[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 19 (Monday, January 29, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 2660-2665]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-1506]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

7 CFR Part 354

[Docket No. 94-074-2]
RIN 0579-AA68


User Fees--Commercial Aircraft and Vessels; Phytosanitary 
Certificates

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We are amending the user fee regulations by lowering the fees 
charged for certain agricultural quarantine and inspection services we 
provide in connection with the arrival of an international commercial 
aircraft at a port in the customs territory of the United States. We 
are also amending the user fee regulations by raising the fees charged 
for export certification of plants and plant products. We have 
determined, based on a review of our user fees, that the fees must be 
adjusted to reflect the actual cost of providing these services. In 
addition, we are amending the user fee regulations to clarify the 
exemption for certain vessels which sail only between the United States 
and Canada.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 1, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning program 
operations, contact Mr. Don Thompson, Staff Officer, Port Operations, 
PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 136, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236, (301) 
734-8295.
    For information concerning rate development, contact Ms. Donna 
Ford, PPQ User Fees Section Head, FSSB, BAD, APHIS, 4700 River Road, 
Unit 54, Riverdale, MD 20737-1232, (301) 734-5901.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The regulations in 7 CFR 354.3 (referred to below as the 
``regulations'') contain provisions for the collection of user fees for 
certain international services provided by the Animal and Plant Health 
Inspection Service (APHIS). Among the services covered by these user 
fees are: (1) Servicing international commercial aircraft and vessels 
arriving at ports in the customs territory of the United States; and 
(2) certifying plants and plant products for export.
    On May 24, 1995, we published a document in the Federal Register 
(60 FR 27437-27441, Docket 94-074-1) proposing various changes to these 
regulations.
    We solicited comments concerning our proposal for 30 days ending 
June 23, 1995. We received 45 comments by that date from trade 
associations connected with the air travel industry, trade associations 
representing various sectors of the lumber industry, producers in the 
lumber, flower, and other plant or plant-related industries, members of 
Congress, and private individuals. The comments are discussed below by 
topic.

International Commercial Aircraft

    We proposed to amend the user fee for agricultural quarantine and 
inspection (AQI) services provided by APHIS in connection with the 
arrival of an international commercial aircraft at a port in the 
customs territory of the United States. (The customs territory of the 
United States is defined in the regulations as the 50 States, the 
District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.) the current user fee for 
services for international commercial aircraft is $61. We proposed to 
lower this user fee from $61 to $53 for each arrival. We determined the 
proposed fee based on a review of user fees collected in FY 1993 and FY 
1994 and a projection of our cost and revenue for FY 1995. As stated in 
our proposal, the lower fee is necessary to avoid collecting more 
revenue than needed to cover the costs of the services we provide.
    Only three comments directly addressed the proposed fee reduction. 
One commenter expressed no ``specific objection'' to lowering the fee, 
but ``[took] exception to * * * lowering the fee charged * * * while 
overlooking the inadequate passenger inspection staffing levels.'' A 
second commenter stated that ``it is almost impossible to reconcile 
this proposed reduction with the current levels of service provided by 
APHIS * * *''. The third commenter expressed displeasure with our 
collecting user fees both from air passengers and from airlines, and 
suggested that the passenger fee alone should be adequate to cover all 
costs.
    We are not making any changes based on these comments. The 
inspection service provided to airline passengers is different than the 
inspection service provided for aircraft. We therefore charge separate 
user fees for these services. Aircraft user fees are paid by the 
airlines, passenger user fees are paid by the individual passengers, 
and the amount of each fee is based on the cost of providing each 
service.
    All government agencies are currently under mandate to reduce staff 
year ceilings, i.e. the number of employees. We have no plans to reduce 
the staff year ceilings in the AQI program and we are considering ways 
to increase such staff year ceilings. However, we would have to review 
any increases carefully to ensure sufficient staffing in other APHIS 
and U.S. Department of Agriculture programs.
    One commenter stated that the commercial aircraft inspection fee is 
``contrary to and inconsistent with the international obligations of 
the United States, and thus must be withdrawn.'' The comment suggested 
that this APHIS user fee violates the Convention on International Civil 
Aviation (``Chicago Convention'') and certain specified bilateral air 
transport service agreements and treaties, such as the U.S. Air 
Transport Agreement with Italy. The comment stated that this issue has 
been raised in previous rulemakings on APHIS user fees.
    Although we have never previously specifically addressed the U.S. 
Air Transport Agreement with Italy, we believe our previous discussions 
of these issues are also pertinent to this agreement. Its language is 
similar, if not identical, to the many bilateral Air Transport Services 
Agreements to which the United States is a party, and which we have 
addressed in previous Federal Register documents. 

[[Page 2661]]

    On April 12, 1991, we discussed this subject in a final rule 
published in the Federal Register (56 FR 14837-14846, Docket No. 91-
028; see pages 14840 and 14841), and concluded that APHIS complied with 
the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the Caribbean Basin 
Economic Recovery Act, the U.S. Air Transport Agreement with Austria, 
the U.S.-Jamaican Bilateral Aviation Agreement of 1969, and that the 
International Civil Aviation Convention (ICAO) does not apply to APHIS.
    Again, on January 9, 1992, in a final rule published in the Federal 
Register (57 FR 755-773, Docket No. 91-135, see pp. 762-763), we 
responded to the same or similar concerns. At that time, we addressed: 
(1) The Chicago Convention; (2) bilateral air transport agreements with 
Switzerland and the United Kingdom; (3) the United States-Japan Treaty 
of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation; (4) GATT; and (5) ICAO. We 
continue to believe that the Chicago Convention and ICOA are 
inapplicable to APHIS and that the user fees are in compliance with the 
bilateral air transport agreements as well as the United States-Japan 
Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation, and GATT.

International Commercial Vessels

    The May 24, 1995 proposal also sought to clarify the exemption from 
user fees for any vessel which sails only between United States and 
Canadian ports. To aid the identification of vessels eligible for this 
exemption, we proposed to require the Masters of such vessels to state 
in their General Declaration, Customs Form 1301, that the vessel has 
sailed solely between the United States and Canada for the previous 2 
years.
    None of the comments specifically addressed the proposal to clarify 
this exemption. One commenter, however, stated that the exemption is 
inequitable and should be abolished because it allows these ships to be 
inspected without payment of any user fees, and the result is that 
those who pay user fees for other APHIS services subsidize vessel 
inspections.
    These vessels were originally exempt from paying the user fee 
because they pose little animal or plant disease or pest risk to United 
States agriculture, and APHIS does not provide agricultural quarantine 
inspection services for them (see 56 FR 8150). There has been no change 
in the animal or plant risk posed by these vessels and we still do not 
provide inspection services to them. Therefore, we are not making any 
change in our proposal based on this comment.

Phytosanitary Certificates

    The May 24, 1995, proposed rule also proposed to raise user fees 
for certifying plants and plant products for export. APHIS inspectors 
and designated State employees issue phytosanitary certificates in 
accordance with the International Plant Protection Convention and 
regulations in 7 CFR part 353, certifying that agricultural products 
being exported from the United States are free from injurious insects 
and diseases.
    Virtually all of the comments we received addressed these user 
fees. With one exception, the commenters were opposed to any fee 
increase. The comments raised the following issues:

1. Economic Impact/Benefit to User

    Many commenters stated that the fees are unfair or too high, and 
raise the cost of doing business because they cannot be passed on. Some 
commenters were particularly concerned that small businesses will be 
harmed by the proposed increases in user fees.
    APHIS sympathizes with these commenters and has attempted to 
minimize the cost of the services, thereby keeping the user fees at the 
lowest possible level for all users. Also, APHIS previously established 
a user fee category for low value commercial shipments in an attempt to 
minimize the impact on small businesses.
    However, when Congress authorized APHIS to prescribe and collect 
user fees to recover the costs of inspecting plants and plant products 
for export, it specifically reduced APHIS' appropriation by the 
estimated amount of providing such services. Currently, APHIS is not 
appropriated funds to cover the cost of providing these services. 
Therefore, APHIS must charge user fees which recover the full cost of 
providing the service. For this reason, APHIS cannot exempt certain 
classes of users, such as small businesses, from the user fees, and 
cannot charge user fees which recover less than the full cost of 
providing the service.
    Another commenter stated that there is no benefit to the user that 
``caused'' the fee increase. We believe the commenter's intended 
meaning was that there is no benefit to the user which justifies the 
fee increase.
    We disagree. The proposed user fees are designed to recover the 
cost of providing phytosanitary certificates. These certificates are 
not required by APHIS or any other agency of the Federal Government. 
They are required by foreign countries importing the plant or plant 
products and are provided to the exporters solely for their benefit. 
The exporters could not import their plant and plant products into most 
foreign countries without such a certificate.

2. Eliminate Phytosanitary Certificate Requirements

    Several commenters suggested that phytosanitary certificates should 
not or need not be required for certain products. As discussed above, 
phytosanitary certificates are required by the country importing the 
plant or plant product; they are not required by APHIS, the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture, or any other agency or organization within 
the Federal Government. Therefore, we are unable to eliminate 
certificate requirements. However, on August 16, 1995, we published a 
proposal in the Federal Register (60 FR 42472-42479, Docket No. 90-117-
1, see p. 72474) to allow, under an agreement with the European Union, 
approved producers in the United States to complete their own 
certificates for kiln-dried lumber and other plant products. The 
certificate requirement would not be eliminated, but obtaining a 
certificate would be much simpler and less time consuming for the 
recipient. We will continue to work with other countries for 
improvements such as these.

3. Relationship of User Fee to Time Spent Providing Service

    Several comments suggested that we adjust our user fees to take 
into account how long it takes to provide the service or whether we 
conduct an on-site inspection.
    After carefully considering this comment we have determined not to 
make any changes in the proposed regulation. The time spent by APHIS 
employees is only part of the cost that we must recover through user 
fees. Supplies, overhead, equipment, telephone, and numerous support 
costs must be included. A service may be provided faster in one 
instance than another; however, our proposed user fees reflect the 
average cost of providing particular services on a nationwide basis. To 
adjust the fee on the basis of the time it takes to provide the service 
would increase the cost of the fees by the additional time and expense 
involved in customizing the fee for each individual inspection and 
issuance of a phytosanitary certificate. We believe such a system would 
be expensive to administer and the additional expenses of such a system 
would, in turn, have to be included in the fee, raising it further. 

[[Page 2662]]


4. Competitiveness

    Many comments stated that our proposed user fees would make it 
difficult or impossible for U.S. products to compete in the 
international marketplace, especially as some foreign countries, 
including Canada, do not charge for phytosanitary certificates. Some 
comments also stated that our proposed user fees are anti-competitive 
because some countries do not require certificates from exporters in 
certain other countries. Comments also stated that our proposed user 
fees contradict efforts to increase U.S. exports and will inhibit 
exports.
    We have carefully considered these comments, but are not making any 
changes based on them. Although some countries do not currently charge 
for issuing phytosanitary certificates, user fees for this service are 
being adopted by more and more countries. In fact, as of May 17, 1995, 
Canada charges a user fee for all export phytosanitary certificates 
(see May 17, 1995, Canada Gazette Part II, Vol. 129, No. 10, SOR/DORS/
95-218). Other countries, including New Zealand, France, Australia, 
Belgium and The Netherlands, also charge user fees for export 
phytosanitary certificates. U.S. exporters are therefore not at a 
competitive disadvantage compared with exporters in other countries.
    To the best of our knowledge, there are no countries which do not 
require phytosanitary certificates. However, some countries do not 
enforce their requirements in all cases. Also, some countries have 
negotiated with individual trading partners and agreed to adjust 
certain specific requirements, such as, for example, who fills out the 
form and who conducts the inspection, to make certificates easier or 
cheaper to obtain. For example, as mentioned elsewhere in this 
document, we proposed to allow, under an agreement with the European 
Union, approved producers in the United States to complete their own 
certificates for kiln-dried lumber and certain other plant products. 
Because APHIS inspectors would not inspect each export shipment, costs 
would be reduced for both APHIS and the exporter. In this situation the 
certificate requirement would not be eliminated, but obtaining a 
certificate would be simpler and less time consuming.

5. APHIS Costs and Procedures

    Several comments suggested that APHIS should keep its costs as low 
as possible, to keep user fees as low as possible. Other comments, many 
of which made specific suggestions, stated that APHIS should improve 
its service. The suggestions included changes in procedures and 
paperwork.
    We are always trying to reduce our costs and operate as efficiently 
as possible to maintain APHIS user fees at the lowest possible level. 
All of the suggestions made by commenters will be carefully considered. 
If we determine that changes in procedures and paperwork requirements 
are practical and desirable, we will publish proposed changes for 
public comment in the Federal Register.

6. Effective Date

    One comment suggested that we delay the effective date of any final 
rule until January 1996. We understand the commenter's desire to make 
business plans and not have business already settled affected by 
increases in our user fees. This rule will not take effect until 30 
days after the date it is published in the Federal Register. This delay 
should give the commenter and others time to prepare.

7. Calculations

    One comment objected that a disproportionate share of APHIS costs 
is allocated to agricultural exports. The comment appears to say that 
APHIS is recovering 21 percent of the total cost for our agricultural 
quarantine and inspection (AQI) program through user fees for 
phytosanitary certificates. The comment also compares aircraft user 
fees with phytosanitary certificate fees and states that each aircraft 
fee covers up to 300 individual passenger inspections.
    Neither of these statements is correct. User fees for phytosanitary 
certificates recover only that portion of the total costs of the AQI 
program attributable to phytosanitary certificate issuance. 
Phytosanitary certificates actually account for less than 5 percent of 
total AQI program costs. More than 95 percent of total AQI program 
costs is recovered through other user fees or through appropriated 
funds. Among the other user fees is a fee for international commercial 
aircraft. The user fee for international commercial aircraft recovers 
only the portion of total AQI program costs attributable to 
international commercial aircraft inspections. It does not cover 
inspection of aircraft passengers. Passengers on international 
commercial aircraft pay a separate user fee for inspection services. 
This user fee recovers only that portion of total AQI program costs 
attributable to international commercial aircraft passenger 
inspections. Therefore, we are making no changes based on these 
comments.

8. State-Issued Phytosanitary Certificates

    A couple of comments addressed the fact that phytosanitary 
certificates are issued by some States, and those State-issued 
certificates often cost less than federally-issued certificates. The 
commenters were concerned that APHIS is ``losing business'' to States. 
The commenters were also concerned that recipients of State-issued 
certificates are not paying any fee to APHIS, although the certificates 
themselves are provided by APHIS, which must also maintain files, track 
certificates, and otherwise manage the program.
    APHIS provides a service to the public and is not ``in business'' 
as such. Because APHIS seeks to provide efficient and economical 
service, designated State officials are permitted to issue 
phytosanitary certificates. Users have the option of obtaining a 
phytosanitary certificate from a designated State official, which is 
often more convenient, and saves substantial time and transportation 
costs.
    The commenters are correct that APHIS provides certificates to 
States and provides oversight of State programs. Although we have 
decided not to make any changes in the proposed regulations at this 
time, we will analyze the issue to determine if further adjustments in 
the user fees are warranted. If we determine that changes are 
desirable, we will publish proposed changes for comment in the Federal 
Register.

9. New Fee

    One comment suggested that we establish a new category of user fee 
for issuing phytosanitary certificates for the reexport of 
noncommercial shipments. We are not aware of the need for such an 
additional category of user fee at this time. However, we will keep 
this suggestion in mind as we continue to review the user fee program. 
If we determine that there is a demand for this type of certificate, we 
will publish a proposed fee for public comment in the Federal Register.

10. Miscellaneous

    One commenter asked who pays for other services. We have user fees 
for other services, where appropriate, and the users of those services 
pay for them. We do not have user fees for domestic programs. User fees 
apply only to import and export services.
    The same commenter asked why we ``encourage foreign airlines.'' 
This comment was apparently prompted by our proposal to lower the user 
fee for international commercial aircraft. This 

[[Page 2663]]
user fee applies to all commercial aircraft arriving in the customs 
territory of the United States. Ownership of the aircraft--foreign or 
domestic--is irrelevant. The user fee is designed to recover the cost 
of inspection services provided to each aircraft. The fact that we 
proposed to lower the user fee only reflects the fact that the costs of 
providing this service were lower than anticipated.
    Another commenter stated that there is a double charge for State 
certificates which are then endorsed by APHIS. We believe the commenter 
has misunderstood the system for issuing Federal phytosanitary 
certificates. Federal phytosanitary certificates are issued only by 
APHIS officials or, in some States which cooperate with APHIS, by 
designated State officials. Users pay only one fee for a Federal 
phytosanitary certificate, although the certificate may be obtained 
from a State or APHIS official.
    Some States require a State phytosanitary certificate before 
allowing plants or plant products to be moved into their territory from 
other parts of the United States. State phytosanitary certificates are 
generally not valid for exports to another country.\1\ If a shipper 
obtains, and pays for, a State phytosanitary certificate to ship a 
commodity interstate, and the shipper then decides to export the plant 
or plant products instead, then the shipper must obtain a Federal 
certificate either from the State, if it issues Federal phytosanitary 
certificates, or from APHIS. If the shipper obtains a certificate from 
APHIS, the user fee due for APHIS' certification is not a double 
charge: The Federal phytosanitary certificate is a separate document 
issued for a different purpose.

    \1\ For certain products from certain States, some countries may 
accept a State phytosanitary certificate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are two ways to obtain a federally-issued phytosanitary 
certificate for plants regulated under the Endangered Species Act of 
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The exporter has a choice--
he or she can either obtain a State phytosanitary certificate and 
forward it to certain designated APHIS offices, which will issue a 
Federal phytosanitary certificate to the exporter by mail; or the 
exporter can bring the plants to the nearest designated APHIS office 
and APHIS personnel will issue the Federal phytosanitary certificate 
directly to the exporter. Which method to use is up to the exporter. If 
the exporter chooses to obtain a State phytosanitary certificate and 
forward it to APHIS, there will be two fees--one for the State 
phytosanitary certificate and one for the Federal phytosanitary 
certificate. However, the exporter would save the cost of transporting 
the plants to the designated APHIS office.
    One commenter stated that he could not figure out in advance what 
the user fee would be for a phytosanitary certificate and did not 
understand how to obtain a refund of overpayments. This situation only 
results when a prospective exporter buys a block of phytosanitary 
certificates from APHIS, paying a fixed amount per certificate. Because 
the user fee varies for different types of certificates, the actual 
user fee due for a particular phytosanitary certificate is not known 
until the certificate is complete. For example, the user fee due for a 
low value commercial shipment may be less than the user fee already 
paid for the certificate. Under these circumstances, the user is 
entitled to a refund from APHIS. We have an established refund system. 
The user should contact the APHIS office where the block of 
certificates was purchased to arrange for a refund.
    One commenter also stated that APHIS no longer issues phytosanitary 
certificates for as many different plant and plant products as the 
agency once did. This is correct. Because importing countries have 
stopped requiring phytosanitary certificates for some plants and plant 
products, APHIS has stopped issuing phytosanitary certificates for 
these plants and plant products.

11. Regulatory Impact Analysis

    One comment stated that we have not conducted an economic analysis 
of the proposed phytosanitary certificate fees. This is incorrect. Our 
analysis was included in the proposed regulations at 60 FR 27439-27440. 
An updated analysis, using the most current data available at the time 
this was written, is a part of this document.
    One comment stated that if we raise the user fees for phytosanitary 
certificates, the number of certificates APHIS issues will decline. The 
commenter may be correct. However, we do not have data to show how much 
of a decline might occur. Regardless, we are required to recover the 
cost of providing the service. Therefore, it is necessary to increase 
our fees for issuing phytosanitary certificates.
    Another comment questioned our statement that $3 billion in exports 
was certified during 1993, and suggested it should be much higher. We 
have rechecked all of our figures and find that the commenter is 
correct. In fact, approximately $39 billion in agricultural exports was 
certified in 1993. Our original figure included only fruits and 
vegetables; major exports such as lumber and wood products and grain 
and cereals were not included. We have revised our Regulatory 
Flexibility Act analysis to reflect the correct figure.
    Four comments disagreed with our conclusion that the proposed fees 
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities. One stated that we should compare the total user fees 
paid by the affected industry with the profit generated by that 
industry, rather than comparing user fee costs with overall value of 
exports. Another stated that our analysis was valid only as to large 
wholesale agriculture shipments.
    We have carefully reviewed our analysis. Based on the data 
available to us, we continue to believe the proposed fees will not have 
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. We would have compared the amount of proposed user fees with 
business profits if this were possible. However, information on profits 
from sales is proprietary for many small entities and not part of the 
public record. In order to minimize any potential impact from increased 
user fees, small exporters could work through brokers to combine 
shipments.
    Therefore, based on the rationale set forth in the proposed rule 
and in this document, we are adopting the provisions of the proposal as 
a final rule, without change.

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. The rule 
has been determined to be significant for the purposes of Executive 
Order 12866 and, therefore, has been reviewed by the Office of 
Management and Budget.
    This rule will increase the user fees for phytosanitary 
certificates to recover the cost to APHIS of providing export 
certification services for plants and plant products. This rule will 
also reduce the user fee for international commercial aircraft to 
correspond with the cost to APHIS of providing services. Amendments to 
user fees are necessary to adjust for changes in service volume and 
service costs.
    Federal phytosanitary certificates must be issued by APHIS or, as 
explained earlier, by designated State employees in States that 
cooperate with APHIS, to be accepted in international commerce. Federal 
phytosanitary certificates must accompany the majority of agricultural 
commodities (except livestock products) traded. Traded commodities 
generally include 

[[Page 2664]]
cereals and grains (such as soybeans, wheat, and corn), fruits and 
vegetables, other nursery and horticultural products, and lumber and 
wood products. In 1993, the value of exported agricultural products 
requiring phytosanitary certificates was estimated at $39 billion.
    Current user fees for phytosanitary certificates do not fully 
recover APHIS' costs for services performed. In fiscal year 1994, the 
total cost of providing phytosanitary certificate services was 
$4,314,000, while total fee collections amounted only to $3,015,000 
when the fees were $30 for commercial certificates and $19 for 
noncommercial certificates. The reason for the discrepancy is that we 
overestimated the number of certificates and underestimated the time to 
issue a certificate, thereby underestimating the cost of issuing each 
certificate. The total program cost for the 1995 fiscal year, which we 
should have recovered through user fees, was estimated at $4,707,000. 
This amount includes costs associated with the direct charges for 
program delivery and associated allocations for program direction and 
support, agency support, departmental charges, and Office of the 
General Counsel services. If the proposed fee increases are adopted, 
estimated collections would rise to $4,717,947 annually.
    Exporters of agricultural commodities will be affected by this 
rule. The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires APHIS to address the 
economic impact of imposing user fees on ``small'' entities. The Small 
Business Administration (SBA) criteria for a small wholesale business 
engaged in the trading of fresh fruits and vegetables is that the 
business have 100 or fewer employees. SBA criteria for a small crop 
production business is that it have annual revenues up to $500,000.
    Approximately 98,387 federally-issued phytosanitary certificates 
were issued in 1994. Certificates for commercial shipments are issued 
to wholesale businesses engaged in the trading of cereals and grains, 
fresh fruits and vegetables, other nursery and horticultural products, 
and lumber and wood products. Certificates are also issued to export 
brokers who handle shipments of produce from various sources. The 
proportion of exporters in this group which may qualify as small is 
unknown. It is likely that a large number of these brokers employ fewer 
than 100 workers.
    The value of an average commercial shipment greatly exceeds the 
increase in the $30 user fee up to the $50 user fee. The total value of 
agricultural products requiring phytosanitary certificates exported in 
1993, estimated at $39 billion, is sufficiently large to incorporate 
the 0.012 percent ($4.7 million) in total user fee collection; 
consequently, the impact on U.S. producers and exporters is expected to 
be very small.
    Phytosanitary certificates for noncommercial exporters are 
generally issued to individuals and to exporters of low value 
commodities. The user fee for this category of phytosanitary 
certificate will increase from $19 to $23, an increase of 21 percent. 
Although user fees represent a proportionately larger share of the 
total value of noncommercial and low value exports, these small exports 
may possess a much higher value in the foreign country than in the 
United States. Moreover, exports by individuals may be gift items with 
nonmonetary values offsetting some of the effect of the fee increase.
    SBA criteria for a small airline is that it have 1,500 or fewer 
employees. Data from the 1988 Census indicates that there were 67 
domestic and international airline operators employing a total of 
481,000 employees. Although the size distribution of air carriers that 
enter the customs territory of the United States is unknown, the effect 
of the proposed user fee change, regardless of carrier size, is 
positive--we are proposing a 13 percent user fee reduction, from $61 to 
$53 per aircraft. The lower fee is sufficient to recover the full cost 
of providing aircraft inspection services, without collecting more 
revenue than needed to recover costs. The estimated cost to provide 
inspection services for international commercial aircraft in FY 1995 is 
$18 million. At the proposed user fee of $53 per aircraft and a 
projected FY 1995 commercial aircraft volume of 346,204, total 
collections would amount to $18.3 million.
    Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and 
Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action will 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.

Executive Order 12372

    This program/activity is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic 
Assistance under No. 10.025 and is subject to Executive Order 12372, 
which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local 
officials. (See 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V.)

Executive Order 12778

    This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12778, Civil 
Justice Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts all State and local laws and 
regulations that are inconsistent with this rule; (2) has no 
retroactive effect; and (3) does not require administrative proceedings 
before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 
3501 et seq.), the information collection or recordkeeping requirements 
included in this rule have been approved by the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB), and there are no new requirements. The assigned OMB 
control number is 1515-0062.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 354

    Exports, Government employees, Imports, Plant diseases and pests, 
Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Travel and 
transportation expenses.

    Accordingly, 7 CFR part 354 is amended 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. 2260; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 49 U.S.C. 
1741; 7 CFR 2.17, 2.51, and 371.2(c).


Sec. 354.3   [Amended]

    2. Section 354.3 is amended as follows:
    a. By revising paragraph (b)(2)(vi) to read as set forth below.
    b. In paragraph (e)(1), the last sentence, by removing ``$61.00'' 
and adding ``$53'' in its place.
    c. In paragraph (g)(5)(i)(A), by removing ``$30'' and adding 
``$50'' in its place.
    d. In paragraph (g)(5)(i)(B), by removing ``$19'' and adding 
``$23'' in its place.
    e. In paragraph (g)(5)(ii), by removing ``$19'' and adding ``$23'' 
in its place.
    f. In paragraph (g)(5)(iii)(A), by removing ``$30'' and adding 
``$50'' in its place.
    g. In paragraph (g)(5)(iii)(B), by removing ``$19'' and adding 
``$23'' in its place.
    h. In paragraph (g)(5)(iv), by removing ``$30'' and adding ``$50'' 
in its place.
    i. In paragraph (g)(5)(v), by removing ``$6'' and adding ``$7'' in 
its place.
    j. In paragraph (h)(2), by removing ``$6'' and adding ``$7'' in its 
place.
    k. By adding at the end of the section the following: ``(Approved 
by the Office of Management and Budget under control numbers 1515-0062, 
0579-0094, or 0579-0052)''.

[[Page 2665]]



Sec. 354.3   User fees for certain international services.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (vi) Any vessel which sails only between United States and Canadian 
ports, when the Master of such vessel arriving from Canada certifies, 
in the ``Remarks'' block of the General Declaration, Customs Form 1301, 
that the vessel has sailed solely between the United States and Canada 
for the previous 2 years.
* * * * *
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control 
numbers 1515-0062, 0579-0094, or 0579-0052)

    Done in Washington, DC, this 24th day of January 1996.
Lonnie J. King,
Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 96-1506 Filed 1-26-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P