This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

67657

Vol. 65, No. 219

Monday, November 13, 2000

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service

9 CFR Part 130

[Docket No. 99–060–1]

Veterinary Services User Fees; Fees

for Permit Applications

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: We are proposing to amend

existing user fees for processing

applications for permits to import and

transport certain animal products,

organisms, vectors, and germ plasm. We

are also proposing to establish new user

fees that would pay the cost of

processing applications to import live

animals. We are proposing these

changes in order to ensure that we

recover our costs.

DATES: We invite you to comment on

this docket. We will consider all

comments that we receive by January

12, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Please send your comment

and three copies to: Docket No. 99–060–

1, Regulatory Analysis and

Development, PPD, APHIS, Suite 3C03,

4700 River Road, Unit 118, Riverdale,

MD 20737–1238. Please state that your

comment refers to Docket No. 99–060–

1.

You may read any comments that we

receive on this docket in our reading

room. The reading room is located in

room 1141 of the USDA South Building,

14th Street and Independence Avenue,

SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading

room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, except

holidays. To be sure someone is there to

help you, please call (202) 690–2817

before coming.

APHIS documents published in the

Federal Register, and related

information, including the names of

organizations and individuals who have

commented on APHIS dockets, are

available on the Internet at http://

www.aphis.usda.gov/ppd/rad/

webrepor.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

information concerning program

operations for Veterinary Services,

contact Ms. Louise Lothery,

Administrative Officer, Management

Support Staff, VS, APHIS, 4700 River

Road Unit 44, Riverdale, MD 20737–

1231; (301) 734–7517.

For information concerning rate

development of the proposed user fees,

contact Mrs. Kris Caraher, Accountant,

Financial Systems and Services Branch,

Budget and Accounting Service

Enhancement Unit, MRPBS, APHIS,

4700 River Road Unit 54, Riverdale, MD

20737–1232; (301) 734–8351.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

User fees to reimburse the Animal and

Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)

for the costs of providing veterinary

diagnostic services and import- and

export-related services for live animals

and birds and animal products are

contained in 9 CFR part 130. Section

130.8 lists miscellaneous flat rate user

fees.

In this document, we are proposing to

amend existing user fees for processing

applications for permits to import or

transport certain animal products,

organisms, vectors, and germ plasm. We

are also proposing to establish user fees

to cover the cost of processing

applications for permits to import live

animals. These proposed changes are

explained in detail below.

Fees for Processing Applications for

Permits to Import Certain Animal

Products, Organisms, Vectors, and Germ

Plasm

Currently, under the regulations in

§ 130.8, APHIS charges flat rate fees for

processing Veterinary Services Form

16–3, ‘‘Application for Permit to Import

or Transport Controlled Material or

Organisms or Vectors.’’ This form is

used to apply for a permit to import

materials derived from animals or

materials that have been exposed to

animal-source materials. Materials that

require a permit include animal tissues,

blood, cells, or cell lines of livestock or

poultry origin, RNA/DNA extracts,

hormones, enzymes, monoclonal

antibodies, certain polyclonal

antibodies, antisera, bulk shipments of

test kit reagents, and microorganisms

including bacteria, viruses, protozoa,

and fungi. Exceptions to this

requirement are tissues, serum, and

blood from primates. Various other

animal materials from countries where

certain livestock diseases exist require a

permit to be imported into the United

States. Such materials include dairy

products (except butter and cheese),

meat products (e.g., meat pies, prepared

foods), and various animal products,

including, but not limited to, hides,

bones, and carcasses, parts, or products

of certain animals that are destined for

use as trophies.

Also under § 130.8, APHIS charges a

flat fee for processing applications to

import germ plasm. APHIS services

related to inspecting imported germ

plasm and empty germ plasm containers

are charged at the hourly rate user fees

listed in § 130.30.

The table below lists existing and

proposed user fees for the services

listed.

67658 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 219 / Monday, November 13, 2000 / Proposed Rules

Service

Existing user fees Proposed user fee

Oct. 1, 2000–

Sept. 30, 2001

Oct. 1, 2001–

Sept. 30, 2002

Oct. 1, 2002–

Sept. 30, 2003

Beginning

Oct. 1, 2003

Beginning with effective date of the final

rule for this action

Processing a permit application to

import fetal bovine serum when

inspection of a

facility is required.

$283.00 per application.$292.00 per application.$300.00 per application.$309.00 per application.$322.00 per application.

Processing an initial permit application to import

germ plasm.1

55.00 per load ............ 57.00 per load ............ 58.00 per load ............ 60.00 per load ............ 94.00 per application.

Processing an

amended permit

application to import germ

plasm.1

55.00 per load ............ 57.00 per load ............ 58.00 per load ............ 60.00 per load ............ 47.00 per application.

Processing an initial permit application to import

certain animal

products or import or transport

organisms or

vectors.

36.00 per application 37.00 per application 38.00 per application 39.00 per application 94.00 per application.

Processing an

amended permit

application to import certain animal products or

import or transport organisms

or vectors.

15.00 per amended

application.

15.00 per amended

application.

16.00 per amended

application.

16.00 per amended

application.

47.00 per amended

application.

Processing a renewed permit

application to import certain animal products or

import or transport organisms

or vectors.

19.00 per application 20.00 per application 21.00 per application 21.00 per application 61.00 per application.

1 Current fees for processing applications for permits to import germ plasm are not broken into fees for initial and amended applications. Under

this proposal, different fees would be charged for processing initial and amended applications.

On August 28, 2000, we published in

the Federal Register a final rule (65 FR

51997–52010, Docket No. 97–058–2)

that amended the user fees for the

services listed above. When we

calculated the fees established by that

final rule, we assumed that the fees in

place prior to the rule had been

calculated to cover all the costs of

providing the respective services.

Therefore, in calculating the current

fees, we simply added cost components

for employee pay increases and

additional costs for inflation (based on

the consumer price index) to the

previous fees.

Since the time when we calculated

the current fees, we have conducted an

in-depth review of the basic costs of

providing the services listed above. In

that review, we found that the existing

fees and fees previously collected for

the services listed (1) underestimated

the amount of direct labor performed by

administrative and professional staff

who are involved in the permit

application process, and (2) do not

cover overhead costs. We are, therefore,

proposing to amend the fees accordingly

as shown above. The proposed fees will

allow us to recover all the costs

associated with providing the services

listed, including direct labor and

overhead costs.

Calculation of Fees—Animal Products

Permit Applications

We began our calculation of the

proposed fees by estimating future

annual volumes of each type of

application based on the average of the

actual volumes of each type of

application processed in FY’s 1998 and

1999. Those volumes are shown in the

table below.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 219 / Monday, November 13, 2000 / Proposed Rules 67659

Volumes

FY 1998 FY 1999

Projected

annual

volumes

New applications ...................................................................................................................................... 2,071 1,214 1,643

Amended applications ............................................................................................................................. 556 331 435

Renewed applications .............................................................................................................................. 2,056 1,476 1,766

We then estimated that the total

annual cost of processing the projected

volume of applications would be

$282,000. Our estimate includes cost

components for the salaries of

employees involved in processing

applications, along with costs of billings

and collections, rent, equipment (such

as computer technologies), agency

overhead, and departmental charges.

We then estimated, based on our

experience processing applications, that

processing amended and renewed

applications respectively take

approximately 50 percent and 65

percent of the time required to process

a new application. We used the

following equation to determine the

proposed fee for a new application. In

the equation, ‘‘x’’ represents the fee for

new applications.

New Amended Renewed Total cost

1643x + 435(.5x) + 1766(.65x) = $282,000

x = 93.73753

We then rounded the value for ‘‘x’’ to

the nearest whole dollar to arrive at the

proposed user fee of $94.00 for a new

application for a permit to import

animal products. Since processing an

amended application takes

approximately 50 percent of the time it

takes to process a new application, we

are proposing a fee of $47.00 for

amended applications. Finally, since

processing a renewed application takes

approximately 65 percent of the time it

takes to process a new application, we

are proposing a fee of $61.00 for

renewed applications.

Calculation of Fees—Fetal Bovine

Serum Permit Application

The fee for processing a permit

application to import fetal bovine serum

when inspection of a facility is required

pays the cost of providing two distinct

APHIS services. One covers the cost of

processing an application to import fetal

bovine serum (representing $94.00 of

the fee), and the other covers the cost of

inspecting the facility where the fetal

bovine serum will be housed

(representing the remaining $228.00 of

the fee). We determined these costs

based on the estimated time it takes to

process the applications and inspect the

facilities. The portion of the fee covering

the costs of processing an application is

the same as that proposed for processing

an application to import other animal

products and live animals. The portion

of the fee covering the cost of inspecting

the facility where fetal bovine serum

will be housed is based on the existing

hourly rate user fee of $76.00 per hour

that is contained in § 130.30 of the

regulations. We set this portion of the

fee at $228.00 (3 × $76.00) because

inspections of this type of facility have

averaged 3 hours in recent years.

Fees for Processing Applications to

Import Live Animals

Currently, APHIS uses appropriated

funds to cover the costs of processing

applications and amended applications

to import live animals. In this

document, we are proposing to establish

a flat-rate user fee to recover these costs.

APHIS currently charges flat-rate user

fees to persons applying for permits to

import animal products, organisms, and

vectors, as well as animal semen,

embryos, and ova. By establishing flat

rate user fees for processing applications

and amended applications for permits to

import live animals, we would make our

user fee regulations more consistent and

shift the cost of paying for these services

away from taxpayers toward the actual

users of these services.

Our proposed flat-rate user fees for

processing these applications are as

follows:

Service User fee

Processing initial application for

a live animal import permit ... $94.00

Processing application for an

amended permit .................... 47.00

The above fees are the same as those

we are proposing to charge for

processing applications for permits to

import animal products, organisms,

vectors, and germ plasm. We believe

that these fees will adequately cover the

cost of providing these services.

Calculation of Fees—Live Animal

Permit Applications

We began our calculation of the

proposed fees by estimating future

annual volumes of each type of

application based on the approximate

volumes of each type of application

processed in FY 1999. In FY 1999,

APHIS processed approximately 7,500

new applications and 1,500 amended

applications to import live animals.

We then estimated that the total

annual cost of processing new and

amended applications to import live

animals, based on the expected volume

of applications to be processed, would

be $775,970. Our estimate includes cost

components for the salaries of

employees involved in processing

applications, along with costs of billings

and collections, rent, equipment (such

as computer technologies), agency

overhead, and departmental charges.

We then estimated, based on our

experience processing applications, that

it takes approximately half as much

time to process an amended application

as it takes to process a new application.

Given these estimates, we used the

following equation to determine the

proposed fee for a new application. In

the equation, ‘‘x’’ represents the fee for

a new application.

New Amended Total cost

7500x + 1500(.5x) = $775,970

x = 94.0569

67660 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 219 / Monday, November 13, 2000 / Proposed Rules

2For FY 1999, fees for processing applications for

permits to import germ plasm were set at $39.50.

Data on fee receipts based on current fees, which

are effective October 1, 2000, are not available.

3The current user fees for this service were made

effective October 1, 2000. The revenues collected in

1999 are based on collections of the fees that were

in place during FY 1999.

We then rounded the value for ‘‘x’’ to

the nearest whole dollar to arrive at the

proposed user fee of $94.00 for a new

application for a permit to import live

animals. Since processing an amended

application takes approximately half the

time it takes to process a new

application, we are proposing a fee of

$47.00 for amended applications.

All of the proposed fees described in

this document would be located in a

new § 130.4, and the current fees would

be removed from § 130.8. We also would

move the fees for import compliance

assistance that are currently contained

in § 130.8 to the new § 130.4 because

those fees are directly associated with

the importation of animals and animal

products. Import compliance assistance

fees are charged to persons who need

additional assistance from an APHIS

headquarters veterinarian in order to

facilitate the processing or completion

of particular importations of animals or

animal products.

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory

Flexibility Act

This proposed rule has been reviewed

under Executive Order 12866. The rule

has been determined to be not

significant for the purposes of Executive

Order 12866 and, therefore, has not

been reviewed by the Office of

Management and Budget.

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 603, we

have performed an initial regulatory

flexibility analysis, which is set out

below, regarding the economic effects of

this proposed rule on small entities.

Based on the information we have, there

is no basis to conclude that this rule

will result in any significant economic

effect on a substantial number of small

entities. However, we do not currently

have all of the data necessary for a

comprehensive analysis of the effects of

this proposed rule on small entities.

Therefore, we are inviting comments on

potential effects.

User fees to reimburse APHIS for the

costs of providing veterinary diagnostic

services and import- and export-related

services for live animals and birds and

animal products are contained in 9 CFR

part 130. Section 130.8 lists the user

fees APHIS charges for processing

applications for permits to import germ

plasm and to import or transport certain

animal products, organisms, and

vectors.

We are proposing to amend existing

user fees for processing applications for

permits to import and transport certain

animal products, organisms, vectors,

and germ plasm. We are also proposing

to establish new user fees that would

pay the cost of processing applications

to import live animals. We are

proposing these changes in order to

ensure that we recover our costs.

User Fees for the Importation of Germ

Plasm

APHIS currently charges a fee of

$55.00 for processing applications to

import germ plasm. This proposed rule

would establish two separate fees: One

for processing initial applications for

permits, and one for processing

amended applications. The fee for

processing each new permit application

would be $94.00, and the fee for

processing each amended permit

application would be $47.00.

The effect of the proposal would be to

increase revenues for APHIS, since the

fees for new applications would exceed

the existing fee of $55.00. At a

minimum, importers would be charged

$47.00 for applying for an amended

permit.

In FY 1999, APHIS processed 448

applications for permits to import germ

plasm (semen and embryos), generating

total revenues of $17,696. We estimate

that 90 of those applications represent

amended applications, and the rest

represent new applications.

Had the proposed fee schedule been

in effect during FY 1999 2, APHIS would

have generated approximately $37,882

from processing those applications, an

increase of $20,186 over actual revenues

for that year. Further, as a result of

increased world trade, it is likely that

APHIS’ annual revenues from

processing product applications would

increase over time.

The number of different entities that

submitted applications in FY 1999 and

the number of applications submitted by

each are not available. However,

because approximately 90 entities

submitted amended applications during

the year, we know that the number of

different entities is significantly less

than the total application count of 448.

The economic effect on individual

entities would vary, depending on the

size of the entity and the number of

permits required. For an entity that

requires only a few permits each year,

as is likely to be the case with the

smaller entities that are affected, the

proposed fees are not likely to have a

significant economic impact. However,

even an entity that requires a large

number of permits might not be

significantly affected if it is large

enough to easily absorb the increased

fees.

User Fees for Processing Applications

for Permits to Import Animal Products

APHIS currently charges applicants a

fee for processing their applications for

permits to import animal products

(including byproducts, organisms, and

vectors). The fees vary, depending on

such factors as the type of application

and the type of product.

Under the proposal, all fees would be

increased from their current levels, as

shown earlier in this document.

The proposed fee amounts have been

set so as to allow APHIS to recover the

full costs of processing the applications.

The current fee levels do not allow for

full cost recovery, especially given the

additional staffing needed to provide

applicants with a quick turnaround of

their permit requests.

In FY 1999, APHIS processed 2,575

applications for permits to import

animal products. Of that total, 2 were

fetal bovine serum (with facility

inspection) applications, 856 were

initial applications to import animal

products or import or transport

organisms or vectors, 241 were amended

applications, and 1,476 were renewed

applications.

APHIS generated revenues of

$48,868.50 from processing the 2,575

applications in FY 1999.3 Had the

proposed fee schedule been in effect

during FY 1999, APHIS would have

generated $182,351 from processing

those applications, an increase of

$133,482.50 over actual revenues for

that year. Further, as a result of

increased world trade, it is likely that

APHIS’ annual revenues from

processing product applications would

increase over time.

The number of different entities that

submitted applications in FY 1999 and

the number of applications submitted by

each are not available. However,

because 241 entities submitted amended

applications and 1,476 entities

submitted renewed applications during

the year, we know that the number of

different entities is significantly less

than the total application count of

2,575. The economic effect on

individual entities would vary,

depending on the size of the entity and

the number of permits required. For an

entity that requires only a few permits

each year, as is likely to be the case with

the smaller entities that are affected, the

proposed fees are not likely to have a

significant economic impact. However,

even an entity that requires a large

number of permits might not be

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 219 / Monday, November 13, 2000 / Proposed Rules 67661

4Whether or not an importer is required to obtain

a permit from APHIS depends on several factors,

including the type of animal to be imported and the

country of export. The rules are designed to protect

the health of the U.S. animal population, since such

imports pose a risk of introducing animal diseases.

significantly affected if it is large

enough to easily absorb the increased

fees.

User Fees for Processing Applications

for Permits to Import Animals

Under APHIS’ rules, importers must,

under certain circumstances, apply for

and obtain an import permit from the

agency prior to importing live animals.4

Currently, APHIS does not charge

applicants a fee for processing their

permit applications.

Under the proposed rule, APHIS

would charge applicants $94.00 for each

new application, and $47.00 for each

amended application to import live

animals. The proposed rule is designed

to shift the cost of processing the

applications from the general taxpayer

(via appropriated funds) to the users of

those services, i.e., the permit

applicants. The proposed rule would

also serve to remove an existing

inequity, since APHIS currently charges

applicants a fee for processing their

applications for permits to import

animal products and germ plasm.

In FY 1999, APHIS processed

approximately 9,000 applications for

permits to import animals. Of that total,

approximately 7,500 were initial

applications and 1,500 were amended

applications. Had the proposed fee

schedule been in effect during FY 1999,

APHIS would have generated additional

revenues of $775,500 from processing

those applications. Further, as a result

of increased world trade, it is likely that

APHIS’ annual revenues from

processing applications for permits to

import live animals will increase over

time.

The number of different entities that

submitted applications in FY 1999 and

the number of applications submitted by

each are not available. However,

because some entities submitted

amended applications and some entities

submitted more than one new

application during the year, we know

that the number of different entities is

less than the total application count of

9,000.

Data on the types of entities who

submit applications is not available, but

they are believed to be varied, and

include breeders, commercial

researchers, universities, zoos, and

private individuals. At least some of the

commercial entity applicants are

believed to be brokers acting on behalf

of their client customers. Even though

they do not submit permit applications

to APHIS, the client customers of

brokers are likely to be affected by this

proposed rule, since the application fees

incurred by the brokers are likely to be

passed on to them. The economic effect

on individual entities would vary,

depending on the size of the entity and

the number of permits required. For an

entity that requires only a few permits

each year, as is likely to be the case with

the smaller entities that are affected, the

proposed fees are not likely to have a

significant economic effect. However,

even an entity that requires a large

number of permits might not be

significantly affected, if it is large

enough to easily absorb the proposed

fees.

Effects on Small Entities

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

requires that agencies consider the

economic effects of their rules on small

entities, i.e., small businesses,

organizations, and governmental

jurisdictions. The proposed changes

discussed above would affect those

entities in the United States that import

live animals, animal products, and germ

plasm. They would be affected because

they would have to pay new fees, or

higher fees, to have APHIS process their

permit applications and, when required,

inspect their facilities or products.

The types of entities that may be

affected vary widely, and include

breeders, commercial researchers,

universities, zoos, and private

individuals. At least some of the

commercial entities are likely to be

brokers acting on behalf of their client

customers. Even though they themselves

do not submit permit applications to

APHIS, the client customers of brokers

would be affected by the proposed

changes if the increased fees incurred by

the brokers are passed on to them.

The number of different entities that

would be affected by the proposed

changes, if they are adopted, and the

extent of the effect on each, is unknown.

In FY 1999, APHIS processed

approximately 12,023 live animal,

animal product, and germ plasm permit

applications, but that figure overstates

the number of affected entities, because

some entities submitted more than one

application during the year.

Furthermore, the total application count

of 12,023 includes an unknown number

of private individuals in the United

States who import live animals, animal

products or germ plasm for nonbusiness

reasons. These private individuals are

not ‘‘entities’’ for purposes of this

regulatory flexibility analysis.

It is reasonable to assume that most

businesses affected by this proposed

rule are small in size. This is because

most U.S. businesses in general are

small, based on the standards of the U.S.

Small Business Administration (SBA).

In 1996, for example, there were 1,197

U.S. firms in SIC 0751, a classification

comprised of firms primarily engaged in

performing certain services, including

breeding, for cattle, hogs, sheep, goats,

and poultry. Of those 1,197 firms, 97

percent had less than $5.0 million in

sales that year, the SBA’s small entity

threshold. Similarly, in 1996, there were

7,408 U.S. firms in SIC 0752, a

classification comprised of firms

primarily engaged in performing certain

services for pets, equines, and other

animal specialties, including breeding

services. Of those 7,408 firms, over 99

percent had less than $5.0 million in

sales that year, the SBA’s small entity

threshold for firms in that SIC category.

Accordingly, most of the businesses

affected by this proposed rule are likely

to be small in size.

The potential economic effect on

individual entities would vary,

depending on the number of permits

required by each. For an entity that

requires only a few permits each year,

as is likely to be the case with the

smaller entities that are affected, the

proposed fees are not likely to have a

significant economic effect. For an

entity that submits five new live animal

applications per year, the additional

annual cost would be $470.

Alternatives Considered

One alternative to this proposed rule

would be to make no changes to the user

fee regulations. We rejected this

alternative for several reasons. First, it

would not allow us to recover the full

cost of providing the import services for

which user fees have already been

established, i.e., the germ plasm and

animal product services. APHIS cannot

charge user fees that recover less than

the full cost of providing the service.

Second, it would not allow us to shift

the cost of providing live animal import

services from the general taxpayer to the

user of those services. (This shifting also

serves to remove an existing inequity,

since APHIS currently charges a fee for

providing animal product and germ

plasm import services.)

Another alternative would be to either

exempt small businesses from the user

fees or establish a different user fee

structure for small businesses. This

alternative was also rejected, because

APHIS cannot exempt certain classes of

users, such as small businesses. Nor, as

indicated above, can APHIS charge user

fees that recover less than the full cost

of providing the service.

67662 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 219 / Monday, November 13, 2000 / Proposed Rules

This proposed rule contains

information collection requirements,

which have been submitted for approval

to the Office of Management and Budget

(see ‘‘Paperwork Reduction Act’’ below).

Executive Order 12988

This proposed rule has been reviewed

under Executive Order 12988, Civil

Justice Reform. If this proposed rule is

adopted: (1) All State and local laws and

regulations that are inconsistent with

this rule will be preempted; (2) no

retroactive effect will be given to this

rule; and (3) administrative proceedings

will not be required before parties may

file suit in court challenging this rule.

Paperwork Reduction Act

In accordance with section 3507(d) of

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the information

collection or recordkeeping

requirements included in this proposed

rule have been submitted for approval to

the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB). Please send written comments

to the Office of Information and

Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attention:

Desk Officer for APHIS, Washington, DC

20503. Please state that your comments

refer to Docket No. 99–060–1. Please

send a copy of your comments to: (1)

Docket No. 99–060–1, Regulatory

Analysis and Development, PPD,

APHIS, suite 3C03, 4700 River Road

Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737–1238,

and (2) Clearance Officer, OCIO, USDA,

room 404–W, 14th Street and

Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, DC 20250. A comment to

OMB is best assured of having its full

effect if OMB receives it within 30 days

of publication of this proposed rule.

In this document, we are proposing to

amend existing user fees for processing

applications for permits to import and

transport certain animal products,

organisms, vectors, and germ plasm. We

are also proposing to establish new user

fees that would pay the cost of

processing applications to import live

animals. We are proposing these

changes in order to ensure that we

recover our costs.

We are soliciting comments from the

public (as well as affected agencies)

concerning our proposed information

collection and recordkeeping

requirements. These comments will

help us:

(1) Evaluate whether the proposed

information collection is necessary for

the proper performance of our agency’s

functions, including whether the

information will have practical utility;

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our

estimate of the burden of the proposed

information collection, including the

validity of the methodology and

assumptions used;

(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and

clarity of the information to be

collected; and

(4) Minimize the burden of the

information collection on those who are

to respond (such as through the use of

appropriate automated, electronic,

mechanical, or other technological

collection techniques or other forms of

information technology, e.g., permitting

electronic submission of responses).

Estimate of burden: Public reporting

burden for this collection of information

is estimated to average .0166 hours per

response.

Respondents: Importers and brokers

of live animals, animal products, germ

plasm, organisms, and vectors.

Estimated annual number of

respondents: 8100.

Estimated annual number of

responses per respondent: 1.111.

Estimated annual number of

responses: 9000.

Estimated total annual burden on

respondents: 149.4 hours.

Copies of this information collection

can be obtained from: Mrs. Celeste

Sickles, APHIS’ Information Collection

Coordinator, at (301) 734–7477.

List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 130

Animals, Birds, Diagnostic reagents,

Exports, Imports, Poultry and poultry

products, Quarantine, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Tests.

Accordingly, we propose to amend 9

CFR part 130 as follows:

PART 130—USER FEES

1. The authority citation for part 130

would continue to read as follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 5542; 7 U.S.C. 1622; 19

U.S.C. 1306; 21 U.S.C. 102–105, 111, 114,

114a, 134a, 134c, 134d, 134f, 136, and 136a;

31 U.S.C. 3701, 3716, 3717, 3719, and 3720A;

7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.

2. Section 130.4 would be added to

read as follows:

§ 130.4 User fees for processing import

permit applications.

User fees for processing applications

for permits to import certain animals

and animal products (using VS forms

16–3 and 17–129) are listed in the table

below. The person for whom the service

is provided and the person requesting

the service are jointly and severally

liable for payment of these user fees in

accordance with §§ 130.50 and 130.51.

Service Unit

User fee

Effective

Date of final

rule—Sept.

30, 2001

Oct. 1,

2001–

Sept. 30,

2002

Oct. 1,

2002–

Sept. 30,

2003

Beginning

Oct. 1, 2003

Import compliance assistance:

Simple (2 hours or less) ........................................... per release ......................... 64.00 66.00 68.00 70.00

Complicated (more than 2 hours) ............................ per release ......................... 164.00 169.00 174.00 180.00

Processing an application for a permit to import live

animals, animal products or byproducts, organisms,

vectors, or germ plasm (embryos or semen) or to

transport organisms or vectors.1

Initial permit .............................................................. per application ................... 94.00 94.00 94.00 94.00

Amended permit ....................................................... per amended application ... 47.00 47.00 47.00 47.00

Renewed permit 2 ..................................................... per application ................... 61.00 61.00 61.00 61.00

Processing an application for a permit to import fetal

bovine serum when facility inspection is required.

per application ................... 322.00 322.00 322.00 322.00

1 Using Veterinary Services Form 16–3, ‘‘Application for Permit to Import or Transport Controlled Material or Organisms or Vectors,’’ or Form

17–129, ‘‘Application for Import or In Transit Permit (Animals, Animal Semen, Animal Embryos, Birds, Poultry, or Hatching Eggs).’’ 2Permits to import germ plasm and live animals are not renewable.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 219 / Monday, November 13, 2000 / Proposed Rules 67663

§ 130.8 [Amended]

3. In § 130.8(a), the table would be

amended by removing the entries for

‘‘Germ plasm being imported’’

(including footnote 2), ‘‘Import

compliance assistance’’, and

‘‘Processing VS Form 16–3’’.

Done in Washington, DC, this 20th day of

October 2000.

Bobby R. Acord,

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service.

[FR Doc. 00–28973 Filed 11–9–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–34–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 2000–NM–319–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Empresa

Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A.

(EMBRAER) Model EMB–135 and

EMB–145 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes the

adoption of a new airworthiness

directive (AD) that is applicable to

certain EMBRAER Model EMB–135 and

EMB–145 series airplanes. This

proposal would require replacement of

certain brake control units (BCU) with

new units. This action is necessary to

prevent uncommanded application of

50 percent braking in one pair of

wheels, which could result in the

airplane skidding off the runway. This

action is intended to address the

identified unsafe condition.

DATES: Comments must be received by

December 13, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–114,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 2000–NM–

319–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Comments may be inspected at this

location between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00

p.m., Monday through Friday, except

Federal holidays. Comments may be

submitted via fax to (425) 227–1232.

Comments may also be sent via the

Internet using the following address: 9-

anm-nprmcomment@faa.gov. Comments

sent via fax or the Internet must contain

‘‘Docket No. 2000–NM–319–AD’’ in the

subject line and need not be submitted

in triplicate. Comments sent via the

Internet as attached electronic files must

be formatted in Microsoft Word 97 for

Windows or ASCII text.

The service information referenced in

the proposed rule may be obtained from

Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A.

(EMBRAER), P.O. Box 343—CEP 12.225,

Sao Jose dos Campos SP, Brazil. This

information may be examined at the

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington; or at the FAA, Atlanta

Aircraft Certification Office, One Crown

Center, 1895 Phoenix Boulevard, suite

450, Atlanta, Georgia.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert Capezzuto, Aerospace Engineer,

Systems and Flight Test Branch, ACE–

116A, FAA, Atlanta Aircraft

Certification Office, One Crown Center,

1895 Phoenix Boulevard, suite 450,

Atlanta, Georgia 30349; telephone (770)

703–6071; fax (770) 703–6097.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

Interested persons are invited to

participate in the making of the

proposed rule by submitting such

written data, views, or arguments as

they may desire. Communications shall

identify the Rules Docket number and

be submitted in triplicate to the address

specified above. All communications

received on or before the closing date

for comments, specified above, will be

considered before taking action on the

proposed rule. The proposals contained

in this notice may be changed in light

of the comments received.

Submit comments using the following

format:

• Organize comments issue-by-issue.

For example, discuss a request to

change the compliance time and a

request to change the service bulletin

reference as two separate issues.

• For each issue, state what specific

change to the proposed AD is being

requested.

• Include justification (e.g., reasons or

data) for each request.

Comments are specifically invited on

the overall regulatory, economic,

environmental, and energy aspects of

the proposed rule. All comments

submitted will be available, both before

and after the closing date for comments,

in the Rules Docket for examination by

interested persons. A report

summarizing each FAA-public contact

concerned with the substance of this

proposal will be filed in the Rules

Docket.

Commenters wishing the FAA to

acknowledge receipt of their comments

submitted in response to this notice

must submit a self-addressed, stamped

postcard on which the following

statement is made: ‘‘Comments to

Docket Number 2000–NM–319–AD.’’

The postcard will be date stamped and

returned to the commenter.

Availability of NPRMs

Any person may obtain a copy of this

NPRM by submitting a request to the

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,

ANM–114, Attention: Rules Docket No.

2000–NM–319–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Discussion

The Departmento de Aviacao Civil

(DAC), which is the airworthiness

authority for Brazil, notified the FAA

that an unsafe condition may exist on

certain EMBRAER Model EMB–135 and

EMB–145 series airplanes. The DAC

advises that it received a report of one

occurrence in which the flight crew

noticed uncommanded brake

application on an EMB–145 series

airplane. Analysis of the brake control

unit (BCU) that was removed after this

occurrence revealed a condition that

caused uncommanded application of 50

percent braking in one pair of wheels.

This condition, if not corrected, could

result in the airplane skidding off the

runway.

Explanation of Relevant Service

Information

EMBRAER has issued Service Bulletin

145–32–0060, Change No. 01, dated

June 6, 2000, which describes

procedures for replacement of certain

BCU’s with new units. The procedures

involve converting BCU’s having a

particular part number to a new part

number, replacing certain units with

new units, and performing a functional

check of the main brake system.

Accomplishment of the actions

specified in the service bulletin is

intended to adequately address the

identified unsafe condition. The DAC

classified this service bulletin as

mandatory and issued Brazilian

airworthiness directive 2000–07–01,

dated August 20, 2000, in order to

assure the continued airworthiness of

these airplanes in Brazil.

FAA’s Conclusions

These airplane models are

manufactured in Brazil and are type

certificated for operation in the United

States under the provisions of section

21.29 of the Federal Aviation

Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the

applicable bilateral airworthiness

agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral

airworthiness agreement, the DAC has