40200 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 144 /Tuesday, July 28, 1998 / Proposed Rules

Asia that are east of 60° East Longitude

and north of the Tropic of Cancer may

be imported in accordance with this

paragraph.

(i) The wood chips or bark chips must

be accompanied by an importer

document stating that the wood chips or

bark chips were either:

(A) Derived from live, healthy,

tropical species of plantation-grown

trees grown in tropical areas; or

(B) Fumigated with methyl bromide

in accordance with § 319.40–7(f)(3), heat

treated in accordance with § 319.40–

7(c), or heat treated with moisture

reduction in accordance with § 319.40–

7(d).

(ii) During shipment to the United

States, no other regulated articles (other

than solid wood packing materials) are

permitted in the holds or sealed

containers carrying the wood chips or

bark chips. Wood chips or bark chips on

the vessel’s deck must be in a sealed

container; Except that: If the wood chips

or bark chips are derived from live,

healthy, plantation-grown trees in

tropical areas, they may be shipped on

deck if no other regulated articles are

present on the vessel, and the wood

chips or bark chips are completely

covered by a tarpaulin during the entire

journey directly to the United States.

(iii) The wood chips or bark chips

must be free from rot at the time of

importation, unless accompanied by an

importer document stating that the

entire lot was fumigated with methyl

bromide in accordance with § 319.40–

7(f)(3), heat treated in accordance with

§ 319.40–7(c), or heat treated with

moisture reduction in accordance with

§ 319.40–7(d).

(iv) Wood chips or bark chips

imported in accordance with this

paragraph must be consigned to a

facility operating under a compliance

agreement in accordance with § 319.40–

8. The wood chips or bark chips must

be burned, heat treated in accordance

with § 319.40–7(c), heat treated with

moisture reduction in accordance with

§ 319.40–7(d), or otherwise processed in

a manner that will destroy any plant

pests associated with the wood chips or

bark chips, within 30 days of arrival at

the facility. If the wood chips or bark

chips are to be used for mulching or

composting, they must first be

fumigated in accordance with § 319.40–

7(f)(3), heat treated in accordance with

§ 319.40–7(c), or heat treated with

moisture reduction in accordance with

§ 319.40–7(d).

4. In § 319.40–7, paragraph (e) would

be revised to read as follows.

§ 319.40–7 Treatments and safeguards.

* * * * *

(e) Surface pesticide treatments. All

United States Environmental Protection

Agency registered surface pesticide

treatments are authorized for regulated

articles imported in accordance with

this subpart, except that Pinus radiata

wood chips from Chile must be treated

in accordance with § 319.40–7(e)(2).

Surface pesticide treatments must be

conducted in accordance with label

directions approved by the United

States Environmental Protection

Agency. Under the following

circumstances, surface pesticide

treatments must also be conducted as

follows:

(1) Heat treated logs. When used on

heat treated logs, a surface pesticide

treatment must be first applied within

48 hours following heat treatment. The

surface pesticide treatment must be

repeated at least every 30 days during

storage of the regulated article, with the

final treatment occurring no more than

30 days prior to departure of the means

of conveyance that carries the regulated

articles to the United States.

(2) Pinus radiata wood chips from

Chile. When used on Pinus radiata

wood chips from Chile, a surface

pesticide consisting of the following

must be used: A mixture of a fungicide

containing 64.8 percent of the active

ingredient didecyl dimethyl ammonium

chloride and 7.6 percent of the active

ingredient 3-Iodo-2-propynl

butylcarbamate, and an insecticide

containing 44.9 percent of the active

ingredient chlorphrifos

phosphorothioate. The fungicide and

insecticide must be mixed using the

proportions called for in the label

requirements. The wood chips must be

sprayed with the pesticide so that all the

chips are exposed to the chemical on all

sides. During the entire interval between

treatment and export, the wood chips

must be stored, handled, or safeguarded

in a manner that excludes any

infestation of the wood chips by plant

pests.

* * * * *

Done in Washington, DC, this 22nd day of

July 1998.

Charles P. Schwalbe,

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service.

[FR Doc. 98–20156 Filed 7–27–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service

9 CFR Part 130

[Docket No. 98–005–1]

Veterinary Services User Fees; Embryo

Collection Center Approval Fee

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: We are proposing to amend

existing user fees for the inspection and

approval of embryo collection centers.

Existing user fees require embryo

collection centers to pay user fees based

on hourly rates for inspections and

approval. We are proposing to replace

the hourly rates for this specific service

with a flat rate annual user fee that

would cover the cost of approval and all

required inspections of the facility for

that year. We are taking this action in

order to make the collection of user fees

simpler and to allow centers to better

predict the costs of APHIS’ inspection

and approval.

DATES: Consideration will be given only

to comments received on or before

September 28, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Please send an original and

three copies of your comments to

Docket No. 98–005–1, Regulatory

Analysis and Development, PPD,

APHIS, suite 3C03, 4700 River Road

Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737–1238.

Please state that your comments refer to

Docket No. 98–005–1. Comments

received may be inspected at USDA,

room 1141, South Building, 14th Street

and Independence Avenue SW.,

Washington, DC, between 8 a.m. and

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except holidays. Persons wishing to

inspect comments are requested to call

ahead on (202) 690–2817 to facilitate

entry into the comment reading room.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Donna Ford, Section Head, Financial

Systems and Services Branch, Budget

and Accounting Division, ABS, 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-related

and export-related services for live

animals and birds and animal products

are contained in 9 CFR part 130. Section

130.21 lists the user fees charged for
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 144 /Tuesday, July 28, 1998 / Proposed Rules 40201

APHIS’ inspection and approval of

export facilities, including embryo

collection centers, within the United

States. Section 130.8 lists miscellaneous

flat rate user fees.

Currently, under § 130.21, APHIS

charges an hourly rate user fee for

inspections and approval of embryo

collection centers. The same rate applies

to both stationary and mobile facilities.

We are proposing to amend 9 CFR

part 130 to establish a flat rate annual

user fee of $ 278.50 to cover the cost of

APHIS’ inspection and approval of

embryo collection centers, both

stationary and mobile. The flat fee

would cover inspection and approval of

the facility only. The cost of any animal

inspections is not included in the

proposed fee.

We are proposing this action based on

requests from embryo industry

representatives that we modify our user

fees to make it easier for them to know

in advance what their costs will be. This

would, in turn, enable the industry to

quote accurate costs to their customers.

We have determined that the most

effective way to provide the requested

service to our customers is to establish

a flat rate annual user fee, which would

effectively eliminate any variation in

cost that could otherwise result in

charging hourly rates for inspections.

The proposed flat rate annual user fee

for inspection and approval of embryo

collection centers was calculated to

reflect the average annual cost of

providing this service. The average

annual cost includes the time to provide

the service and travel time, which are

both currently billed at an hourly rate.

The total charge to the customer would

not be significantly different from what

he or she currently pays.

We are proposing to add the flat rate

annual user fee of $278.50 for

inspection and approval of embryo

collection centers to the table in

§ 130.8(a), which includes the flat rate

user fees for other inspection and

approval services. In addition, we are

proposing to remove the provision in

§ 130.21(a)(6) that applies hourly rate

user fees for inspection and approval of

embryo collection centers.

We would continue to charge hourly

rate user fees, in accordance with

§ 130.21(a)(6), for inspecting and

approving semen collection centers. We

are making no change to these user fees

because we have not received any

comments from the industry requesting

such a change, and the current fees

provide us with an adequate means of

recovering our costs.

We are also proposing to make a

nonsubstantive change to § 130.21(a)(6)

to clarify that artificial insemination

centers are subject to the same user fees

as semen collection centers. APHIS

currently regulates both under the term

semen collection center.

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.

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

130. Currently, we charge hourly rate

user fees for inspection and approval of

embryo collection centers and the

animals in them. We are proposing to

amend the regulations by removing

these hourly rate user fees for inspection

and approval and replacing them with

a flat rate annual user fee, which would

not include costs for inspecting any

animals in the facility.

The flat rate annual user fee that we

are proposing was arrived at using the

average number of hours required for an

APHIS inspector to complete an

inspection (including travel time), the

average number of inspections

performed during a year (two per

center), the average direct labor

involved, and proportional share of

support costs, overhead, and

departmental charges.

The proposed flat rate annual user fee

of $278.50 per center should not be

significantly different from what

customers have paid per year in the past

for inspection and approval at hourly

rates. Variations would generally be a

result of different travel times to

individual centers.

There are approximately 90 currently

licensed embryo collection centers in

the United States. Under Small Business

Administration (SBA) guidelines, an

embryo collection center with less than

$5 million in annual sales qualifies as

a small entity. While we could not

determine exactly how many of the

embryo collection centers are ‘‘small

entities,’’ it is likely that the majority of

them have less than $5 million in

annual sales. However, since the

proposed flat fee should not be

significantly different from what

customers have paid in the past for

approval and inspection at hourly rates,

the effect on customers should be

minimal.

The proposed rule should also have a

minimal impact on the customers of

embryo collection centers, whether

small or large. Any change in cost to

users that does occur should be small,

relative to the product value of even a

small operation. An average animal

embryo sells for approximately $400,

with certain animal embryos ranging in

price from $100 to $2500 each. An

average collection center collects

approximately 3,400 animal embryos a

year. Considering the volume of animal

embryos collected at collection facilities

per year and the value of individual

embryos, the effect on user costs should

be minimal.

Under these circumstances, the

Administrator of the Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service has

determined that this action would 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 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

This proposed rule contains no new

information collection or recordkeeping

requirements under the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501

et seq.).

Regulatory Reform

This action is part of the President’s

Regulatory Reform Initiative, which,

among other things, directs agencies to

remove obsolete and unnecessary

regulations and to find less burdensome

ways to achieve regulatory goals.

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:
40202 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 144 /Tuesday, July 28, 1998 / Proposed Rules

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, 134b, 134c, 134d, 134f, 135, 136,

and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.2(d).

2. In § 130.8, paragraph (a) would be

amended by adding a new entry at the

end of the table to read as follows:

§ 130.8 User fees for other services.

(a) * * *

Service User fee

* * * * * * *

Embryo collection center inspection and approval ................................... $278.50 for all inspections required during the year for facility approval.

* * * * *

§ 130.21 [Amended]

3. In § 130.21, paragraph (a)(6) would

be amended by removing the words

‘‘embryo or’’ and adding the words

‘‘artificial insemination center or a’’ in

their place.

* * * * *

Done in Washington, DC, this 22nd day of

July 1998.

Charles P. Schwalbe,

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service.

[FR Doc. 98–20157 Filed 7–27–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 490

Office of Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy

[Docket No. EE–RM–98–PURE]

RIN 1904–AA99

Alternative Fuel Transportation

Program; P-series fuels

AGENCY: Department of Energy (DOE).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

and opportunity for public comment.

SUMMARY: In response to a petition filed

by Pure Energy Corporation, DOE

proposes to amend the rules for the

statutory program requiring certain

alternative fuel providers and State

government fleets to acquire an

annually increasing percentage of

alternative fueled vehicles from among

their purchases of new light duty

vehicles. The proposed regulatory

amendments would add certain blends

of methyltetrahydrofuran, ethanol and

hydrocarbons known as the P-series

fuels to the definition of ‘‘alternative

fuel.’’

DATES: Written comments, eight (8)

copies, must be received by DOE by

September 28, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be addressed to: U.S. Department of

Energy, Office of Transportation

Technologies, EE–34, Docket No. EE–

RM–98–PURE, 1000 Independence

Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20585,

telephone (202) 586–3012.

Copies of the Pure Energy Corporation

petition for rulemaking, analyses of the

petition by national laboratories, written

comments received, technical reference

materials mentioned in this notice, and

any other documents related to this

rulemaking may be read and copied at

the DOE Freedom of Information

Reading Room, Room 1E–190, 1000

Independence Avenue, SW,

Washington, DC 20585, telephone (202)

586–3142, between the hours of 9:00

a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through

Friday, except Federal holidays. The

docket file material will be filed under

EE–RM–98–PURE.

For more information concerning

public participation in this rulemaking

proceeding, see section III of this notice

(Public Comment Procedures).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kenneth R. Katz, Office of Energy

Efficiency and Renewable Energy, (EE–

34), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000

Independence Avenue, S.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20585, (202) 586–

9171.

For information concerning

submission of written comments and to

obtain copies of materials referenced in

this notice, contact Andi Kasarsky, (202)

586–3012.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction and Background

A. Fuel Characteristics

Pure Energy Corporation has

petitioned DOE for a rulemaking to add

its proprietary fuel products to the

definition of ‘‘alternative fuels’’ under

the Alternative Fuel Transportation

Program (Program) regulations (10 CFR

part 490). Pure Energy Corporation’s Pseries fuels are blends of ethanol,

methyltetrahydrofuran (MTHF), and

pentanes plus, with butane added for

blends that would be used in severe

cold-weather conditions to meet cold

start requirements. It is anticipated that

both the ethanol and the MTHF will be

derived from renewable resources, such

as waste cellulosic biomass that can be

derived from waste paper, agricultural

waste and urban/industrial wood waste.

Pure Energy Corporation plans to use

pentanes plus that are derived from the

processing and production of natural

gas, as opposed to those derived from

refining processes. Pure Energy

Corporation holds the exclusive

worldwide license to manufacture and

distribute the P-series fuels, which were

developed by Dr. Stephen Paul of

Princeton University. The P-series fuels

were awarded Patent number 5,697,987

by the United States Patent and

Trademark Office on December 16,

1997. DOE’s evaluation of Pure Energy

Corporation’s petition is restricted to

those formulations covered under this

patent.

To make the P-series fuels, Pure

Energy Corporation will be producing

ethanol and MTHF through an

integrated production process. Pure

Energy Corporation expects to utilize

commercially proven concentrated acid

hydrolysis processing as its base

technology for this integrated

production process. MTHF is currently

produced in limited quantities from

furfural (derived from both biomass and

petroleum feedstocks) for use as a

specialty chemical in consumer end

products and/or process industries.

Pure Energy Corporation has

developed a thermochemical technology

to produce MTHF from cellulosic

feedstocks through a levulinic acid

pathway, integrating it with an ethanol

production system to achieve technical

and economic efficiencies. In this

process, the lignocellulosic feedstock is

converted into both five-and six-carbon

sugars, which are then bifurcated into

fermentation and thermochemical

pathways to produce ethanol and

MTHF, respectively.

Pure Energy Corporation has

developed several fuel formulations for

the P-series fuels. Pure Energy

Corporation proposes to vary the

components of its P-series fuels to meet

particular market demands. The

formulations described in Table 1 are

those for which Pure Energy

Corporation, in its petition, provided

specific energy and emission data. Pure

Energy Corporation claims that the

volumetric percentages of each of the

components of the P-series fuels can