introduced; climatic
conditions for a particular season could
be especially conducive to pest
populations (this is becoming
increasingly common due to the
climatic volatility associated with
climate change); industry downturns
could reduce monitoring and
suppression efforts at places of
production; or regime change could
downsize the foreign government’s
sanitary and phytosanitary efforts.
Sometimes multiple factors can occur
simultaneously.
It is important to note, however, that
the introduction and establishment of
plant pests within the United States has
significant economic consequences both
for APHIS and for the affected
industries. As we discussed in the
proposed rule, APHIS has spent more
than $1.3 billion on the eradication and
quarantine of wood, tree, and forest
pests such as Asian Longhorn Beetle,
Emerald Ash Borer, and Spotted Lantern
Fly, in addition to the direct and
indirect losses experienced by the
affected industries themselves. Even
plant pest outbreaks in a single State
can prove quite costly: APHIS recently
had to request $103.5 million in
emergency funding to address the
effects of fruit fly outbreaks in
California.
The same commenter stated that the
proposed rule appeared to state that
APHIS uses the commercial aircraft fee
and international passenger fee to crosssubsidize other fee areas. The
commenter specifically cited the
following from the preamble of the
proposed rule: ‘‘Collections from the air
sector (commercial aircraft and
commercial air passenger) are a
combined annual average of over 85
percent of total AQI collections. If this
final rule is adopted as proposed,
APHIS estimates that by FY 2028 the
combined air sector would account for
approximately 68 percent of total
collections, assuming future arrivals
match average arrivals for FY 2017
through FY 2019.’’ The commenter
asserted that APHIS failed to explain the
anticipated reduction in percentage of
total collections paid by the air sector,
and whether this indicates that the air
sector industry overpaid in FY 2017
through FY 2019 and thus crosssubsidized other user fee areas.
As discussed in the proposed rule,
APHIS updated its AQI cost model to
allocate certain costs based upon the
number of frontline FTE hours. In
contrast, in the 2015 rulemaking, the
cost model allocated those costs based
upon the number of arrivals. Our
updated model resulted in more
accurate cost allocations based upon
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
38617
level of effort in each area, and the
percentage of total collections
associated with the air sector shifted
accordingly. No cross-subsidization of
other modes occurred between FY 2017
and FY 2019. Revenue from other fees
will increase more than aircraft and air
passenger fees, making the relative
revenue from aircraft and air passengers
a smaller percentage of total revenue.
We disagree with the commenters’
interpretation of our statements in the
proposed rule.
A commenter stated that APHIS did
not recognize fundamental changes
since 2020 to CBP’s customs clearance
process, specifically for e-Commercedriven parcel processing and de
minimis (Entry Type 86) shipments.
APHIS did not propose to charge a fee
for individual parcels. We note,
however, that entry type has no bearing
on sanitary or phytosanitary risk.
A commenter stated that international
mail shipments already pay customs
fees.
The customs fees mentioned by the
commenter are unrelated to AQI
services, but rather other customs
services provided by CBP. International
mail shipments pay specific Customs
entry fees to CBP, but those are not for
AQI inspections. APHIS does not charge
an AQI user fee specifically for
international mail shipments. Rather,
those costs are allocated to the fee for
commercial aircraft. While the AQI
program is related to the customs entry
process, funds collected by CBP through
their various fees do not fund AQI
activities. AQI cargo activities are
funded through AQI user fees and not
CBP fees.
A commenter stated that users were
asked to accept the proposed fees at face
value without any means to review how
APHIS arrived at the proposed user fees
outlined in the proposed rule.
We disagree. APHIS AQI has
prioritized transparency in this
rulemaking and gone to great lengths to
make its data available. As we explained
above, the APHIS AQI cost model data
was cited in the proposed rule and
made available on the APHIS website.
We also referenced the data in the
stakeholder webinars. We also provided
the data and link via stakeholder
announcement, and we further
explained via a dedicated AQI cost
model video and corresponding
stakeholder announcement. APHIS web
analytics showed an increase in AQI
cost model data traffic following each of
the above engagements. At least one
stakeholder specifically referenced the
data in their comment, making it clear
the data was available and usable by
stakeholders for the purpose of notice
E:\FR\FM\07MYR5.SGM
07MYR5
38618
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES5
and comment. Moreover, the summary
tables for commercial aircraft fee
calculation (tables 11 and 12 below)
show that APHIS used actual cost data
for FY 2017 through FY 2019 for
commercial aircraft, future costs for
planned capital expenditures and
additional staffing, divided by number
of commercial aircraft arrivals per fiscal
year to arrive at a unit cost. APHIS
adjusted those unit costs to June 2022
dollars, averaged the unit costs across
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:22 May 06, 2024
Jkt 262001
the 3 fiscal years, and finally adjusted
that average unit cost for projected
inflation. The summary tables are
intended to be a quick reference
regarding fee development. For more
comprehensive cost data information
please see the full rollup reports from
the APHIS AQI activity-based cost
model available on the APHIS website
at https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/
ourfocus/business-services/aqi-userfees/aqi-fee-types/aqi-user-fee-reports.
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
For October 1, 2024, October 1, 2025,
October 1, 2026, fee rates, APHIS
subtracted the January 1, 2024 rate from
the October 1, 2027 rate, and divided by
4. This amount became the per phase
increase. The per phase increase was
then added to the previous phase
amount until reaching the October 1,
2027 rate.
BILLING CODE 3410–34–P
E:\FR\FM\07MYR5.SGM
07MYR5
38619
Table 11: AQI Commercial Aircraft Fee Calculation - January 1, 2024 Phase Development
($262.45 Fee Rate ) 1
FY2017
FY 2018
FY2019
APHIS AQI FTEs
392
Total APHIS AQI
$54,169,813.81
$75,770,884.37
$89,320,508.50
Program Cost (Level
501)
APHIS Capital
$8,945,767.53
$12,786,757.11
$14,342,800.11
Planning/Expenditure
Future Costs (Level
26) included in total
program cost above
APHIS Additional
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Staffing Future Costs
(Levels 35 and 451)
CBPAQI FTEs
819
Total CBP AQI
$127,537,441.52
$147,448,957.58
$170,134,733.75
Program Cost (Level
502)
CBP Capital
$616,838.67
$1,264,559.19
$1,492,905.74
Planning/Expenditure
Future Costs (Level
27) included in total
program cost above
CBP Additional
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Staffing Future Costs
(Level 452)
Total AQI Costs
$181,707,255.33
$223,219,841.95
$259,455,242.25
(APHIS AQI Costs +
CBP AQI Costs)
Number of
945,067
951,749
978,249
Commercial Aircraft
Calculated Unit Cost
$192.27
$234.54
$265.22
(Total AQI Costs
divided by Number of
Commercial Aircraft)
Unit Cost inflated to
$216.30
$259.06
$288.10
June 2022 dollars 2
Average of Unit Costs $254.49
in June 2022 dollars
(fee basis)
Inflation Projected to $262.45
FY 2024 dollars
1 Within this table, "level" refers to the level in the APHIS AQI Cost Model.
2 As described in: https://www.regulations.gov/document/APHIS-2022-0023-0010.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:22 May 06, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\07MYR5.SGM
07MYR5
ER07MY24.090
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES5
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
38620
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES5
BILLING CODE 3410–34–C
A commenter stated that APHIS
excluded data showing potential AQI
program surpluses from 2016 to the
present, if AQI fees had been adjusted
for inflation in the 2015 rulemaking.
The 2015 rulemaking did not adjust
the fees for inflation, and positing a
counterfactual scenario in which it did
is materially irrelevant to assessing the
proposed fees. The fees in this proposed
rule were based on actual costs for 3
fiscal years, plus capital planning and
future staffing costs, all adjusted for
inflation. The fees were developed using
11 As described in: https://www.regulations.gov/
document/APHIS-2022-0023-0010.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:22 May 06, 2024
Jkt 262001
Activity Based Costing to support full
cost recovery.
A commenter stated that the fee
exemption for aircraft with 64 or fewer
seats should remain because the
commenter claimed that our study was
predicated on a misunderstanding of the
reason for the exemption. The
commenter stated that, in the 1992 rule
that had established the exemption,
APHIS had cited two bases for the
exemption to the fee. The first was that
such aircraft required little to no
phytosanitary inspection. The second
was that such an exemption was
predicated on the per-passenger cost
differential that made it ‘‘difficult for
small commuter airlines to compete
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
with larger airlines for business.’’ The
commenter further contended that our
study had assumed that exempted
aircraft had an increased exposure risk
to plant pests since the 1992 exemption
was established, without identifying the
actual increased phytosanitary risk now
associated with such aircraft, which the
commenter stated could only be
substantiated through pest detections on
exempted aircraft. Finally, the
commenter stated that if AQI services
are not being provided for such
exempted aircraft, removing the
exemption would charge a user fee in
the absence of services provided, and
thus violate the FACT Act.
E:\FR\FM\07MYR5.SGM
07MYR5
ER07MY24.091
Table 12: AQI Commercial Aircraft Fee Calculation- October 1, 2027 Phase Development
($340.90 Fee Rate ) 1
FY2017
FY2018
FY2019
APHIS AQI FTEs + Additional FTEs
592
required by FY 2028
Total APHIS AQI Program Cost (Level $118,592,631.8 $119,105,226.5 $125,152,433.6
501)
2
0
7
APHIS Capital Planning/Expenditure
$13,095,512.29 $13,309,009.17 $13,566,708.69
Future Costs (Level 26) included in
total program cost above
APHIS Additional Staffing Future
$11,047,861.93 $11,330,690.86 $11,445,007.04
Costs (Levels 35 and 451) included
above
CBPAQI FTEs
1,257
Total CBP AQI Program Cost (Level
$133,882,924.3 $147,270,149.8 $167,745,740.2
502)
4
1
5
CBP Capital Planning/Expenditure
$1,538,329.92
$1,558,524.17
$1,578,718.42
Future Costs (Level 27) included in
total program cost above
CBP Additional Staffing Future Costs
$28,009,694.67 $28,377,388.72 $28,745,082.78
(Level 452) included above
Total AQI Costs (APHIS AQI Costs +
$252,475,556.1 $266,375,376.3 $292,898,173.8
CBP AQI Costs)
4
8
7
Number of Commercial Aircraft
945,067
951,749
978,249
Calculated Unit Cost (Total AQI Costs
$267.15
$279.88
$299.41
divided by Number of Commercial
Aircraft)
Unit Cost inflated to June 2022
$300.54
$309.15
$325.24
dollars 11
Average of Unit Costs in June 2022
$311.64
dollars (fee basis)
Inflation Projected to FY 2028 dollars
$340.90
1 Within this table, "level" refers to the level in the APHIS AQI Cost Model.
2 As described in: https://www.regulations.gov/document/APHIS-2022-0023-0010.
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES5
In 1991, when this fee exemption was
first established it exempted aircraft
with 30 or fewer seats which are not
carrying cargo and are not equipped to
offer inflight food service. We explained
that we exempted those aircraft because
we did not provide AQI services to the
aircraft (56 FR 37483, August 7, 1991).
In 1992, when we proposed to expand
the fee exemption to aircraft with 64 or
fewer seats, we explained that this was
intended to exempt commuter aircraft
that require little or no inspection from
the per aircraft inspection fee (57 FR
56862, December 1, 1992). In other
words, the initial exemption for aircraft
with 30 or fewer seats was based on our
determination that no AQI services were
being provided for such aircraft, and the
expansion to 64 or fewer seats was
based on an assumption that such
aircraft were commuter in nature and
would not require such an inspection.
It is worth noting that the 1992
proposed rule did not also predicate the
exemption on the per-passenger cost
differential between small commuter
airlines and larger airlines. The
language cited by the commenter was
articulated in the section of the
preamble that evaluated the economic
impacts of the rule pursuant to
Executive Order 12291 (since rescinded)
and the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We
were characterizing the effects of the
rulemaking on small entities, not
articulating a basis for the rulemaking.
Now, 30 years after that rulemaking,
CBP does in fact conduct inspections on
aircraft with 64 or fewer seats. These
inspections incur costs on the part of
the AQI program. The FACT Act
specifically authorizes us to prescribe
and collect fees sufficient to cover the
cost of providing AQI services in
connection with the arrival of
commercial aircraft at a port in the
customs territory of the United States
(21 U.S.C. 136a(a)(1)(A)).
To address whether such inspections
are warranted, we re-evaluated the
sanitary and phytosanitary risks posed
by aircraft with 64 or fewer seats and
the results of this pathway analysis
indicated that aircraft with 64 or fewer
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:22 May 06, 2024
Jkt 262001
seats do pose phytosanitary risk to the
United States. Specifically, we found
that the variety of aircraft origins
worldwide (countries/airports) and
destinations in the United States
(States/airports) for aircraft with 64 or
fewer seats was similar to or slightly
higher than those of aircraft with 65 or
more seats. For comparison and context,
between FY 2016 and FY 2018, aircraft
with 65 seats or more averaged 2,272
routes. With an average of 1,224 flight
routes from calendar years 2016 to 2018,
aircraft with 64 or fewer seats had many
risks of exposure to hitchhiking pests, as
well as many risks to expose pests to a
large variety of environments in the
United States. Exposure risk was used
in order to characterize sanitary and
phytosanitary risk because pest
detections on commercial aircraft are
not categorized based on whether the
aircraft has 65 or more or 64 or fewer
seats. In sum, while inspection may not
have been necessary based on
phytosanitary conditions in 1993, when
we originally established the exemption,
that is no longer the case today.
A commenter stated that our basis for
removing the exemption was to create
an additional funding stream for the
AQI program.
Our basis for removing the exemption,
as articulated in the proposed rule and
its supporting documentation, and
reiterated above, is to fulfill our
agricultural safeguarding mandate and
achieve full cost recovery. Our
articulated assumptions for the
exemption in 1991 and 1992,
respectively, are no longer indicative of
air travel conducted by planes with 64
or fewer seats, and the current
operational dynamics of such travel
carry a sanitary and phytosanitary risk
that merits AQI services.
In light of the fact that small
commercial aircraft have not previously
been subject to the fee, APHIS believes
that additional time is warranted to
allow operators to come into
compliance. Accordingly, APHIS is
delaying the effective date for removal
of the exemption for aircraft with 64 or
fewer seats until April 1, 2025.
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
38621
Two commenters stated that APHIS
should not change from quarterly to
monthly fee remittances, because it
would increase the paperwork burden
on airlines. Another commenter stated
that monthly remittance would increase
the burden on express carriers and
would be out of step with other user
fees they remit, which are almost all
done quarterly.
We do not consider, and the
commenters did not provide any
evidence, that the revised remittance
procedures to be more burdensome than
the current procedures. Under the
proposed rule, payments would be
remitted on a monthly basis after a 90day grace period—for example, January
fees would be remitted to APHIS at the
end of April, February fees at the end of
May. Nonetheless, monthly remittance
itself is necessary. Without the authority
to prescribe and collect fees to maintain
a reasonable balance in the AQI
account, APHIS needs to move to a
monthly remittance schedule to ensure
smoother and more stable cash flow. In
terms of paperwork burden, we expect
a negligible difference between
quarterly and monthly reporting,
because the proposed rule does not
change the information required for an
individual month. For example,
remittance reporting for the month of
October is identical regardless of
reporting only for October or whether
issuing a quarterly report for October,
November, and December of any given
year.
In addition, we note that the revised
procedures should make aspects of
reconciliation and remittance easier,
rather than harder. For example, the
new monthly remittance schedule
provides for a 90-day reconciliation
period for each month, whereas the
current quarterly remittance schedule
provides a 90-day reconciliation period
for the first month of the quarter, a 60day reconciliation period for the second
month of the quarter, and only a 30-day
reconciliation period for the third
month of the quarter.
BILLING CODE 3410–34–P
E:\FR\FM\07MYR5.SGM
07MYR5
38622
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
Table 13: AQI User Fee Remittance/Collection Schedule Changes 1
AQI User Fee
Current Remittance/Collection
New Remittance/Collection
Category
Schedule
Schedule
(Through September 30, 2024)
(Beginning October 1, 2024)
Commercial Vessel
Paid on arrival
No change
No change
Commercial Truck
Paid on arrival
No change
Commercial Truck
Prepaid with the purchase of a
(Transponder)
transponder
Commercial Railroad Due 60 days after the end of each Due 90 days after the end of each
calendar month (see table 1)
Car
calendar month
Commercial Railroad Prepaid for each railroad car for a No change
Car (Prepaid)
calendar year
Commercial Aircraft Due 31 days after the close of the Due 90 days after the end of each
calendar quarter
calendar month (see table 1)
International Air
Due 31 days after the close of the Due 90 days after the end of each
Passenger
calendar quarter
calendar month (see table 1)
International Cruise
Due 31 days after the close of the Due 90 days after the end of each
(Sea) Passenger
calendar quarter
calendar month (see table 1)
Treatment
Due 31 days after the close of the No change
Monitoring
calendar quarter
1 Refer to 7 CFR 354.3, "User fees for certain international services." for specific guidance.
Another commenter noted that our
proposed rule required the use of
remittance worksheets as part of
remittance procedures. The commenter
expressed opposition to the use of the
remittance worksheet as burdensome.
Our intent in proposing to require the
use of the worksheet was primarily as a
service to regulated entities in order to
facilitate remittance; as noted in the
proposed rule, entities currently submit
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:22 May 06, 2024
Jkt 262001
remittance in a variety of formats, and
some entities submit more information
than is necessary. We believed that use
of the worksheet would facilitate
remittance processes for regulated
entities by making them more
standardized and streamlined.
Given the comments received that
stated that the worksheet could be more
burdensome than the status quo,
however, we are stating in this final rule
that the remittance worksheet is not
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
mandatory. Entities may elect to use it
depending on whether or not they find
it less burdensome than current
remittance practices. However, APHIS
again notes that while the worksheet is
not mandatory, there is mandatory
information that must be provided in
remittance statements, and also notes
that many entities provide information
in their remittance statements that goes
beyond APHIS’ requirements. For those
entities that choose to use existing
E:\FR\FM\07MYR5.SGM
07MYR5
ER07MY24.092
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES5
BILLING CODE 3410–34–C
ER07MY24.093
Table 14: New Remittance/Collection Schedule (Beginning October 1, 2024) for the
Commercial Aircraft, Commercial Railroad Car, International Air Passenger, and International
Cruise Passenger Fee Categories
Reconciliation Period
Due Date
Month of Collection/Arrival/Treatment
Februarv -April
April 30
Januarv
May31
March-May
Februarv
April - June
March
June 30
April
May - July
July 31
May
June - August
August 31
June
July - September
September 30
July
August - October
October 31
August
September - November November 30
September
October - December
December 31
January 31
October
November - Januarv
November
December - February
February 28
December
January - March
March 31
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES5
remittance statements rather than the
worksheet, the remittance worksheet
serves as a guide for the remittance
statement, even if an entity chooses not
to use the worksheet itself.
The same commenter stated that
APHIS had not made the remittance
worksheet available for review as part of
the supporting documents for the
proposed rule. Without viewing the
worksheet, the commenter stated that
they could not ascertain whether it
would be less burdensome or more
burdensome than the status quo. The
commenter also stated that we had an
obligation to make the worksheet
available during the comment period in
order for commenters to provide
informed comments on the accuracy of
the estimate of burden articulated in the
Paperwork Reduction Act section of the
proposed rule.
While it is true that APHIS omitted
the worksheet from the specific suite of
supporting documents associated with
the proposed rule, the remittance
worksheet has been available on the
APHIS website at https://www.aphis.
usda.gov/mrpbs/userfees/remittanceform.pdf since well before the proposed
rule was published and has been used
by some entities for more than 15 years.
Nonetheless, as previously stated, in
this final rule, use of the remittance
worksheet is not mandatory.
Finally, as noted above, in reviewing
the data on which the proposed fee
increases were based, we noticed that
the total costs associated with
commercial aircraft were accurate, but
the denominator (number of commercial
aircraft arrivals) was not accurate, and
did not include precleared aircraft.
APHIS has corrected this error, resulting
in lower commercial aircraft fees than
proposed. In this final rule, the
commercial aircraft fees are as follows:
$281.39 for FY 2025, $300.78 for FY
2026, $320.61 for FY 2027, and $340.90
for FY 2028. As noted above, we also are
not requiring the use of a worksheet for
the remittance of the fees.
International Passengers Arriving at
Airports and Seaports
AQI user fees for inspection of
commercial air passengers are listed in
§ 354.3(f)(1). The current fee is $3.83 per
arrival. We proposed to adjust the AQI
user fee per arrival for commercial air
passengers. The commercial air
passenger fee will increase relative to
the current fee.
Similarly, the AQI user fee for
inspection of commercial cruise vessel
passenger fee is also listed in
§ 354.3(f)(1). The current fee is $1.68 per
arrival. We proposed to adjust the AQI
user fee for inspection of commercial
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:22 May 06, 2024
Jkt 262001
cruise passengers. The commercial
cruise vessel passenger fee will decrease
relative to the current fee. The change
in the cruise passenger fee owes mainly
to the change in allocation criteria from
number of inspection events
(passengers) to FTE hours.
We also proposed several
clarifications in paragraph (f) of § 354.3
related to applicability, payment, and
handling of international passenger user
fees collected and remitted for trips not
taken. In proposed paragraph (f)(1), we
added language to clarify that infants,
traveling with or without documents,
whether in assigned seats or held in an
adult passenger’s lap, are subject to AQI
user fees, as they are subject to the same
inspection as other passengers. This
harmonizes APHIS regulations with
CBP regulations in 19 CFR 24.22(g), and
CBP’s definition of passenger in 19 CFR
24.22(g)(1)(v). As noted above, we also
proposed to add a definition of
passenger to help clarify these
requirements.
In proposed changes to paragraphs
(f)(5) and (6), we shortened the period
for payment of international passenger
fees and submission of remittance
reports from quarterly to monthly, in
order to recover the costs of inspecting
international passengers in a timely
manner, as discussed above with respect
to the commercial aircraft fee. Also as
discussed above in relation to paragraph
(e) of § 354.3, operators would have 90
days to reconcile their books for each
month. Airlines and cruise lines would
remit passenger fees to APHIS on a
monthly basis (12 times per year) versus
the current quarterly basis (four times
per year) and would have 90 days to
reconcile their books for each month, as
opposed to the current 31-day period
after the close of the quarter. For
example, under this final rule,
remittance of fees collected in January
of a given year would occur at the end
of April of that year (90 days after the
close of January); remittance of fees for
February of a given year would occur at
the end of May of that year; remittance
of fees for October of a given year would
occur at the end of January of the
following year, etc.
We proposed to add new paragraphs
(f)(5)(v) and (vi), which would cover the
handling of international passenger AQI
user fees collected and remitted for trips
not taken. Proposed paragraph (f)(5)(v)
stated that the entity issuing the ticket
or travel document (e.g., air or sea
carriers, travel agents, tour wholesalers,
or other entities) has a responsibility to
make refunds of the international
passenger AQI user fees in the original
form of payment to the purchaser for
trips not taken.
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
38623
Proposed paragraph (f)(5)(vi)
described the process for requesting a
credit from APHIS for international
passenger AQI user fees collected and
remitted prior to refunding a ticket
purchaser for an international passenger
AQI user fee for a trip that was not
taken. In such cases, the ticket issuing
entity would have to submit a revised
remittance worksheet or written
statement. In keeping with other
proposed changes to remittance
timeframes, the revised remittance
worksheet or written statement would
be completed and filed for each month
during which the ticket or travel
document-issuing entity certifies that
there was a decrease in the number of
passengers and international passenger
AQI user fees collected.
We received three comments about
the proposed changes to the remittance
procedures. The commenters generally
opposed the proposed changes.
One commenter agreed with the
intent of proposed paragraph (f)(5)(vi),
which would allow airlines to request a
credit from APHIS. The commenter
stated that in such instances, AQI
services are not actually provided, so a
mechanism of recovering the remitted
user fee for those services is warranted.
The commenter also noted that the
paragraph could be construed to mean
that airlines must remit all fees
collected to APHIS, and then only
subsequently revise the remittance by
requesting credit for flights not taken.
The commenter stated that in instances
when the flight is not taken and a
refund occurs before an initial
remittance of the fee is due to the
Agency, airlines should be authorized to
reconcile this in the initial remittance,
rather than a subsequent revision.
The commenter strongly objected to
proposed paragraph (f)(5)(v), however.
In addition to citing numerous logistical
obstacles with its implementation, the
commenter stated that, in proposing to
prescribe the method by which airlines
must refund fees to passengers, APHIS
had exceeded its statutory authority
under the FACT Act.
After reviewing this comment, we
acknowledge that the commenter raised
points that merit further consideration.
APHIS has therefore elected not to
finalize paragraph (f)(5)(v).
We will retain the substance of
paragraph (f)(5)(vi), though we have
renumbered to paragraph (f)(5)(v). We
have modified the proposed provisions
of that paragraph in order to reflect the
fact that the use of a remittance
worksheet will be optional.
Additionally, we clarify that the
provision applies only in instances
when an airline requests credit after it
E:\FR\FM\07MYR5.SGM
07MYR5
38624
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES5
remitted the fee to APHIS. If an airline
has reconciled a trip not taken with the
customer prior to remittance to APHIS,
no subsequent action is needed.
Finally, based on a review of data, the
fee for commercial air passengers will
be lower than originally proposed. The
total costs associated with commercial
air passengers was accurate; however,
the denominator, that is, the number of
air passengers, did not include
precleared air passengers at certain
ports of departure. APHIS corrected this
error, resulting in a lower air passenger
fee than proposed. In this final rule, the
fees are as follows: $3.71 in FY 2025,
$3.84 in FY 2026, $3.98 in FY 2027, and
$4.12 in FY 2028.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:22 May 06, 2024
Jkt 262001
The summary tables for AQI
International Air Passenger Fee
Calculation (tables 15 and 16 below)
show that APHIS used actual cost data
for FY 2017 through FY 2019
international air passengers, future costs
for planned capital expenditures and
additional staffing, divided by number
of international air passengers per fiscal
year to arrive at a unit cost. APHIS
adjusted those unit costs to June 2022
dollars, averaged the unit costs across
the 3 fiscal years, and finally adjusted
that average unit cost for projected
inflation. The summary tables are
intended to be a quick reference
regarding fee development. For more
comprehensive cost data information
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
please see the full rollup reports from
the APHIS AQI activity-based cost
model available on the APHIS website
at https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/
ourfocus/business-services/aqi-userfees/aqi-fee-types/aqi-user-fee-reports.
For October 1, 2024, October 1, 2025,
October 1, 2026, fee rates, APHIS
subtracted the January 1, 2024 rate from
the October 1, 2027 rate, and divided by
4. This amount became the per phase
increase. The per phase increase was
then added to the previous phase
amount until reaching the October 1,
2027 rate.
BILLING CODE 3410–34–P
E:\FR\FM\07MYR5.SGM
07MYR5
38625
Table 15: AQI International Air Passenger Fee Calculation-January 1, 2024 Phase Development
($3.58 Fee Rate) 1
FY2017
FY2018
FY2019
APHIS AQI FTEs
193
$47,533,932.90
$45,901,895.95
$51,021,447.61
Total APHIS AQI
Program Cost (Level
501)
APHIS Capital
$7,449,956.65
$7,185,938.07
$7,497,507.88
Planning/Expenditure
Future Costs (Level
26) included in total
program cost above
APHIS Additional
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Staffing Future Costs
(Levels 35 and 451)
included above
CBPAQIFTEs
1,324
Total CBP AQI
$322,657,388.91
$326,636,141.51
$367,144,251.62
Program Cost (Level
502)
$2,323,907.55
$2,195,730.11
$2,374,865.09
CBP Capital
Planning/Expenditure
Future Costs (Level
27) included in total
program cost above
CBP Additional
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Staffing Future Costs
(Level 452) included
above
Total AQI Costs
$370,191,321.81
$372,538,037.46
$418,165,699.22
(APHIS AQI Costs +
CBP AQI Costs)
117,800,639
122,963,952
128,371,990
Number of
International Air
Passengers
Calculated Unit Cost $3.14
$3.03
$3.26
(Total AQI Costs
divided by Number
of International Air
Passengers)
Unit Cost inflated to
$3.54
$3.54
$3.35
2
June 2022 dollars
Average of Unit
$3.47
Costs in June 2022
dollars (fee basis)
Inflation Projected to $3.58
FY 2024 dollars
1 Within this table, "level" refers to the level in the APHIS AQI Cost Model.
2 As described in: https://www.regulations.gov/document/APHIS-2022-0023-0010.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:22 May 06, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\07MYR5.SGM
07MYR5
ER07MY24.094
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES5
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
Table 16: AQI International Air Passenger Fee Calculation- October 1, 2027 Phase
Development ($4.12 Fee Rate) 1
FY 2017
FY2018
FY2019
APHIS AQI FTEs +
286
Additional FTEs
required by FY 2028
Total APHIS AQI
$79,715,724.46
$78,930,107.86
$82,324,802.94
Program Cost (Level
501)
$6,732,920.70
APHIS Capital
$6,698,395.19
$6,683,707.49
Planning/Expenditure
Future Costs (Level
26) included in total
program cost above
APHIS Additional
$5,387,261.41
$5,278,641.28
$5,333,823.77
Staffing Future Costs
(Levels 35 and 451)
included above
CBPAQIFTEs
1,665
Total CBP AQI
$322,905,697.99
$326,760,945.10
$366,931,730.67
Program Cost (Level
502)
CBP Capital
$1,876,139.13
$1,900,767.94
$1,925,396.74
Planning/Expenditure
Future Costs (Level
27) included in total
program cost above
CBP Additional
$30,823,253.52
$31,227,882.24
$31,632,510.98
Staffing Future Costs
(Level 452) included
above
Total AQI Costs
$402,621,422.45
$405,691,052.97
$449,256,533.61
(APHIS AQI Costs +
CBP AQI Costs)
Number of
117,800,639
122,963,952
128,371,990
International Air
Passengers
Calculated Unit Cost
$3.42
$3.30
$3.50
(Total AQI Costs
divided by Number of
International Air
Passengers)
Unit Cost inflated to
$3.85
$3.64
$3.80
June 2022 dollars 2
Average of Unit Costs $3.76
in June 2022 dollars
(fee basis)
Inflation Projected to
$4.12
FY 2024 dollars
1 Within this table, "level" refers to the level in the APHIS AQI Cost Model.
2 As described in: https://www.regulations.gov/document/APHIS-2022-0023-0010.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:22 May 06, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\07MYR5.SGM
07MYR5
ER07MY24.095
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES5
38626
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES5
We received no comments on the AQI
cruise vessel passenger fee and are
finalizing it as proposed.
The summary tables for AQI Cruise
Vessel Passenger Fee Calculation (tables
17 and 18 below) show that APHIS used
actual cost data for FY 2017 through FY
2019 by user class, future costs for
planned capital expenditures and
additional staffing, divided by number
of users per fiscal year to arrive at a unit
cost. APHIS adjusted those unit costs to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:22 May 06, 2024
Jkt 262001
June 2022 dollars, averaged the unit
costs across the 3 fiscal years, and
finally adjusted that average unit cost
for projected inflation. The summary
tables are intended to be a quick
reference regarding fee development.
For more comprehensive cost data
information please see the full rollup
reports from the APHIS AQI activitybased cost model available on the
APHIS website at https://www.aphis.
usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/business-
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
38627
services/aqi-user-fees/aqi-fee-types/aqiuser-fee-reports.
For October 1, 2024, October 1, 2025,
October 1, 2026, fee rates, APHIS
subtracted the January 1, 2024 rate from
the October 1, 2027 rate, and divided by
4. This amount became the per phase
increase. The per phase increase was
then added to the previous phase
amount until reaching the October 1,
2027 rate.
E:\FR\FM\07MYR5.SGM
07MYR5
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
Table 17: AQI Cruise Vessel Passenger Fee Calculation- January 1, 2024 Phase Development
($1.20 Fee Rate) 1
FY 2017
FY2018
FY2019
APHIS AQI FTEs
6
Total APHIS AQI
$1,375,153.88
$1,372,968.69
$1,451,194.16
Program Cost (Level
501)
APHIS Capital
$218,278.05
$220,590.13
$216,558.24
Planning/Expenditure
Future Costs (Level
26) included in total
program cost above
APHIS Additional
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Staffing Future Costs
(Levels 35 and 451)
CBPAQI FTEs
22
Total CBP AQI
$14,068,736.05
$14,579,099.17
$16,296,548.83
Program Cost (Level
502)
CBP Capital
$38,252.81
$33,016.34
$40,232.41
Planning/Expenditure
Future Costs (Level
27) included in total
program cost above
CBP Additional
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Staffing Future Costs
(Level 452)
Total AQI Costs
$15,443,889.93
$15,952,067.86
$17,747,742.98
(APHIS AQI Costs +
CBP AQI Costs)
Number of Cruise
14,156,457
14,782,393
17,931,570
Vessel Passengers
Calculated Unit Cost $1.09
$1.08
$0.99
(Total AQI Costs
divided by Number of
Cruise Vessel
Passengers)
Unit Cost inflated to
$1.23
$1.19
$1.08
June 2022 dollars2
Average of Unit
$1.16
Costs in June 2022
dollars (fee basis)
Inflation Projected to $1.20
FY 2024 dollars
1 Within this table, "level" refers to the level in the APHIS AQI Cost Model.
2 As described in: https://www.regulations.gov/document/APHIS-2022-0023-0010.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:22 May 06, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\07MYR5.SGM
07MYR5
ER07MY24.096
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES5
38628
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
38629
Table 18: AQI Cruise Vessel Passenger Fee Calculation- October 1, 2027 Phase Development
($1.39 Fee Rate) 1
FY2017
FY2018
FY2019
APHIS AQI FTEs + Additional FTEs
10
required by FY 2028
Total APHIS AQI Program Cost (Level
$2,693,514.56
$2,767,017.10 $2,723,363.52
501)
APHIS Capital Planning/Expenditure
$208,436.51
$220,810.87
$201,712.40
Future Costs (Level 26) included in total
program cost above
APHIS Additional Staffing Future Costs $242,055.16
$259,911.22
$229,204.44
(Levels 35 and 451) included above
CBPAQI FTEs
28
Total CBP AQI Program Cost (Level
$14,293,361.68 $14,630,815.7 $16,317,674.5
502)
1
3
CBP Capital Planning/Expenditure
$31,668.56
$32,084.29
$32,500.01
Future Costs (Level 27) included in total
program cost above
CBP Additional Staffing Future Costs
$1,122,418.65
$1,137,153.07 $1,151,887.50
(Level 452) included above
Total AQI Costs (APHIS AQI Costs +
$16,986,876.24 $17,397,832.8
$19,041,038.0
CBP AQI Costs)
1
5
Number of Cruise Vessel Passengers
14,156,457
14,782,393
17,931,570
Calculated Unit Cost (Total AQI Costs
$1.20
$1.18
$1.06
divided by Number of Cruise Vessel
Passengers)
Unit Cost inflated to June 2022 dollars2
$1.15
$1.35
$1.30
Average of Unit Costs in June 2022
$1.27
dollars (fee basis)
Inflation Projected to FY 2028 dollars
$1.39
1 Within this table, "level" refers to the level in the APHIS AQI Cost Model.
2 As described in: https://www.regulations.gov/document/APHIS-2022-0023-0010.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES5
AQI Treatment Monitoring
AQI treatments are performed on
some agricultural goods as a condition
of entry, and additional treatments are
performed when an actionable pest (i.e.,
a plant pest that should not be allowed
to be introduced into or disseminated
within the United States) is detected
during a port-of-entry inspection.
Currently, these treatments are charged
on a per-treatment basis; that is, if two
or more consignments are treated
together, only a single fee will be
charged, and if a single consignment is
split or must be retreated, a fee will be
charged for each separate treatment
conducted. The current fees are set out
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:22 May 06, 2024
Jkt 262001
in § 354.3(h). APHIS reevaluated
assessing AQI treatment monitoring fees
on a per-enclosure basis, and we
proposed an hourly rate instead.
We received seven comments about
the proposed changes to the treatment
monitoring fee. The commenters
generally opposed the proposed
changes.
Commenters were generally opposed
to this proposed change. They raised a
number of concerns about moving to an
hourly charge, including the magnitude
of the fee increases for certain treatment
types, uncertainty over how the hourly
rate would be applied given nonuniform
standards of service and if new
efficiencies (e.g., remote monitoring)
could be used. The commenters also
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
stated that the proposed hourly billing
process would present challenges in
terms of providing customers with
timely invoices. The commenters
further stated that for certain low-value
commodities, the hourly rate would
exceed the value of the import.
After reviewing the comments, we
agree with the commenters that these
issues merit further consideration before
making changes to the AQI treatment
monitoring fees. We have therefore
decided not to proceed with amending
§ 354.3(h) at this time. We will address
the restructuring of the AQI treatment
monitoring fees in a future rulemaking.
APHIS will keep the per-enclosure fee
in place.
E:\FR\FM\07MYR5.SGM
07MYR5
ER07MY24.097
BILLING CODE 3410–34–PC
38630
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
However, we received no comments,
and are aware of no evidence, that
treatment monitoring services are not
subject to inflationary forces. Therefore,
we are incorporating annual
adjustments for projected inflation 12 as
follows, using the current fee of $237
per enclosure as the basis:
• t ed Infl af10n Ad.lJustment
'Iable 19 Treamen
t
t Momorm
·1 • 7 Fee w1•th Pro1ec
October 1, October 1, October 1, October 1,
2024
2025
2026
2027
Treatments (per enclosure)
$240.60
$244.19
$247.79
$251.38
To improve monitoring, compliance,
and enforcement of this regulation, we
proposed to add a new paragraph (j),
which would contain records retention
requirements related to AQI user fees.
Proposed paragraph (j)(1) provided that
entities responsible for collecting and
paying the fees and their agents would
be responsible for maintaining all
records required under § 354.3, as well
as legible copies of contracts and other
agreements made between responsible
persons and their agents. Under
proposed paragraph (j)(2), all parties
responsible for collecting and paying
the fees would have to maintain
sufficient documentation for APHIS,
CBP, and authorized representatives to
verify the accuracy of the fee collections
and remittance worksheets or written
statements. Such information would
have to be made available for inspection
upon APHIS and CBP’s demand. Such
documentation would be required to be
maintained in the United States for a
period of 5 years from the date of
remittance calculation. Each entity
covered by this proposed requirement
would have to provide to APHIS and
CBP the name, address, and telephone
number of a responsible officer who is
able to verify any statements or records
required to be filed or maintained under
this section and to promptly notify
APHIS and CBP of any changes in the
identifying information previously
submitted. Currently, CBP conducts
U.S. Government Accountability Office
yellow book standard audits of the
commercial aircraft fee and
international air passenger fee on
APHIS’ and CBP’s behalf. APHIS seeks
to expand this arrangement to include
audits of the AQI program’s commercial
railroad car fee and international cruise
passenger fee.
Commenters stated that the proposed
5-year record retention period does not
align with current airline industry
practice and other Federal agency
policies (e.g., FAA requires certain
records be retained for 3 years).
This change is being made to
harmonize APHIS regulations with
CBP’s Consolidated Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA) fee
regulations in 19 CFR 24.22(g)(7), which
require a 5-year retention period. As we
explained in the proposed rule, CBP
audits the AQI aircraft and international
air passenger fee collections on APHIS’
behalf. CBP requires the 5-year-retention
period because the statute of limitations
for litigation purposes is 6 years. The 5year-retention period gives us the time
needed to state what is owed in the
event of non-payment as well as time to
bring legal action if necessary to collect.
APHIS will implement these changes in
this final rule.
Severability
We proposed to add a new § 354.3(k),
‘‘Severability,’’ to address the possibility
that this final rule, or portions of this
final rule, may be challenged in
litigation. It is APHIS’ intent that the
individual sections of this final rule be
severable from each other, and that if
any sections or portions of the
regulations are stayed or invalidated,
the validity of the remainder of the
sections shall not be affected and shall
continue to be operative. We received
no comments on this proposed addition
and will implement it in this final rule.
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 Orders 12866, 13563, 14094
and Regulatory Flexibility Act
This final rule has been determined to
be significant under section 3(f)(1) of
Executive Order 12866, as amended by
Executive Order 14094, ‘‘Modernizing
Regulatory Review,’’ and, therefore, has
been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget.
We have prepared an economic
analysis for this rulemaking. The
economic analysis provides a costbenefit analysis, as required by
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563,
which direct agencies to assess all costs
and benefits of available regulatory
alternatives and, if regulation is
necessary, to select regulatory
approaches that maximize net benefits
(including potential economic,
environmental, public health and safety
effects, and equity). Executive Order
13563 emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits, of
reducing costs, of harmonizing rules,
and of promoting flexibility. The
economic analysis also provides a final
regulatory flexibility analysis that
examines the potential economic effects
of this final 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 website (see footnote 1
in this document for a link to
Regulations.gov) or by contacting the
person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
The Food, Agriculture, Conservation
and Trade (FACT) Act of 1990 (as
amended) [21 U.S.C. 136a] authorizes
the Secretary of Agriculture to prescribe
and collect fees sufficient to cover the
cost of providing agricultural quarantine
and inspection services in connection
with the arrival at a port in the customs
territory of the United States, or the
preclearance or pre-inspection at a site
outside the customs territory of the
United States, of an international
passenger, commercial vessel,
commercial aircraft, commercial truck,
or commercial railroad car, and to cover
the cost of administering the AQI
program. The United States Department
of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)
Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ)
is responsible for developing and setting
the Agricultural Quarantine and
Inspection (AQI) user fee schedule, and
related regulatory policy. Periodically,
APHIS updates the schedule of rates
paid by users via the rulemaking
process. Due to a variety of factors, the
current AQI fee schedule results in
12 As described in: https://www.regulations.gov/
document/APHIS-2022-0023-0010.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:22 May 06, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\07MYR5.SGM
07MYR5
ER07MY24.098
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES5
Records Retention
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES5
insufficient collections to achieve full
cost recovery.
APHIS is making a number of
revisions to the regulations that govern
the user fee rates, and related regulatory
requirements for maritime vessels,
commercial trucks, commercial railroad
cars, commercial aircraft, and
international passengers on airlines and
cruise ships. The revisions make
adjustments to the cost model that is
used to calculate the fees. Those
revisions incorporate inflation into the
user fees, including the fee for treatment
monitoring.
This final rule will also eliminate an
exemption from the commercial aircraft
fee that currently applies to commercial
aircraft with 64 or fewer seats that meet
certain regulatory requirements;
eliminate an exemption from the
commercial vessel fee that currently
applies to commercial barges operating
between Canada and the United States
that meet certain regulatory
requirements; increase the ‘‘per arrival’’
multiple used to calculate the fee for a
multiple-use transponder for
commercial trucks; as well as increase
the ‘‘per arrival’’ multiple used to
calculate the prepaid railroad car fee
and apply the fee to all arriving railroad
cars.
APHIS has decided not to restructure
the treatment fee in this final rule.
Rather, we are retaining the perenclosure treatment fee, while
incorporating annual inflation
adjustments for this fee. Additionally,
based on comments received, APHIS
has created a reduced user fee rate for
commercial vessels operating solely
between the United States and Canada
and within either the Great Lakes or a
region along the coastline between
Alaska and Oregon, provided that the
vessels meet certain requirements.
This final rule will also update
remittance procedures to facilitate
timely submission of fees. Finally, we
have made editorial revisions in order to
clarify intent in the regulations.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:22 May 06, 2024
Jkt 262001
The Agricultural Quarantine and
Inspection (AQI) Program implements a
continuum of exclusion strategies and
activities that mitigate the plant and
animal health risks associated with the
spread of pests and diseases due to
global trade, international travel, or the
smuggling of prohibited agricultural and
related products. APHIS uses an
Activity-Based Cost (ABC) Model to
calculate the individual user fees. First,
costs are allocated to a series of
activities. Next, the costs assigned to
those activities are allocated to the fee
areas based on the level of effort
associated with each fee area. For
example, the costs associated with the
cargo inspection activity (which include
the costs of providing the service, as
well as the administrative and overhead
costs associated with providing the
service) are allocated to the commercial
vessel, truck, railroad car, and aircraft
fees, based on the level of effort in each
of those fee areas. This cost allocation
approach avoids cross-subsidization
(e.g., cargo inspection costs do not get
assigned to passengers or treatment
users).
When the cost of providing AQI
services and the fees paid to fund these
services do not align, adjustments are a
necessary step in reaching the goal of
full cost recovery. Services in the AQI
program must be provided, but when
the user fee is not covering the costs, the
user of the service is not bearing the true
cost of providing the service. This final
rule will benefit the public by
continuing to ensure that the fees
received from users for providing
necessary AQI services align with the
expenditures associated with providing
those services.
AQI services protect American
agriculture and natural resources from
sanitary and phytosanitary risks. The
spread of invasive species harms
domestic agricultural producers and
damages the natural environment.
Imported freight constitutes a major
phytosanitary risk. The wide diversity
of origins and commodities present
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
38631
multiple opportunities for pests to infest
a product or wood packing material.
AQI services are provided to mitigate
such phytosanitary risks. To ensure that
the expenditures on AQI services and
the fees applied to those services align,
adjustments to the fees are necessary.
Those most likely to be impacted by this
final rule are international air and sea
passengers, businesses within the truck,
rail, sea, and air transportation sectors,
and providers of treatment services.
While users of AQI services do incur
costs in the form of user fees, these user
fees enable the government to recover
the costs of providing AQI services.
However, the associated revenues do
not currently align with the costs of
providing these AQI services and
administering the AQI program.
Individual importers or passengers
may experience some financial burden
from the establishment of or increase in
user fees (or relief when a fee is
reduced), but the AQI services are
already being provided and thus are
already counted as government costs.
The revenue from user fees for services
provided are intended to cover the
expenditures for those services, a
concept known as transfer payments.
Examples of transfer payments include
fees paid to government agencies for
services provided by the agency. Federal
regulations with transfer payments are
assumed to have a one-to-one effect,
balancing benefits and costs.13 The
benefits and costs, as well as the
annualized transfer payments are
summarized in table A.
BILLING CODE 3410–34–P
13 Transfer payments are noted by the Office of
Management and Budget to include ‘‘Fees to
government agencies for goods or services provided
by the agency (monetary transfers from fee payers
to the government—the goods and services are
already counted as government costs and including
them as private costs would entail double
counting).’’ Federal regulations with transfer
payments are assumed to have a one-to-one effect
on benefits and costs. See: Regulatory Impact
Analysis: A Primer, page 8. https://
www.reginfo.gov/public/jsp/Utilities/circular-a-4_
regulatory-impact-analysis-a-primer.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\07MYR5.SGM
07MYR5
38632
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
Table A. Accounting statement of costs, benefits, and transfers associated with the rule.
Benefits
Non-Quantified Benefits
This final rule will better align AQI expenditures
and revenues by class. Transfer payments balance
the costs and benefits of the program.
Costs
Non-Quantified Costs
Realigned AQI user fees are intended to cover the
costs of providing AQI services. User fees transfer
the cost of those services from the government to
the users.
Transfers
Annualized Transfers by user class 1, 2
7% discount rate
3% discount rate
Air Passengers
$479,900,000
$480,800,000
Commercial Aircraft
$296,400,000
$297,300,000
Commercial Rail
$27,150,000
$27,270,000
3
$118,300,000
$118,700,000
Commercial Truck
Commercial Vessel
$187,600,000
$187,800,000
Cruise Vessel Passenger
$20,520,000
$20,560,000
Treatments ($/Hr.)
$8,750,000
$8,760,000
4
$1,139,000,000
$1,141,000,000
Total
1 Annualized value of transfers from FY 2025 through FY 2028; discounted at 7 and 3 percent,
2022 dollars.
2 Estimates of user fee collections (transfers) based on individual fee levels for each year of the
implementation schedule (see table B) multiplied by an estimate of the activity level in each fee
category. This activity level estimate is based on the average number of each category of arrivals
from FY 2017-2019, the 3 years for which clean data are available.
3 This estimate is based on truck arrivals from FY 2017-2019. To account for the change in both
the fee level and transponder cap, the estimate uses a distribution of 1,000,000 single payer
crossings and 125,000 transponders.
4 Totals may not sum due to rounding.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:22 May 06, 2024
Jkt 262001
commercial railroad cars, commercial
aircraft, and international air and sea
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
passengers arriving at U.S. ports (table
B).
E:\FR\FM\07MYR5.SGM
07MYR5
ER07MY24.099
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES5
The fee schedule will better reflect the
costs of AQI services provided to
commercial vessels, commercial trucks,
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
Table B. Current and scheduledAQI user fee rates (dollars)
Fee Area
AQI User Fee Schedule
Current Fee October 1,
October 1,
2024
2025
October 1,
2026
38633
October 1,
2027
Air Passenger
3.71
3.84
4.12
3.83
3.98
1
225.00
281.39
300.78
320.61
340.90
Commercial Aircraft
Commercial Vessel
825.00
2,903.73
2,981.17
3,059.61
3,139.06
Commercial Vessel-Great
N/A 2
837.51
850.03
862.54
875.06
Lakes/Cascadia
Commercial Truck
7.29
12.40
13.45
14.50
15.55
Commercial Railroad Car
2.00
6.51
8.72
7.23
7.97
Cruise Vessel Passenger
1.68
1.25
1.29
1.34
1.39
Treatment 3
237
240.60
244.19
247.79
251.38
1 We are delaying implementation of the commercial aircraft user fee for aircraft with 64 or fewer
seats until April 1, 2025.
2 This geographically limited fee rate does not exist under the current fee schedule; however,
certain vessels in this category do currently pay the current commercial vessel fee.
3 per enclosure
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES5
Air Passengers
The air passenger fee will increase
from $3.83 to $4.12 in FY 2028. The
total fee increase of $0.29 will be
approximately a 7.6 percent increase
from current fees, but only a 0.05
percent increase in the average price of
an international round-trip airfare.14
These changes in the effective cost for
international air travel are extremely
small, and seem unlikely to significantly
change consumer purchasing behavior.
Limitations in the amount and nature of
data available on such small fee changes
make it difficult for the agency to draw
specific conclusions as to how these
small changes in airfare will affect
international air travel overall.
However, any change in international
air travel due to a change of less than
one dollar in the price of international
airfare is likely to be small.
Commercial Aircraft
The commercial aircraft fee will
increase from $225 to $340.90 per
arrival in FY 2028. This increase of
$115.90 will be about a 51.5 percent
increase from the current fees. Between
2013 and 2019 the volume of imports
into the United States by air increased
by eight percent (82 million kg) and the
value increased by 57 percent in
constant dollars. Even after the 51.5
14 Damodaran, A., Consumer Airfare Index
Report—May 2021. As travel demand returns and
more Americans are vaccinated, what does it mean
for airfare prices? May 18, 2021.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:22 May 06, 2024
Jkt 262001
percent increase, the commercial
aircraft fee is still the equivalent of 0.05
percent of the value of goods being
imported by air. In terms of the cargo
alone, the 2028 commercial aircraft fee
rate under this rulemaking represents
approximately $0.069 in dollars-perkilogram imported by air generally. In
addition, the commercial aircraft user
fee constitutes a small portion of the
expenses associated with commercial
aircraft. And moreover, most
international arrivals have passenger
airfares as a primary revenue source.
Even with the commercial aircraft fee
increasing by $115.90 by 2028, the
commercial aircraft user fee is
equivalent to approximately five
minutes of operating costs for aircraft.15
Like all AQI user fees, this fee is based
solely on the actual cost of AQI services
provided for this mode of conveyance
between FY 2017 and FY 2019, plus
forecasted staffing and capital costs,
adjusted for inflation. The fee for this
conveyance is not derived from the
financial performance of the industry.
Limitations in the internal industry
performance data available to the
agency make it difficult to develop
specific conclusions as to how such a
fee change will affect the commercial
aircraft industry overall. This
15 Federal Aviation Administration. Economic
Values for Investment and Regulatory Decisions—
Chapter 4: Aircraft Operating Costs. March 2021
Update. Retrieved on June 8, 2022, from https://
www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/regulations_
policies/policy_guidance/benefit_cost/econ-valuesection-4-op-costs.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
information, however, is used to
contextualize the scale of the collections
and illustrate the relative size and
impact that the fee might have on the
conveyance as a whole. However, the
increase in the AQI commercial aircraft
fee is likely to have a limited impact on
aircraft operators.
Small Aircraft Exemption
The commercial aircraft user fee is not
currently applied to the international
arrivals of certain commercial aircraft
with 64 or fewer seats. Commercial
aircraft with 64 or fewer seats
comprised approximately 10 percent of
arriving international flights from 2016
to 2018. This final rule will result in the
removal of this exemption.
In light of the fact that small
commercial aircraft have not previously
been subject to the fee, APHIS believes
that additional time is warranted to
allow operators to come into
compliance. Accordingly, APHIS is
delaying the effective date for removal
of the exemption for aircraft with 64 or
fewer seats until April 1, 2025.
The commercial aircraft fee is based
on the average cost of clearing
commercial aircraft and their cargo. The
cost associated with any specific
aircraft, whether small or large, also
depends on a variety of other factors
because the phytosanitary risk posed by
a particular aircraft is based upon the
country of origin, countries transited,
type and volume of cargo, country of
origin of the cargo, and environmental
conditions at point of origin and final
E:\FR\FM\07MYR5.SGM
07MYR5
ER07MY24.100
BILLING CODE 3410–34–C
38634
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES5
destination. These costs are not
currently borne by all operators of
commercial aircraft with fewer than 65
seats arriving internationally.
Domestic flights are not subject to the
commercial aircraft fee. For most
operators of small commercial aircraft,
domestic flights are the greatest portion
of their operations and associated
revenue. The removal of the exemption
only affects international arrivals of
aircraft with fewer than 65 seats. The
commercial aircraft fee is not derived
from the financial performance of the
industry. Like all AQI user fees, this fee
is based solely on the cost of providing
AQI services for this mode of
conveyance between FY 2017 and FY
2019, plus forecasted staffing and
capital costs, adjusted for inflation.
Because we do not have explicit data on
the per-flight revenue, profit margins,
and competitive landscape affecting
international arrivals of commercial
aircraft with 64 or fewer seats, we
cannot make specific conclusions as to
how the collection of this user fee will
affect individual businesses.
Approximately 7 percent of the flights
of the top 5 small aircraft operators, and
less than 5 percent of the flights of the
top 10 operators, are international
arrivals. This provides context for the
scale of the collections and illustrates
the impact that the fee might have on
the affected entities.
Commercial Vessels
The commercial vessel fee will
increase from $825 to $3,139.06 by FY
2028. Some vessels operating in the
Great Lakes or Cascadia areas will be
eligible to pay a reduced commercial
vessel fee. A variety of factors
contributed to the commercial vessel fee
increase. Among these were an increase
in the cost of AQI services across the
pathway, an expansion of the average
ship cargo capacity, and an increase in
the level of effort required to inspect the
average vessel. Even with the
commercial vessel fee increasing by up
to 280 percent to $3,139.06 by FY 2028,
the commercial vessel fee remains very
small relative to other vessel operating
expenses. It is equivalent to
approximately 2 percent of a single
day’s fuel consumption for a moderately
sized container ship.16 The fee for this
conveyance is not derived from the
financial performance of the industry.
16 Global
20 port average VSLFO, first half of
2022. Retrieved 08/11/22 from https://shipand
bunker.com; Stratiotis, E. Fuel Costs in Ocean
Shipping. January 22, 2018. (https://www.morethan
shipping.com/fuel-costs-ocean-shipping); $3139.06/
$900 (per ton of fuel) = 3.5 tons of fuel. Average
fuel consumption is 200 tons/day. 3.5 tons/200 tons
= 1.75%
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:22 May 06, 2024
Jkt 262001
Like all AQI user fees, this fee is based
solely on the costs for providing AQI
services for this mode of conveyance
between FY 2017 and FY 2019, plus
forecasted staffing and capital costs,
adjusted for inflation. The change to the
commercial vessel fee seems likely to
have a limited impact on the operations
of commercial vessels.
Canadian Barge Exemption
From 2016 through 2018, an annual
average of 1,405 commercial barges
arrived from Canada into the United
States, most of which are exempt from
the current commercial vessel AQI fee.
Vessel companies and ports facilitating
the movement of currently exempted
barge shipments from Canada and the
United States will be affected. APHIS
has concluded that barges from Canada
that are currently exempted do pose a
phytosanitary risk and require
inspection and payment of the
associated fee. Barges operating in the
Great Lakes and Cascadia areas also
require inspection and a payment of a
fee. However, those meeting certain
additional conditions will be eligible to
pay a reduced fee, provided their cargo
meets the requirements. The reduced fee
represents approximately $.00025 per
kilogram imported by barge. These fees
are not derived from the financial
performance of the industry. This
information provides context for the
scale of the collections and illustrates
the impact that the fee might have on
the affected entities. Because we do not
have explicit data on international barge
traffic revenue, profit margins, and the
competitive landscape affecting arrivals
of currently-exempt barges from Canada,
we cannot make specific conclusions as
to how the collection of this user fee
will affect individual entities.
Commercial Trucks
The commercial truck fee will
increase from $7.29 to $15.55 17 by
2028, an increase of $8.26 per truck
arrival. In addition, commercial truck
operators have the option to prepay for
an unlimited number of arrivals (per
year) by purchasing a transponder, the
price of which will increase from the
equivalent of 40 arrivals to 50 arrivals
in the period between October 1, 2024
and October 1, 2025, and thereafter to
60 arrivals.18 Between 2013 and 2019
17 $15.59 rounded down to the nearest $0.05 (fivecent) increment. At CBP’s request, we rounded
down to the next $0.05 (five-cent) increment to
facilitate operations at the border. CBP has
indicated that making change at the penny level for
single-payer trucks would have a negative impact
on wait times at the land border.
18 In addition, commercial truck operators have
the option to prepay for an unlimited number of
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
imports into the United States by truck
increased by 397 million kilograms.
Even after a 114 percent increase, the
user fee of $15.55 in 2028 for a
commercial truck entering the U.S. will
be the equivalent of 0.034 percent of the
average value of goods imported by
truck. The user fee in 2028 in dollarsper-kilogram for truck cargo is
approximately $0.0014. In addition, this
user fee is roughly the equivalent of the
operating expenditures of a truck
transporting goods about nine miles.
The fee for this conveyance is not
derived from the financial performance
of the industry. Limitations in the
internal industry performance data
available to the agency make it difficult
to develop specific conclusions as to
how such a fee change will affect the
commercial truck industry overall. This
information, however, is used to
contextualize the scale of the collections
and illustrate the relative size and
impact that the fee might have on the
conveyance as a whole. The impact of
this fee change on the operations of
commercial trucks seems likely to be
limited. Because of the efficiencies
gained by both the program and users of
the AQI services, APHIS will also
continue to provide an incentive to
purchase the transponder in the form of
a cap.
Commercial Railroad Cars
The commercial railroad car fee will
increase from $2 to $8.72 per arriving
railroad car by 2028, a total increase of
$6.72. Between 2013 and 2019, imports
into the United States by rail remained
relatively constant, but technology
improvements have allowed for a
reduction in the number of railroad cars
assessed the commercial railroad car
fee. Even after a total increase of
approximately 337 percent, the
commercial railroad car fee is
approximately 0.029 percent of the
value of goods being imported on by
railroad car. The user fee in 2028 in
dollars-per-kilogram for commercial
railroad cars generally is approximately
$0.0004. Limitations in the amount and
nature of data available to the agency
make it difficult to develop specific
conclusions as to how these fee changes
will affect international commercial
railroad car arrivals overall. Like all AQI
user fees, this fee is based solely on the
cost of providing AQI services for this
mode of conveyance between FY 2017
and FY 2019, plus forecasted staffing
and capital costs, adjusted for inflation.
arrivals (per year) by purchasing a transponder, the
price of which will increase from the equivalent of
40 arrivals to 50 arrivals in the period between
October 1, 2024 and October 1, 2025, and thereafter
to 60 arrivals.
E:\FR\FM\07MYR5.SGM
07MYR5
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
Industry information is used to
contextualize the scale of the collections
and illustrate the relative size and
impact that the fee might have on the
conveyance as a whole. The change to
this user fee seems likely to have a
limited impact on commercial railroad
car operations.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES5
International Cruise Vessel Passengers
The international cruise vessel
passenger fee will decline by 31 percent
initially, and still be 21 percent lower
than the current fee by 2028, an overall
decline of $0.29 per passenger arrival.
Limitations in the amount and nature of
data available to the agency make it
difficult to develop specific conclusions
as to how small fee changes will affect
international cruise passenger arrivals
overall. However, a decrease of $0.29 in
the fee represents less than a 0.02
percent decrease in the cost of a 7-day
cruise.
Treatment Monitoring
APHIS monitors phytosanitary
treatments to ensure that they are
conducted as prescribed. APHIS
proposed to shift the treatment
monitoring fee to an hourly basis rather
than a per-enclosure basis, and to make
adjustments to the remittance practices
for the treatment monitoring fee. Based
on the comments received, we have
decided not to make that structural
revision to our AQI treatment
monitoring fee or the remittance
practices in this final rule. APHIS will
keep the per-enclosure fee in place with
annual adjustments for projected
inflation, and the remittance practices
will remain unchanged at this time.
APHIS estimates the total annualized
cost of the paperwork and
recordkeeping associated with this final
rule to be $70,061. Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements associated
with this final rule are discussed under
the heading ‘‘Paperwork Reduction
Act.’’
The Small Business Administration
has set small-entity standards for the
transportation sectors. Small entities
make up between 92 percent and 99
percent of each of the regulated
industries, though the size data do not
distinguish between transportation
firms that operate internationally and
those firms that only operate within the
United States. The impacts of this final
rule are likely to be limited for all
entities within the affected industries,
including small entities. While most
businesses that will be affected by this
final rule are likely to be small, for the
reasons discussed further in the Final
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, we
believe that the changes set forth in this
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:22 May 06, 2024
Jkt 262001
final rule satisfactorily accomplish the
regulatory objectives while minimizing
impact on small entities. The provisions
of this final rule are consistent with
ensuring a level of AQI services
commensurate with that required to
safeguard American agriculture and
natural resources from sanitary and
phytosanitary risks.
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.
Executive Order 13175
This final rule has been reviewed in
accordance with the requirements of
Executive Order 13175, ‘‘Consultation
and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments.’’ Executive Order 13175
requires Federal agencies to consult and
coordinate with Tribes on a
government-to-government basis on
policies that have Tribal implications,
including regulations, legislative
comments or proposed legislation, and
other policy statements or actions that
have substantial direct effects on one or
more Indian Tribes, on the relationship
between the Federal Government and
Indian Tribes or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the
Federal Government and Indian Tribes.
The Puyallup Tribe has requested
Tribal consultation regarding this final
rule. APHIS will coordinate with the
Office of Tribal Relations to ensure that
meaningful consultation occurs.
Congressional Review Act
Pursuant to subtitle E of the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, also known as the
Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
et seq.), the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs determined that this
rule meets the criteria set forth in 5
U.S.C. 804(2).
Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with section 3507(d) of
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), some of the
reporting and recordkeeping
requirements in the proposed rule and
this final rule have been submitted for
approval to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) control number
0579–0055, APHIS Credit and User Fee
Accounts. The remaining reporting and
recordkeeping requirements that were
solely associated with this final rule
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
38635
were submitted to OMB as a new
information collection and assigned
OMB comment-filed number 0579–
0489. After approval, this information
collection will be merged into 0579–
0055 in the future.
New information collection
requirements created by the regulations
of this final rule include information
collection, reporting, and recordkeeping
requirements in the form of paper,
electronic submissions, and information
systems. In conjunction with the
changes to provide for cost recovery for
services, we have considered each
change and their impact(s) on these
burdens. These changes concern
adjusting fee amounts, adjusting caps on
certain prepaid fees, removing
exemptions, and providing electronic
payments and statement options.
Estimates include additional
respondents, responses, and burden
estimates across all activities affected by
this rule.
As described above, APHIS received
several public comments on the
proposed rule, and the following
changes were made to the final rule:
• We have lowered the fees for
commercial vessels, commercial aircraft,
and international air passengers based
on our determination that, while
aggregate cost was correct (the
numerator for the fee rate), there were
more instances in which AQI services
were provided in these modes (the
denominator for the fee rate) than we
had initially calculated.
• We have established a commercial
vessel fee specific to commercial vessels
operating within the Great Lakes or in
the region along the coastline from
Alaska to Oregon, provided that certain
conditions are met.
• We have decided not to revise our
regulations governing the treatment
monitoring fee at this time.
• We have decided not to specify the
method by which airlines and cruise
ships must refund passenger user fees
assessed for trips not taken.
With these changes, there are
corresponding updates in the related
recordkeeping burdens (Applications for
Credit Account and Request for
Services, User Fees for International Air
Passengers—Remittance and
Statements, and Fees for Conducting
and Monitoring Treatments) between
the proposed and final rules. There was
no impact on burden assumptions
between the proposed and final rules
due to the first two bulleted items
above. The estimated burden on
commercial vessels, commercial aircraft,
and international aircraft customers has
not changed. In addition, the volumes of
payers of the new commercial vessel fee
E:\FR\FM\07MYR5.SGM
07MYR5
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES5
38636
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
specific to commercial vessels operating
within the Great Lakes or in the region
along the coastline from Alaska to
Oregon is a subset of the original
burdens vessel user fee-related burdens
included in the proposed rule, so there
is no change in the estimated burden
between the proposed and final rules.
Because the revisions to the treatment
user fees in the proposed rule would
have created new burdens, the decision
not to revise the regulations governing
the treatment monitoring user fees has
lowered the assumed burdens between
the proposed and this the final rule in
four ways:
• The proposed rule assumed there
would be 2,844 new treatments (1,190
heat treatments and 1,654 irradiation
treatments) with an estimated 5 minutes
per treatment burden yielding 237
respondent burden hours per year. With
the removal of the treatment fee changes
from the final rule, we reduced the
burden estimate between the proposed
and final rules accordingly.
• The proposed rule included a new
billing process for treatment monitoring,
and in the proposed rule, we assumed
half of the approximate 50 treatment
facilities would want to be billed. 25
facilities x 8.4 minutes per facility (the
estimated time for a facility to complete
an application for an account based on
timed trials) = 3.5 respondent burden
hours for treatment facilities to manage
being billed. With the removal of the
treatment fee changes from the final
rule, we reduced the burden estimate
between the proposed and final rules
accordingly.
• The proposed rule included
consequences for late payment of AQI
treatment monitoring user fees and
estimated there would be six treatment
facilities incurring an increased time
burden of 20 minutes per facility for an
estimated increase in respondent
burden of 2 hours. We removed these 2
hours from our estimated burden with
the removal of the treatment fee changes
from the final rule.
• The proposed rule included a
reduction in the need for facilities to
create new business procedures to hold
fees in trust estimating it would save 50
treatment facilities 4.75 hours per year
for a total of 237 reduction in
respondent burden hours each year for
individuals and 237 reduction in
respondent burden hours each year for
businesses. With the removal of the
treatment fee changes from the final
rule, the treatment facilities remain
holding fee collections in trust. For this
change between the proposed rule and
final rule, we added 237 respondent
burden hours into the total number of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:22 May 06, 2024
Jkt 262001
respondent burden hours between the
proposed and final rules.
In addition, the decision not to
specify the method by which airlines
and cruise ships must refund passenger
user fees assessed for trips not taken has
also lowered the assumed burdens
between the proposed rule and the final
rule. The proposed rule assumed one
third of the estimated 331 airlines
would be required to submit revised
remittance sheets each month. 1⁄3 of 331
airlines = 110 airlines. We estimated
those 110 airlines would be required to
submit 12 additional remittances per
year taking 3 minutes each at 66 hours
of additional burden per year. With the
decision not to specify the passenger
user fee refund methods, we have
reduced the overall respondent burden
estimate between the proposed and final
rule by this amount.
With the changes to the final rule, the
estimated number of respondents has
decreased by 392, the estimated number
of responses has decreased by 9,881,
and the estimated burden has decreased
by 781 hours.
E-Government Act Compliance
The Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service is committed to
compliance with the E-Government Act
to promote the use of the internet and
other information technologies, to
provide increased opportunities for
citizen access to Government
information and services, and for other
purposes. For information pertinent to
E-Government Act compliance related
to this final rule, please contact Mr.
Joseph Moxey, APHIS’ Paperwork
Reduction Act Coordinator, at (301)
851–2533.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104.4, establishes requirements for
Federal agencies to assess the effects of
their regulatory actions on State, local,
tribal governments, and the private
sector. Under section 101 of the UMRA,
APHIS generally must prepare a written
statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules
with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may
result in expenditures by State, local, or
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or
by the private sector, of $100 million or
more in any one year. When such a
statement is needed for a rule, section
205 of the UMRA generally requires
APHIS to identify and consider a
reasonable number of regulatory
alternatives and adopt the least costly,
more cost-effective, or least burdensome
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
alternative that achieves the objectives
of the rule.
This rule contains no Federal
mandates (under the regulatory
provisions of Title II of the UMRA) that
may result in expenditures by State,
local, and tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector, of
$100 million or more in any one year.
Thus, this rule is not subject to the
requirements of sections 202 and 205 of
the UMRA.
Executive Order 13132
APHIS has reviewed this rule in
accordance with Executive Order 13132
regarding Federalism and has
determined that it does not have
‘‘federalism implications.’’ The rule
does not ‘‘have substantial direct effects
on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and
the States, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government.’’
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 354
Exports, Government employees,
Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Travel and transportation
expenses.
As discussed in the preamble, APHIS
is amending 7 CFR part 354 as follows:
PART 354—OVERTIME SERVICES
RELATING TO IMPORTS AND
EXPORTS; AND USER FEES
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.
■
2. Revise § 354.3 to read as follows:
§ 354.3 User fees for certain international
services.
(a) Definitions. Whenever in this
section the following terms are used,
unless the context otherwise requires,
they shall be construed, respectively, to
mean:
APHIS. The Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service of the United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA).
Arrival. Arrival at a port of entry, as
listed in 19 CFR 101.3 or as defined by
19 CFR 101.1, in the customs territory
of the United States or at any place
serviced by any such port of entry.
Calendar year. The period from
January 1 to December 31, inclusive, of
any particular year.
Cascadia. British Columbia and those
ports of entry into the United States
lying south of 59°26′59.316″ N, north of
43°23′34.152″ N, west of 122°20′31.2″
W, and east of 135°20′2.4″ W.’’
E:\FR\FM\07MYR5.SGM
07MYR5
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
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).
Commercial aircraft. Any aircraft
used to transport persons or property for
compensation or hire.
Commercial purpose. The intention of
receiving compensation or making a
gain or profit.
Commercial railroad car. Any
carrying vehicle, measured from coupler
to coupler and designed to operate on
railroad tracks, other than a locomotive
or a caboose.
Commercial shipment. A shipment for
gain or profit.
Commercial truck. Any self-propelled
vehicle, including an empty vehicle or
a truck cab without a trailer, which is
designed and used for the transportation
of commercial merchandise or for the
transportation of non-commercial
merchandise on a for-hire basis.
Commercial vessel. Any watercraft or
other contrivance used or capable of
being used as a means of transportation
on water to transport property for
compensation or hire, with the
exception of any aircraft or ferry.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
U.S. Customs and Border Protection,
U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
Customs territory of the United States.
The 50 States, the District of Columbia,
and Puerto Rico.
Designated State or county inspector.
A State or county plant regulatory
official designated by the Secretary of
Agriculture to inspect and certify to
shippers and other interested parties as
to the phytosanitary condition of plant
products inspected under the Plant
Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.).
Great Lakes. The Great Lakes of North
America and the waters of the St.
38637
Lawrence River west of a rhumb line
drawn from Cap de Rosiers to West
Point, Anticosti Island, and west of a
line along 63° W. longitude from
Anticosti Island to the north shore of the
St. Lawrence River.
Passenger. A natural person for whom
transportation is provided, including
infants, whether a separate ticket or
travel document is issued for the infant,
or the infant or toddler occupies a seat,
or the infant or toddler is held or carried
by another passenger.
Person. An individual, corporation,
partnership, trust, association, or any
other public or private entity, or any
officer, employee, or agent thereof.
(b) Fee for inspection of commercial
vessels of 100 net tons or more. (1)
Except as provided in paragraphs (b)(2)
and (3) of this section, the master,
licensed deck officer, or purser of any
commercial vessel which is subject to
inspection under part 330 of this
chapter or 9 CFR chapter I, subchapter
D, and which is either required to make
entry at the customs house under 19
CFR 4.3 or is a U.S.-flag vessel
proceeding coastwise under 19 CFR
4.85, shall, upon arrival, proceed to CBP
and pay an agricultural quarantine and
inspection (AQI) user fee. The base AQI
user fee for each arrival is shown in
table 1. The fee will be paid for each
arrival regardless of the number of
arrivals taking place in the course of a
single voyage.
(2) The following categories of
commercial vessels are exempt from
paying an AQI user fee:
(i) Commercial cruise vessels carrying
passengers paying fees under paragraph
(f) of this section;
(ii) Any vessel which, at the time of
arrival, is being used solely as a tugboat;
(iii) Vessels used exclusively in the
governmental service of the United
States or a foreign government,
including any agency or political
subdivision of the United States or a
foreign government, so long as the
vessel is not carrying persons or
merchandise for commercial purposes;
(iv) Vessels arriving in distress or to
take on fuel, sea stores, or ship’s stores;
(v) Tugboats towing vessels on the
Great Lakes; and
(vi) Vessels returning to the United
States after traveling to Canada solely to
take on fuel.
(3) If not otherwise exempt from
paying the fee, a vessel traveling solely
between the United States and Canada
and within the Great Lakes or Cascadia
may pay the AQI user fee for each
arrival as the fee is shown in table 2,
provided that the vessel:
(i) Is not carrying cargo originating
from countries other than the United
States or Canada.
(ii) Is not carrying plants or plant
products.
TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (b)(1)—FEE
(iii) Is not carrying animals or animal
FOR INSPECTION OF COMMERCIAL
products.
VESSELS OF 100 NET TONS OR
(iv) Is not carrying soil or quarry
MORE
products from areas in Canada listed in
§ 319.77–3 of this chapter as being
Effective date
Amount
infested with gypsy moth.
October 1, 2024 ........................
$2,903.73
(v) Is not carrying wood packaging
October 1, 2025 ........................
2,981.17
material
as defined under § 319.40–1 of
October 1, 2026 ........................
3,059.61
October 1, 2027 ........................
3,139.06 this chapter.
TABLE 2 TO PARAGRAPH (b)(3)—FEE FOR INSPECTION OF COMMERCIAL VESSELS TRAVELING SOLELY BETWEEN THE
UNITED STATES AND CANADA AND WITHIN THE GREAT LAKES OR CASCADIA, AND NOT OTHERWISE EXEMPT
Effective date
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES5
October
October
October
October
1,
1,
1,
1,
2024
2025
2026
2027
.............................................................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................................................
(c) Fee for inspection of commercial
trucks—(1) On-arrival payment. Upon
arrival at a CBP port of entry, the driver
or other person in charge of a
commercial truck that is subject to
inspection under part 330 of this
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Amount
20:22 May 06, 2024
Jkt 262001
chapter or under 9 CFR chapter I,
subchapter D, must tender the AQI user
fees to CBP, unless they have been
prepaid as provided for in paragraph
(c)(2) of this section. APHIS strongly
encourages electronic remittance of fees.
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
$837.51
850.03
862.54
875.06
The fee applies to all commercial trucks,
regardless of what they are carrying, as
well as empty trucks and truck cabs (see
table 3).
E:\FR\FM\07MYR5.SGM
07MYR5
38638
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 3 TO PARAGRAPH (c)(1)—FEE FOR INSPECTION OF COMMERCIAL TRUCKS
Amount
(per arrival)
Effective date
October
October
October
October
1,
1,
1,
1,
2024
2025
2026
2027
...........................................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................................
$12.40
13.45
14.50
15.55
Amount
(prepaid
annual fees)
$622.00
808.20
870.60
935.40
Note: The per arrival fee has been rounded down to the next $0.05 (five-cent) increment to facilitate border operations. Additionally, the prepaid fees are set at 50 times the unrounded fee rate of $12.44, and 60 times the unrounded fee rates of $13.47, $14.51, and $15.59,
respectively.
(2) Prepayment. (i) The owner, their
agent, or person in charge of a
commercial vehicle may at any time
prepay the commercial truck AQI fee as
defined in paragraph (c)(1) of this
section for all arrivals of that vehicle
during a calendar year or any remaining
portion of a calendar year. The
prepayment transponder fee is set at 50
times the unrounded per arrival fee for
the period between October 1, 2024 and
September 30, 2025, and 60 times the
unrounded per arrival fee thereafter.
Prepayment of the AQI fee must be
made in accordance with the procedures
and payment methods set forth in 19
CFR 24.22. The following information
must be provided, together with the
prepayment amount for each arrival:
(A) Vehicle make, model, and model
year;
(B) Vehicle Identification Number
(VIN);
(C) License numbers issued by State,
Province, or country; and
(D) Owner’s name and address.
(ii) Purchases of transponders may be
made at any time during a calendar
year; APHIS will not prorate for the
portion of the calendar year already
elapsed, nor refund single-crossing fees
already paid.
(d) Fee for inspection of commercial
railroad cars—(1) General requirement.
Except as provided in paragraph (d)(2)
of this section, an AQI user fee will be
charged for each commercial railroad
car (loaded or empty) which is subject
to inspection under part 330 of this
chapter or under 9 CFR chapter I,
subchapter D, upon each arrival, as
indicated in table 4. The railroad
company receiving a railroad car in
interchange at a port of entry or, barring
interchange, the company moving a car
in line haul service into the customs
territory of the United States, will be
responsible for payment of the fee.
Payment of the fee must be made in
accordance with the procedures set
forth in paragraph (d)(3) or (4) of this
section. For purposes of this paragraph
(d), the term ‘‘railroad car’’ means any
carrying vehicle, measured from coupler
to coupler and designed to operate on
railroad tracks. If the AQI user fee is
prepaid for all arrivals of a commercial
railroad car during a calendar year or
any remaining portion of a calendar
year, the AQI user fee is an amount 48
times the AQI user fee for each arrival.
TABLE 4 TO PARAGRAPH (d)(1)—FEE FOR INSPECTION OF COMMERCIAL RAILROAD CARS
Amount
(per arrival)
Effective date
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES5
October
October
October
October
1,
1,
1,
1,
2024
2025
2026
2027
...........................................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................................
(2) Exemptions. The following
categories of commercial railroad cars
are exempt from paying an AQI user fee:
(i) Any commercial railroad car that is
part of a train whose journey originates
and terminates in Canada, if:
(A) The commercial railroad car is
part of the train when the train departs
Canada; and
(B) No passengers board or disembark
from the commercial railroad car, and
no cargo is loaded or unloaded from the
commercial railroad car, while the train
is within the United States.
(ii) Any commercial railroad car that
is part of a train whose journey
originates and terminates in the United
States, if:
(A) The commercial railroad car is
part of the train when the train departs
the United States; and
(B) No passengers board or disembark
from the commercial railroad car, and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:22 May 06, 2024
Jkt 262001
no cargo is loaded or unloaded from the
commercial railroad car, while the train
is within any country other than the
United States; and
(iii) Locomotives and cabooses.
(3) Prepayment. The owner, agent, or
person in charge of a railroad company
may at any time prepay the commercial
railroad car AQI fee as defined in
paragraph (d)(1) of this section for all
arrivals of that railroad car during a
calendar year or any remaining portion
of a calendar. This payment must be
remitted in accordance with paragraph
(d)(4)(iii) of this section.
(4) Remittance procedures. The
Association of American Railroads
(AAR), the National Railroad Passenger
Corporation (AMTRAK), and railroad
companies acting individually shall file
monthly written statement with USDA,
APHIS, FMD, within 90 days after the
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
$6.51
7.23
7.97
8.72
Amount
(prepaid)
$312.48
347.04
382.56
418.56
end of each calendar month. Each
written statement shall indicate:
(i) The number of commercial railroad
cars entering the customs territory of the
United States during the relevant period
by railroad company;
(ii) The total monthly AQI user fees
due from each railroad company; and
(iii) In the case of prepayments to
cover all annual arrivals of certain
railroad car(s) in accordance with
paragraph (d)(3) of this section; include
the number of railroad cars being
prepaid for, railroad car number(s)
covered by the prepayment and the
calendar year to which the prepayment
applies.
(iv) Railroad companies may include
the written statement with their mailed
payment as directed in this paragraph
(d)(4). For all other payment types, the
companies must email the written
E:\FR\FM\07MYR5.SGM
07MYR5
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES5
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
statement to [email protected].
Individual railroad companies must
submit a written statement for periods
with no fees collected. Detailed
remittance instructions are located at
https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/
ourfocus/business-services/aqi-userfees. Questions and correspondence
may be directed to ABSHelpline@
usda.gov or (612) 336–3400 (fax) or
(877) 777–2128 (phone).
(5) Payment procedures. (i) If the
railroad company intends to pay
monthly, the owner, agent or person in
charge of an individual railroad
company shall pay the AQI user fees
calculated by the Association of
American Railroads (AAR), the National
Railroad Passenger Corporation
(AMTRAK), or the individual railroad
company itself within 90 days after the
end of each calendar month in which
commercial railroad cars entered the
customs territory of the United States.
(ii) If the owner, agent or person in
charge of an individual railroad
company intends to prepay for railroad
car(s) for the entire calendar year, as
specified in paragraph (d)(3) of this
section, prepayment may be made at
any time during a calendar year; APHIS
will not prorate for the portion of the
calendar year already elapsed, nor
refund or credit per arrival fees already
paid.
(iii) Written statements as described
in paragraph (d)(4) of this section, are
required to accompany all payments.
Detailed payment instructions are
located at https://www.aphis.usda.gov/
aphis/ourfocus/business-services/aqiuser-fees. Questions and
correspondence may be sent to
[email protected], fax (612) 336–
3400 or phone (877) 777–2128.
(6) Compliance. (i) AAR, AMTRAK,
and each railroad company responsible
for making AQI user fee payments must
allow APHIS, CBP, and authorized
representatives to verify the accuracy of
AQI user fees collected and remitted
and otherwise determine compliance
with 21 U.S.C. 136a and this paragraph
(d). The AAR, AMTRAK, and each
railroad company responsible for
making AQI user fee payments must
advise the USDA, APHIS, FMD of the
name, address, and telephone number of
an agent or other responsible person
who is authorized to verify AQI user fee
calculations, collections, and written
statements, payments, as well as any
changes in the identifying information
submitted.
(ii) The agent or other responsible
person for a payment remains the agent
or responsible person until the railroad
company notifies APHIS of a transfer of
responsibility. The agent or responsible
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:22 May 06, 2024
Jkt 262001
person must contact APHIS to initiate
any transfer by contacting
[email protected]. The new agent
or responsible person assumes all
responsibilities for ensuring compliance
for meeting the requirements of this
part.
(e)(1) Fee for inspection of
commercial aircraft. Except as provided
in paragraph (e)(2) of this section, an
AQI user fee will be charged for each
commercial aircraft which is arriving, or
which has arrived and is proceeding
from one United States airport to
another under a CBP ‘‘Permit to
Proceed,’’ as specified in 19 CFR 122.81
through 122.85, or an ‘‘Agricultural
Clearance or Safeguard Order’’ (PPQ
Form 250), used pursuant to § 330.400
of this chapter and 9 CFR 94.5, and
which is subject to inspection under
part 330 of this chapter or 9 CFR chapter
I, subchapter D. Each carrier or their
agent is responsible for paying the AQI
user fee. The AQI user fee for each
arrival is shown in table 5:
38639
must pay the appropriate fees for receipt
no later than 90 days after the close of
the month in which the aircraft arrivals
occurred. APHIS strongly encourages
electronic payment of fees. To set up
electronic payment refer to our detailed
instructions at https://www.aphis.
usda.gov/mrpbs/userfees/aqi-paymenttypes.pdf or for further information
relative to electronic remittance, or for
further information relative to electronic
remittance, contact ABSHelpline@
usda.gov. In the event electronic
remission is impractical, a check or
money order can be mailed to the
Agency lock box following detailed
payment instructions at https://
www.aphis.usda.gov/mrpbs/userfees/
aqi-payment-types.pdf. Questions and
correspondence may be directed to
[email protected] or to (612) 336–
3400 (fax) or (877) 777–2128 (phone).
For payment information, refer to our
detailed payment instructions at https://
www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/
business-services/aqi-user-fees. Late
payments will be subject to interest,
TABLE 5 TO PARAGRAPH (e)(1)—FEE penalty, and a charge to cover the cost
FOR INSPECTION OF COMMERCIAL of processing and handling a delinquent
claim as provided in the Debt Collection
AIRCRAFT
Act of 1982, as amended by the Debt
Effective date
Amount
Collection Improvement Act of 1996 (31
U.S.C. 3717).
October 1, 2024 ........................
$281.39
(ii) The carrier or their agent must
October 1, 2025 ........................
300.78 provide a written statement each month
October 1, 2026 ........................
320.61
stating the fees that are due for the
October 1, 2027 ........................
340.90
month. Carriers or their agents must
include a hard copy of the written
(2) Exemptions. The following
statement with any mailed payment. For
categories of commercial aircraft are
all other payment types, including for
exempt from paying an AQI user fee:
months with no fees collected, the
(i) [Reserved]
carriers must email the written
(ii) Any aircraft used exclusively in
the governmental services of the United statement to [email protected].
(iii) The written statement must
States or a foreign government,
include the following information:
including any Agency or political
(A) Name and address of the person
subdivision of the United States or a
making the payment;
foreign government, as long as the
(B) Calendar month covered by the
aircraft is not carrying persons or
payment;
merchandise for commercial purposes;
(C) Amount being paid, or a written
(iii) Any aircraft making an
statement stating that no fees were
emergency or forced landing when the
original destination of the aircraft was a collected.
(iv) All fee payments required under
foreign port;
this
section must be made in U.S.
(iv) [Reserved]
dollars. For all payment types accepted,
(v) Any aircraft moving from the U.S.
please visit https://www.aphis.usda.gov/
Virgin Islands to Puerto Rico; and
aphis/ourfocus/business-services/aqi(vi) Any aircraft making an in-transit
stop at a port of entry, during which the user-fees.
(4) Compliance. Each carrier subject
aircraft does not proceed through any
portion of the Federal clearance process, to this section must allow APHIS, CBP,
and authorized representatives to verify
such as inspection or clearance by
the accuracy of the AQI user fees paid
APHIS or CBP, no cargo is removed
and to otherwise determine compliance
from or placed on the aircraft, no
in accordance with this paragraph (e)
passengers get on or off the aircraft, no
and 21 U.S.C. 136a. Each carrier must
crew members get on or off the aircraft,
no food is placed on the aircraft, and no advise USDA, APHIS, FMD, FOB of the
name, address, and telephone number of
garbage is removed from the aircraft.
(3) Remittance and payment
an agent or responsible person who is
procedures. (i) The carrier or their agent authorized to verify AQI user fee
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\07MYR5.SGM
07MYR5
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES5
38640
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
calculations, payments, and written
statements as well as any changes in the
identifying information submitted. The
agent or responsible person for a
payment remains the agent or
responsible person until the carrier
notifies APHIS of a transfer of
responsibility. The carrier or their agent
or responsible person must contact
APHIS at https://www.aphis.usda.gov/
aphis/ourfocus/planthealth/ppqprogram-overview/ppq-cbp-aqi-userfees-contacts to initiate any transfer.
The new agent or responsible person
assumes all responsibilities for ensuring
compliance for meeting the
requirements of this part.
(5) Limitations on charges. (i) Airlines
will not be charged reimbursable
overtime for inspection of aircraft if the
aircraft is subject to the AQI user fee for
arriving aircraft as prescribed by this
section.
(ii) Airlines will not be charged
reimbursable overtime for inspection of
cargo from an aircraft if:
(A) The aircraft is subject to the AQI
user fee for arriving aircraft as
prescribed by this section; and
(B) The cargo is inspected between 8
a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday; or
(C) The cargo is inspected
concurrently with the aircraft.
(f)(1) Fee for inspection of
international passengers. Except as
specified in paragraph (f)(2) of this
section, each passenger aboard a
commercial aircraft or cruise ship who
is subject to inspection under part 330
of this chapter or 9 CFR chapter I,
subchapter D, upon arrival from a place
outside of the customs territory of the
United States, must pay an AQI user fee.
The fee covers one individual arriving
into a port of entry within the customs
territory of the United States from a
foreign port. Each air or sea carrier,
travel agent, tour wholesaler, or other
party issuing a ticket or travel document
for transportation into the customs
territory of the United States is
responsible for collecting from the
passenger the applicable fee specified in
this section, including the fee applicable
to any infants or toddlers traveling
without a separate ticket or travel
document, whether in assigned seats or
held in an adult passenger’s lap. In the
event that the air or sea carrier, travel
agent, tour wholesaler, or other party
issuing a ticket or travel document does
not collect the AQI user fee when tickets
are sold, the air carrier or cruise line
must collect the user fee that is
applicable at the time of departure from
the passenger upon departure. The AQI
user fee will apply to tickets purchased
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:22 May 06, 2024
Jkt 262001
beginning October 1, 2024. The fees are
shown in tables 6 and 7:
(ix) Passengers moving from the U.S.
Virgin Islands to Puerto Rico.
(3) Circumstances of user fee
TABLE 6 TO PARAGRAPH (f)(1)—
collections. AQI user fees shall be
collected under the following
INTERNATIONAL AIR PASSENGER
circumstances:
Effective date
Amount
(i) When through tickets or travel
documents are issued indicating travel
October 1, 2024 ........................
$3.71 to the customs territory of the United
October 1, 2025 ........................
3.84
States that originates in any foreign
October 1, 2026 ........................
3.98
October 1, 2027 ........................
4.12 country; and
(ii) When passengers arrive in the
customs territory of the United States in
TABLE 7 TO PARAGRAPH (f)(1)—INTER- transit from a foreign country and are
NATIONAL CRUISE (SEA) PASSENGER
inspected by APHIS or CBP.
(4) Responsibility for collection of
Effective date
Amount
fees. (i) Any air or sea carrier, travel
agent, tour wholesaler, or other party
October 1, 2024 ........................
$1.25
issuing a ticket or travel document on or
October 1, 2025 ........................
1.29
October 1, 2026 ........................
1.34 after May 13, 1991, is responsible for
October 1, 2027 ........................
1.39 collecting the AQI user fee from all
passengers transported into the customs
territory of the United States to whom
(2) Exemptions. The following
the AQI user fee applies.
categories of passengers are exempt
(A) Tickets or travel documents must
from paying an AQI user fee:
be marked by the person who collects
(i) Crew members onboard for
the AQI user fee to indicate that the
purposes related to the operation of the
required AQI user fee has been collected
vessel;
(ii) Crew members who are on duty on from the passenger.
(B) If the AQI user fee applies to a
a commercial aircraft;
passenger departing from the United
(iii) Airline employees, including
States and if the passenger’s tickets or
‘‘deadheading’’ crew members, who are
travel documents were issued on or after
traveling on official airline business;
May 13, 1991, but do not reflect
(iv) Diplomats, except for U.S.
collection of the AQI user fee at the time
diplomats, who can show that their
of issuance, then the carrier transporting
names appear on the accreditation
the passenger from the United States
listing maintained by the U.S.
must collect the AQI user fee upon
Department of State. In lieu of the
departure.
accreditation listing, an individual
(C) AQI user fees collected from
diplomat may present appropriate proof
international passengers pursuant to
of diplomatic status to include
this paragraph (f) shall be held in trust
possession of a diplomatic passport or
for the United States by the person
visa, or diplomatic identification card
collecting such fees, by any person
issued by a foreign government;
(v) Passengers departing and returning holding such fees, or by the person who
is ultimately responsible for remittance
to the United States without having
of such fees to APHIS. AQI user fees
touched a foreign port or place;
(vi) Passengers arriving on any
collected from international passengers
commercial aircraft used exclusively in
shall be accounted for separately and
the governmental service of the United
shall be regarded as trust funds held by
States or a foreign government,
the person possessing such fees as
including any agency or political
agents, for the beneficial interest of the
subdivision of the United States or a
United States. All such user fees held by
foreign government, so long as the
any person shall be property in which
aircraft is not carrying persons or
the person holds only a possessory
merchandise for commercial purposes.
interest and not an equitable interest. As
Passengers on commercial aircraft under compensation for collecting, handling,
contract to the U.S. Department of
and remitting the AQI user fees for
Defense (DOD) are exempted if they
international passengers, the person
have been precleared abroad under the
holding such user fees shall be entitled
joint DOD/APHIS Military Inspection
to any interest or other investment
Program;
return earned on the user fees between
(vii) Passengers arriving on an aircraft the time of collection and the time the
due to an emergency or forced landing
user fees are due to be remitted to
when the original destination of the
APHIS under this section. Nothing in
aircraft was a foreign port;
this section shall affect APHIS’ right to
(viii) Passengers transiting the United collect interest for late remittance.
States and not subject to inspection; and
(ii) [Reserved]
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\07MYR5.SGM
07MYR5
38641
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES5
(5) Remittance and payment
procedures. (i) The air or sea carrier,
travel agent, tour wholesaler, or other
party issuing a ticket or travel document
or their own non-carrier related tickets
or travel documents, must remit
collections of AQI user fees from the
passengers to APHIS.
(ii) The air or sea carrier, travel agent,
tour wholesaler, or other party issuing a
ticket or travel document must remit the
passengers’ fees to APHIS no later than
90 days after the close of the calendar
month in which the ticket issuer
collected the AQI user fees from the
passengers. Late payments will be
subject to interest, penalties, and a
charge to cover the cost of processing
and handling a delinquent claim as
provided in the Debt Collection Act of
1982, as amended by the Debt
Collection Improvement Act of 1996 (31
U.S.C. 3717).
(iii) All fee payments required under
this section must be made in U.S.
dollars. For payment types accepted
please visit https://www.aphis.usda.gov/
aphis/ourfocus/business-services/aqiuser-fees. APHIS strongly encourages
electronic remittance of fees. To set up
electronic remittance refer to our
detailed payment instructions at https://
www.aphis.usda.gov/mrpbs/userfees/
aqi-payment-types.pdf or for further
information relative to electronic
remittance, contact ABSHelpline@
usda.gov. In the event electronic
remission is impractical, a check or
money order can be mailed to the
Agency lock box following detailed
payment instructions at https://
www.aphis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/
aqi-payment-types.pdf. Questions and
correspondence may be sent to
[email protected] or fax (612)
336–3400 or (877) 777–2128. For
payment information, refer to our
detailed payment instructions at https://
www.aphis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/
aqi-payment-types.pdf.
(iv) The air or sea carrier, travel agent,
tour wholesaler, or other party issuing a
ticket or travel document must provide
a written statement each month stating
the passenger fees that are due for the
month or stating that no payments are
due. The air or sea carrier, travel agent,
tour wholesaler, or other party issuing a
ticket or travel document must include
the written statement with their mailed
payment. For all other payment types,
they must email the written statement
separately to [email protected].
The written statement must include the
following information:
(A) Name and address of the person
remitting payment;
(B) Calendar month covered by the
payment; and
(C) Amount collected and remitted.
(v) Refunds by a remitter of AQI user
fees collected in conjunction with
unused tickets or travel documents shall
be netted against the next subsequent
remittance. The ticket or travel
document-issuing entity must submit a
revised written statement indicating the
revised number of passengers and
international passenger AQI user fees
amount collected. The revised written
statement must be completed and filed
for each month during which the ticket
or travel document-issuing entity
certifies that there was a decrease in the
number of passengers and international
passenger AQI user fees collected.
(6) Notification. Carriers contracting
with U.S.-based tour wholesalers are
responsible for notifying the USDA,
APHIS, FMD, FOB at https://
www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/
planthealth/ppq-program-overview/ppqcbp-aqi-user-fees-contacts of all
journeys contracted, the number of
spaces contracted for, and the name,
address, and taxpayer identification
number of the United States-based tour
wholesaler, within 90 days after the
close of the calendar month in which
such a journey occurred; except that,
carriers are not required to make
notification if tickets, marked to show
collection of the AQI user fee, are issued
for the individual contracted spaces.
(7) Compliance. Each carrier, travel
agent, U.S.-based tour wholesaler, or
other entity subject to this section must
allow APHIS, CBP, and authorized
representatives to verify the accuracy of
the AQI user fees collected and remitted
and to otherwise determine compliance
with 21 U.S.C. 136a and this paragraph
(f). Each carrier, travel agent, U.S.-based
tour wholesaler, or other entity must
advise USDA, APHIS, FMD, at https://
www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/
planthealth/ppq-program-overview/ppqcbp-aqi-user-fees-contacts of the name,
address, and telephone number of a
responsible officer who is authorized to
verify AQI user fee calculations,
payments, and remittance, as well as
any changes in the identifying
information submitted. The responsible
person for a payment remains the
responsible person until the air or sea
carrier, travel agent, tour wholesaler, or
other party issuing a ticket or travel
document notifies APHIS of a transfer of
responsibility. The responsible person
must contact APHIS to initiate any
transfer. The new responsible person
assumes all responsibilities for ensuring
compliance for meeting the
requirements of this part.
(8) Limitation on charges. Airlines
and cruise lines will not be charged
reimbursable overtime for passenger
inspection services required for any
aircraft or cruise ship on which a
passenger arrived who has paid the
international passenger AQI user fee for
that flight or cruise.
(g) Fees for export certification of
plants and plant products. (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
§ 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 table 8. 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.
TABLE 8 TO PARAGRAPH (g)(3)(i)—ADMINISTRATIVE USER FEE
Amount per shipment
Effective dates
PCIT used
October 1, 2009, through September 30, 2010 ..........................................................................................
October 1, 2010, through September 30, 2011 ..........................................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:22 May 06, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\07MYR5.SGM
PCIT not used
$3
6
07MYR5
$6
12
38642
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 8 TO PARAGRAPH (g)(3)(i)—ADMINISTRATIVE USER FEE—Continued
Amount per shipment
Effective dates
PCIT used
Beginning October 1, 2011 ..........................................................................................................................
PCIT not used
6
12
(ii) The AQI user fees for an export or
reexport certificate for a commercial
shipment are shown in table 9.
TABLE 9 TO PARAGRAPH (g)(3)(ii)—EXPORT OR REEXPORT CERTIFICATE FOR COMMERCIAL SHIPMENT
Amount per
shipment
Effective dates
October 1, 2009, through September 30, 2010 ............................................................................................................................
October 1, 2010, through September 30, 2011 ............................................................................................................................
Beginning October 1, 2011 ............................................................................................................................................................
(iii) The AQI user fees for an export
or reexport certificate for a low-value
commercial shipment are shown in
table 10. 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
$77
104
106
the shipper requests that the user fee
charged be based on the low value of the
shipment.
TABLE 10 TO PARAGRAPH (g)(3)(iii)—EXPORT OR REEXPORT CERTIFICATE FOR LOW-VALUE COMMERCIAL SHIPMENT
Amount per
shipment
Effective dates
October 1, 2009, through September 30, 2010 ............................................................................................................................
October 1, 2010, through September 30, 2011 ............................................................................................................................
Beginning October 1, 2011 ............................................................................................................................................................
(iv) The AQI user fees for an export
or reexport certificate for a
$42
60
61
noncommercial shipment are shown in
table 11.
TABLE 11 TO PARAGRAPH (g)(3)(iv)—EXPORT OR REEXPORT CERTIFICATE FOR NONCOMMERCIAL SHIPMENT
Amount per
shipment
Effective dates
October 1, 2009, through September 30, 2010 ............................................................................................................................
October 1, 2010, through September 30, 2011 ............................................................................................................................
Beginning October 1, 2011 ............................................................................................................................................................
$42
60
61
(v) The AQI user fees for replacing
any certificate are shown in table 12.
TABLE 12 TO PARAGRAPH (g)(3)(v)—REPLACEMENT FEE
Amount per
certificate
Effective dates
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES5
October 1, 2009, through September 30, 2010 ............................................................................................................................
October 1, 2010, through September 30, 2011 ............................................................................................................................
Beginning October 1, 2011 ............................................................................................................................................................
(4) If a designated State inspector
issues a certificate, the State where the
certificate is issued may charge for
inspection services provided in that
State.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:22 May 06, 2024
Jkt 262001
(5) Any State which wishes to charge
a fee for services it provides to issue
certificates must establish fees in
accordance with one of the following
guidelines:
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
$11
15
15
(i) Calculation of a ‘‘cost-percertificate’’ fee. The State must:
(A) Estimate the annual number of
certificates to be issued;
(B) Determine the total cost of issuing
certificates by adding together
E:\FR\FM\07MYR5.SGM
07MYR5
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES5
delivery, 1 support, 2 and administrative
costs; 3 and
(C) Divide the cost of issuing
certificates by the estimated number of
certificates to be issued to obtain a
‘‘raw’’ fee. The State may round the
‘‘raw’’ fee up to the nearest quarter, if
necessary for ease of calculation,
collection, or billing; or
(ii) Calculation of a ‘‘cost-per-hour’’
fee. The State must:
(A) Estimate the annual number of
hours taken to issue certificates by
adding together delivery, 4 support, 5
and administrative 6 hours;
(B) Determine the total cost of issuing
certificates by adding together delivery,1
support,2 and administrative costs; and
(C) Divide the cost of issuing
certificates by the estimated number of
hours taken to issue certificates to
obtain a ‘‘cost-per-hour’’ fee. The State
may round the ‘‘cost-per-hour’’ fee up to
the nearest quarter, if necessary for ease
of calculation, collection, or billing.
(6) For payment of any of the AQI
user fees required in this paragraph (g),
we will accept personal checks for
amounts less than $100, and checks
1 Delivery costs are costs such as employee salary
and benefits, transportation, per diem, travel,
purchase of specialized equipment, and user fee
costs associated with maintaining field offices.
Delivery hours are similar hours taken by
inspectors, including travel time, inspection time,
and time taken to complete paperwork.
2 Support costs are costs at supervisory levels
which are similar to delivery costs, and user fee
costs such as training, automated data processing,
public affairs, enforcement, legal services,
communications, postage, budget and accounting
services, and payroll, purchasing, billing, and
collecting services. Support hours are similar hours
taken at supervisory levels, as well as hours taken
in training, automated data processing,
enforcement, legal services, communication,
budgeting and accounting, payroll purchasing,
billing, and collecting.
3 Administrative costs are costs incurred as a
direct result of collecting and monitoring Federal
phytosanitary certificates. Administrative hours are
hours taken as a direct result of collecting and
monitoring Federal phytosanitary certificates.
4 Delivery costs are costs such as employee salary
and benefits, transportation, per diem, travel,
purchase of specialized equipment, and user fee
costs associated with maintaining field offices.
Delivery hours are similar hours taken by
inspectors, including travel time, inspection time,
and time taken to complete paperwork.
5 Support costs are costs at supervisory levels
which are similar to delivery costs, and user fee
costs such as training, automated data processing,
public affairs, enforcement, legal services,
communications, postage, budget and accounting
services, and payroll, purchasing, billing, and
collecting services. Support hours are similar hours
taken at supervisory levels, as well as hours taken
in training, automated data processing,
enforcement, legal services, communication,
budgeting and accounting, payroll purchasing,
billing, and collecting.
6 Administrative costs are costs incurred as a
direct result of collecting and monitoring Federal
phytosanitary certificates. Administrative hours are
hours taken as a direct result of collecting and
monitoring Federal phytosanitary certificates.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:22 May 06, 2024
Jkt 262001
38643
user fees held by any person shall be
property in which the person holds only
a possessory interest and not an
equitable interest. As compensation for
collecting, handling, and remitting the
AQI treatment user fees, the person
holding such user fees shall be entitled
to any interest or other investment
return earned on the user fees between
the time of collection and the time the
user fees are due to be remitted to
APHIS under this section. Nothing in
this section shall affect APHIS’ right to
collect interest from the person holding
such user fees for late remittance.
(ii) [Reserved]
(4) Remittance and statement
procedures. (i) The treatment provider
that collects the AQI treatment user fee
must remit the fee to USDA, APHIS,
AQI, PO Box 979044, St. Louis, MO
63197–9000.
(ii) AQI treatment user fees must be
remitted for receipt no later than 31
TABLE 13 TO PARAGRAPH (h)(1)—FEE days after the close of the calendar
FOR CONDUCTING AND MONITORING quarter in which the AQI user fees were
collected. Late payments will be subject
TREATMENTS
to interest, penalty, and handling
charges as provided in the Debt
Effective date
Amount
Collection Act of 1982, as amended by
October 1, 2024 ........................
$240.60 the Debt Collection Improvement Act of
October 1, 2025 ........................
244.19 1996 (31 U.S.C. 3717).
October 1, 2026 ........................
247.79
(iii) The remitter must mail with the
October 1, 2027 ........................
251.38 remittance a written statement to USDA,
APHIS, AQI, PO Box 979044, St. Louis,
(2) Treatment provider. (i) Private
MO 63197–9000. The statement must
entities that provide AQI treatment
include the following information:
services to importers are responsible for
(A) Name and address of the person
collecting the AQI treatment user fee
remitting payment;
from the importer for whom the service
(B) Taxpayer identification number of
is provided. Treatment providers must
the person remitting payment;
collect the AQI treatment fee applicable
(C) Calendar quarter covered by the
at the time the treatment is applied.
payment; and
(ii) When AQI treatment services are
(D) Amount collected and remitted.
provided by APHIS, APHIS will collect
(iv) Remittances must be made by
the AQI treatment fee applicable at the
check or money order, payable in
time the treatment is applied from the
United States dollars, through a United
person receiving the services.
States bank, to ‘‘The Animal and Plant
Remittances must be made by check or
Health Inspection Service.’’
money order, payable in United States
(i) Consequences for nonpayment or
dollars, through a United States bank, to late payment of user fees—(1) Unpaid
‘‘The Animal and Plant Health
debt. In cases of delinquent debts, the
Inspection Service.’’
government is required to charge and
(3) Collection of fees. (i) In cases
collect interest, penalties, and costs. See
where APHIS is not providing the AQI
31 U.S.C. 3717(a) (interest); 3717(e)(1)
treatment and collecting the associated
(costs); and 3717(e)(2) (penalties). If any
fee, AQI user fees collected from
person for whom the service is provided
importers pursuant to this paragraph (h) fails to pay when due any debt to
shall be held in trust for the United
APHIS, including any user fee due
States by the person collecting such
under chapter I or chapter III of this
fees, by any person holding such fees,
title, then:
or by the person who is ultimately
(i) Subsequent user fee payments.
responsible for remittance of such fees
Payment must be made for subsequent
to APHIS. AQI user fees collected from
user fees before the service is provided
importers shall be accounted for
if:
separately and shall be regarded as trust
(A) For unbilled fees, the user fee is
funds held by the person possessing
unpaid 60 days after the date the
such fees as agents, for the beneficial
pertinent regulatory provision indicates
interest of the United States. All such
payment is due;
drawn on commercial accounts,
cashier’s checks, certified checks,
traveler’s checks, and money orders for
any amount. All payments must be for
the exact amount due.
(h)(1) Fee for conducting and
monitoring treatments. (1) Each
importer of a consignment of articles
that require treatment upon arrival from
a place outside of the customs territory
of the United States, either as a
preassigned condition of entry or as a
remedial measure ordered following the
inspection of the consignment, must pay
an AQI user fee. The AQI user fee is
charged on a per-treatment basis, i.e., if
two or more consignments are treated
together, only a single fee will be
charged, and if a single consignment is
split or must be retreated, a fee will be
charged for each separate treatment
conducted. The AQI user fee for each
treatment is shown in table 13:
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\07MYR5.SGM
07MYR5
38644
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES5
(B) For billed fees, the user fee is
unpaid 60 days after date of bill;
(C) The person for whom the service
is provided or the person requesting the
service has not paid the late payment
penalty charges, interest charges, or
charges for the cost of processing and
handling the delinquent bill on any
delinquent APHIS user fee; or
(D) Payment has been dishonored.
(ii) Resolution of difference between
estimate and actual. APHIS will
estimate the user fee to be paid; any
difference between the estimate and the
actual amount owed to APHIS will be
resolved as soon as reasonably possible
following the delivery of the service,
with APHIS returning any excess to the
payor or billing the payor for the
additional amount due.
(iii) Prepayment form. The
prepayment must be in guaranteed form
of payment, such as money order or
certified check. Prepayment in
guaranteed form will continue until the
debtor pays the delinquent debt.
(iv) Denied service. Service will be
denied until the debt is paid if:
(A) For unbilled fees, the user fee is
unpaid 90 days after date the pertinent
regulatory provision indicates payment
is due;
(B) For billed fees, the user fee is
unpaid 90 days after date of bill;
(C) The person for whom the service
is provided or the person requesting the
service has not paid the late payment
penalty charges, interest charges, or
charges for the cost of processing and
handling the delinquent bill on any
delinquent APHIS user fee; or
(D) Payment has been dishonored.
(2) Unpaid debt during service. If
APHIS is in the process of providing a
service for which an APHIS user fee is
due, and the user has not paid the fee
within the time required, or if the
payment offered by the user is
inadequate or unacceptable, then APHIS
will take the following action: If
regulated articles in quarantine at a
treatment facility cannot be released
from quarantine, APHIS may seize and
dispose of them, as determined by the
Administrator, and may recover all
expenses of handling the articles from
persons liable for user fees under
paragraph (h)(1) of this section. If
regulated articles can be released from
quarantine, the articles will be released,
and any unpaid debt will be handled in
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:22 May 06, 2024
Jkt 262001
accordance with procedures for unpaid
debt in this section.
(3) Late payments. If for unbilled user
fees, the user fees are unpaid 30 days
after the date the pertinent regulatory
provisions indicates payment is due, or
if billed, are unpaid 30 days after the
date of the bill, APHIS will impose late
payment penalty charges, interest
charges, and charges for the cost of
processing and handling the delinquent
bill in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 3717.
(4) Dishonored payment. User fees
paid with dishonored forms of payment,
such as a check returned for insufficient
funds, will be subject to interest and
penalty charges in accordance with 31
U.S.C. 3717. Administrative charges
will be assessed at $20.00 per
dishonored payment to be paid in
addition to the original amount owed.
Payment must be in guaranteed form,
such as a money order or certified
check.
(5) Debt collection management. In
accordance with applicable debt
collection law, the following provisions
apply:
(i) Taxpayer identification number.
APHIS will collect a taxpayer
identification number from all persons,
other than Federal agencies, who are
liable for a user fee.
(ii) Offset. APHIS takes appropriate
action to collect debts through offset
under applicable law, including by
notifying the Department of the
Treasury of debts that are over 120 days
delinquent for the purposes of offset
through the Treasury Offset Program.
Through the Treasury Offset Program,
the Department of the Treasury will
offset eligible Federal and State
payments to satisfy the debt to APHIS.
(iii) Cross-servicing. APHIS will
transfer debts that are over 120 days
delinquent to the Department of the
Treasury’s Cross-Servicing program.
Through the Cross-Servicing program,
the Department of the Treasury will
collect debts on behalf of APHIS.
Exceptions may be made for debts that
meet certain requirements, for example,
debts that are already at a collection
agency or in payment plans.
(6) Report delinquent debt. APHIS
will report all unpaid debts to credit
reporting bureaus.
(j) Recordkeeping and record
retention. (1) Entities responsible for
paying AQI user fees and their agents
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
are required to establish, keep, and
make available to APHIS the following
records:
(i) Records and reports required under
this section, including written
statements, if applicable; and
(ii) Legible copies of contracts
(including amendments to contracts)
between the responsible entity or their
agents and agents that conduct activities
subject to this part for the responsible
entity, and copies of documents relating
to agreements made without a written
contract.
(2) Responsible entities or their agents
must maintain sufficient documentation
for APHIS, CBP, and representatives to
verify the accuracy of the fee collections
and, if applicable, written statements.
Such information must be made
available for inspection upon APHIS
and CBP’s demand. Such
documentation shall be maintained in
the United States for a period of 5 years
from the date of remittance calculation,
unless a longer retention period is
determined to be needed by the
Administrator. Each such affected entity
shall provide to APHIS and CBP the
name, address, and telephone number of
a responsible officer who is able to
verify any statements or records
required to be filed or maintained under
this section and shall promptly notify
APHIS and CBP of any changes in the
identifying information previously
submitted.
(k) Severability. The sections of this
part are separate and severable from one
another. If any section or portion therein
is stayed or determined to be invalid, or
the applicability of any section to any
person or entity is held invalid, it is the
APHIS’ intention that the validity of the
remainder of those parts shall not be
affected, with the remaining sections to
continue in effect.
(Approved by the Office of Management
and Budget under control numbers
1651–0019, 0579–0052, 0579–0094, and
0579–0489).
Done in Washington, DC, this 25th day of
April 2024.
Jennifer Moffitt,
Undersecretary, Marketing and Regulatory
Programs.
[FR Doc. 2024–09348 Filed 5–6–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–34–P
E:\FR\FM\07MYR5.SGM
07MYR5
| File Type | application/pdf |
| File Modified | 2024-05-07 |
| File Created | 2024-05-07 |