Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 6 / Friday, January 10, 2025 / Notices 1941 

1To view the final rule, go to https://

www.regulations.gov/document/APHIS-2021-0052- 

0014. 

2To view the notice or the comments that we 

received, go to https://www.regulations.gov/docket/ 

APHIS-2023-0058. Additionally, please note that on 

November 22, 2024, we issued a correction to the 

notice to provide a proposed fee that was 

inadvertently omitted from table 21 in the initial 

notice. 

Communication Activity System 

(SNICAS). 

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION: 

Sensitive but unclassified. 

SYSTEM LOCATION: 

The Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service (APHIS), within the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 

maintains records in a Governmentapproved cloud server accessed through 

secure data centers in the continental 

United States. Paper files are held at 

various Plant Protection and Quarantine 

(PPQ) Smuggling Interdiction and Trade 

Compliance national, district, and field 

offices. 

SYSTEM MANAGER(S): 

Deputy Administrator of Plant 

Protection and Quarantine, APHIS, 

USDA, 4700 River Road, Riverdale, MD 

20737. 

* * * * * 

EXEMPTIONS PROMULGATED FOR THE SYSTEM: 

The Agency has exempted this system 

from subsections (c)(3); (d); (e)(1); 

(e)(4)(G), (H), and (I); and (f) of the 

Privacy Act pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 

552a(k)(2). The exemptions will be 

applied only to the extent that the 

information in the system is subject to 

exemption pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 

552a(k)(2). 

HISTORY: 

Smuggling Interdiction and Trade 

Compliance (SITC) National Information 

Communication Activity System 

(SNICAS), USDA/APHIS–21, was 

published as a new system in its 

entirety on July 11, 2022, (87 FR 41098– 

41101, Docket No. APHIS–2014–0062). 

A report on the modified system of 

records, required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), as 

implemented by Office of Management 

and Budget Circular A–108, was sent to 

the Chairman and Ranking Member of 

the House Committee on Oversight and 

Reform, Chairman and Ranking 

Member of the Senate Committee on 

Homeland Security and Governmental 

Affairs, and the Administrator of the 

Office of Management and Budget’s 

Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs. 

Done in Washington, DC, this 12th day of 

December 2024. 

Michael Watson, 

Administrator, Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 2025–00335 Filed 1–8–25; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

[Docket No. APHIS–2023–0058] 

Veterinary Services User Fees 

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture (USDA). 

ACTION: Final notice. 

SUMMARY: The Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service (APHIS) is 

announcing adjusted user fee rates for 

the costs of providing certain goods and 

services, including veterinary diagnostic 

goods and services and veterinary 

services for imports and exports of live 

animals and animal products. This 

action is necessary because the 

regulations provide that APHIS will 

issue such a notice. This action ensures 

that the fees charged more closely align 

with the costs of providing the goods or 

services, thus ensuring program 

solvency. 

DATES: The fee rates in this notice go 

into effect January 10, 2025. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

information on the user fee activities 

covered by this notice, contact Ms. Lisa 

Slimmer, User Fee Financial Team 

Manager, Veterinary Services Money 

Management, 920 Main Campus Drive, 

Raleigh, NC 27606; (919) 414–7205. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The regulations in 9 CFR part 130 

(referred to below as the regulations or 

the user fee regulations), cover user fees 

to reimburse the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture’s (USDA’s) Animal and 

Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) 

for the costs of providing veterinary 

diagnostic services and import/export 

related services for live animals, animal 

products and byproducts, poultry, birds, 

germplasm, organisms, and vectors. 

These user fees are authorized by 

section 2509(c) of the Food, Agriculture, 

Conservation, and Trade Act (FACT 

Act) of 1990, as amended (21 U.S.C. 

136a(c)), which provides that the 

Secretary of Agriculture may, among 

other things, prescribe regulations and 

collect fees to recover the costs of 

providing import/export related services 

for animals, animal products and 

byproducts, birds, germplasm, 

organisms, and vectors, and for 

veterinary diagnostics relating to the 

control and eradication of 

communicable diseases of livestock or 

poultry within the United States. 

Since fiscal year 1992, APHIS has 

received no directly appropriated funds 

to cover the cost of certain veterinary 

diagnostics or to provide import/export 

related services for animals, animal 

products and byproducts, birds, 

germplasm, organisms, and vectors. Our 

ability to provide these services 

depends on user fees. User fees are 

associated with providing services for 

live animal, animal product, bird, and 

germplasm imports and exports and the 

user fees fund, among other things, 

quarantine services, the processing of 

import permit applications, port of entry 

inspections, inspections and approvals 

of import/export facilities and 

establishments, endorsements of export 

certificates, and services related to 

emergency situations that arise during 

the export or import process. 

On August 1, 2023, APHIS published 

a final rule in the Federal Register that 

revised the regulations (88 FR 49994– 

50002, Docket No. APHIS–2021–0052, 

referred to below as the August 2023 

final rule).1 This final rule removed 

tables providing the individual fees 

from the regulations and instead 

indicated that they are posted on the 

following website: www.aphis.usda.gov/ 

business-services/vs-fees. It also 

provided that, on an annual basis, 

APHIS would propose changes to the 

fee rates through publication of a notice 

in the Federal Register. 

On November 8, 2024, we published 

the first such notice in the Federal 

Register (89 FR 88697, Docket No. 

APHIS–2023–0058, referred to below as 

the November 2024 notice). 2

We solicited comments on the notice 

for 30 days, ending on December 9, 

2024. We received 33 comments by that 

date from industry groups and private 

citizens. 

General Comment 

Four of the commenters supported the 

fee increases articulated in the notice. 

One of these commenters asked if the 

revenue generated by the fee increases 

would be used to reopen an USDA 

APHIS office in Conyers, Georgia. 

We are uncertain what office the 

commenter is referring to because the 

USDA APHIS office in Conyers, Georgia 

is currently open. 

Similarly, a commenter asked us if the 

additional revenue generated by the fees 

would go to additional staffing of 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with NOTICES
1942 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 6 / Friday, January 10, 2025 / Notices 

personnel at ports of entry, particularly 

those along the southern border. 

The fees collected are allocated, in 

part, to staffing port environs. However, 

due to the nature of fee remittance and 

the Federal hiring process, it may take 

time before additional personnel are 

hired and stakeholders experience the 

benefits associated with the additional 

staffing. 

Twenty-nine commenters disagreed 

with the proposed user fees for various 

reasons. We discuss these comments 

below, by topic. 

Several commenters stated that they 

would either have to assume the 

financial burden associated with the fee 

increases as part of their business 

model, or pass them off to other parties 

in their supply chain. The commenters 

stated that these impacts could 

adversely impact international trade. 

We acknowledge that the parties 

subject to the user fees will have to 

assume the costs of the increased fees, 

and could pass this cost differential 

through to other parties in their supply 

chain. However, the commenters did 

not state that the fees had been 

miscalculated. Additionally, as we 

stated in the August 2023 final rule, the 

November 2024 notice, and this 

document, APHIS has received no 

directly appropriated funds to cover the 

cost of certain veterinary diagnostics or 

to provide import/export related 

services for animals, animal products 

and byproducts, birds, germplasm, 

organisms, and vectors. Our ability to 

provide these services depends on user 

fees. In addition, as discussed later in 

this notice, the fees must be changed in 

order to ensure that the program 

remains solvent and there are no 

disruptions of the services provided. 

A number of commenters stated that 

the customer service associated with 

some of the services funded by the fees 

was suboptimal and/or nonstandardized. Of these, several 

commenters recommended that APHIS’ 

Veterinary Services (VS) provide service 

standards and guidelines for user fee 

activities to ensure consistency of 

services provided. In a similar vein, 

several commenters stated that import/ 

export-related services were often 

technically difficult and inexperienced 

APHIS personnel could take longer to 

do the task, leading to disparate and 

potentially inflated levels of effort, and, 

in turn, higher fees. 

The fees are based on average level of 

effort associated with the service. This 

helps ensure that the fees are not set 

against outlying scenarios that may not 

be indicative of usual level of effort. 

With that being said, APHIS exercises 

multiple controls to ensure that work is 

done in an efficient and standardized 

manner. This includes requiring 

specialized experience or its equivalent 

as a condition of hiring, and standard 

operating procedures for employees in 

the form of VS guidance documents 

(VSGs). While some of these VSGs are 

internal-facing, APHIS has made many 

of them publicly available for the sake 

of transparency and as a service to the 

general public. For example, VSGs 

related to the import and export of 

equines are found here: https://

www.aphis.usda.gov/live-animalimport/equine/vs-guidance. Finally, 

because commenters did not provide 

information regarding the services they 

claimed were occurring suboptimally or 

in a non-standard manner, APHIS is 

unable to evaluate these claims further. 

One commenter who stated that they 

were currently dissatisfied with the 

service provided by APHIS stated that 

the fees should not be raised until 

customer satisfaction increases. 

Such a delay runs the risk of 

disruption of the services provided or, 

in a worst-case scenario, program 

insolvency due to insufficient funds, 

which would run counter to the 

commenter’s request for increased 

customer service. Based on current and 

projected revenue, the program runs the 

risk of such disruptions if the fees are 

not increased by early spring 2025. 

Several commenters stated that 

advance notification was necessary 

regarding any regulatory changes to the 

fee structure or possible increases in 

fees. One commenter requested at least 

12 months advance notification, while 

others stated that this should be at least 

12 to 24 months before the fees are 

raised. The commenter asking for at 

least 12 months advance notification 

characterized the fee increases in the 

November 2024 notice as an abrupt 

policy change and without prior notice. 

On October 3, 2022, we issued the 

proposed rule on which the August 

2023 final rule revising the regulations 

was based (87 FR 59731–59740, Docket 

No. APHIS–2021–0052, referred to 

below as the October 2022 proposed 

rule). In it, we indicated the nature of 

the regulatory revisions contemplated, 

and stated ‘‘we anticipate that, since 

APHIS’ import/export and veterinary 

diagnostic user fees have not been 

updated for more than 10 years, there 

will be a change in the fees when APHIS 

applies this new approach.’’ (87 FR 

59732). We also stated that we intended 

to issue a notice annually proposing 

actual fee rates. In the August 2023 final 

rule, we again indicated that we would 

publish an annual notice, and stated 

that it was the Agency’s intent to issue 

initial and second notices adjusting the 

fees on an annual basis. (88 FR 49995). 

Finally, our November 2024 notice 

proposing the updated fee rates itself 

had a public comment period. In light 

of the foregoing, we believe that there 

was adequate notification provided of 

the changes to the regulations, the 

likelihood of fee increases, and the 

specific nature of the increases; we 

therefore disagree that the proposed fee 

increases were an abrupt policy change. 

Moreover, as noted above, further delay 

of issuance of the adjusted fees runs the 

risk of disruption of the services 

provided or, in a worst-case scenario, 

program insolvency due to insufficient 

funds. Based on current and projected 

revenue, the program runs the risk of 

such disruptions if the fees are not 

increased by early spring 2025. 

Several commenters stated that 

APHIS should have engaged 

stakeholders prior to proposing to revise 

the fees. 

APHIS has consistently apprised 

stakeholders of the need to revise the 

current fees. Additionally, we note that 

both the October 2022 proposed rule 

and the November 2024 notice 

referenced above provided an 

opportunity for stakeholder feedback in 

the form of public comment. Finally, 

APHIS issued notifications of the 

availability of both the October 2022 

proposed rule and the November 2024 

notice using our Stakeholder Registry. 

To subscribe to the Stakeholder 

Registry, please visit https://public.

govdelivery.com/accounts/ 

USDAAPHIS/subscriber/new. APHIS 

strives to ensure that any changes in our 

policies/regulations are communicated 

early and robustly through the 

Stakeholder Registry and other outreach 

mechanisms. 

One commenter suggested that an 

advisory group be established relative to 

the user fee regulations. 

While outside the scope of this notice, 

we will take this suggestion into 

consideration. 

Several commenters suggested that 

APHIS consider phased implementation 

with an altered fee structure that would 

allot additional time for industries to 

adapt to the new fees. One commenter 

stated we should consider 

implementation a year after publishing, 

and another commenter suggested 

implementation over several years. 

The costs of providing veterinary 

diagnostic and import/export related 

services is unsustainable at the current 

fee rates, and the program runs the risk 

of disruption of the services provided 

or, in a worst-case scenario, program 

insolvency due to insufficient funds. 

Based on current and projected revenue, 

the program runs the risk of such 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 6 / Friday, January 10, 2025 / Notices 1943 

disruptions if the fees are not increased 

by early spring 2025. This precludes 

prolonged phased implementation of 

the fees. 

Several commenters recommended 

that we tier services. Tiering suggestions 

included lower fees for smaller 

businesses, high-volume consumers of 

the service for which the fee is assessed, 

the species in question, or biosecurity 

compliance history. 

As noted in the November 2024 

notice, APHIS sets user fees based on 

the average level of effort identified to 

complete each service, for which a user 

fee is assessed, referred to as the direct 

time factor in minutes. To determine the 

direct time factor in minutes for each 

service, we conducted labor surveys for 

each of the organizations providing the 

services. APHIS does not charge 

different fees based on the size of an 

organization receiving the service, or the 

volume of times the organization 

receives the services. One of the primary 

reasons for this is to ensure that crosssubsidization of differing fee areas does 

not occur; cross-subsidization is 

prohibited by the FACT Act. 

APHIS does charge different fees for 

different species of animals when the 

service provided for one species of 

animal is disaggregated from services 

provided to other species of animals. 

For example, we charge different user 

fees for different species of animals and 

birds receiving standard housing, care, 

feed, and handling while quarantined in 

an APHIS-owned or operated animal 

import center or quarantine facility. 

However, disaggregation is not always 

possible depending on the service in 

question. We discuss this at greater 

length later in this notice. 

Several commenters suggested that 

some of the services for which fees are 

currently assessed could be subdivided 

into further fee classes based on level of 

effort. For example, one commenter 

suggested that export health certificates 

could be assessed different fees based 

on whether or not the certificates 

require additional attestations, test 

results, or other certifications. 

With regard to the commenter’s 

example, APHIS currently does 

subdivide the user fee for export health 

certificates based on whether or not the 

certificate requires additional 

endorsements, certificates, or 

verification of tests or vaccinations. This 

was previously set forth in the 

regulations themselves, and was 

presented in tables 24 and 25 of the 

November 2024 notice. 

If a fee is not currently subdivided, it 

is because the fee was not subdivided 

previously in the regulations. APHIS 

did not amend the fee categories in the 

August 2023 final rule. Rather, as noted 

previously, we moved the current fee 

categories from the regulations to a 

website. However, APHIS is open to the 

consolidation or subdivision of fee 

categories when aggregation or 

disaggregation of the services provided 

is possible. These would be announced 

as part of the annual notice to adjust the 

fees in future notices. 

Conversely, several commenters noted 

that we divided several user fee services 

into simple versus complex based on 

the number of hours needed to complete 

them. The commenters appeared to 

assume that these were new 

subcategories that the Agency would 

use in order to artificially increase level 

of effort and charge more fees. 

The terms existed in the regulations 

prior to the August 2023 final rule and 

were simply ported from the regulations 

as a result of that final rule. The terms 

still have the meaning that they had 

while part of the regulations, and APHIS 

has no intent to change its practices to 

artificially render the services complex. 

Additionally, as noted elsewhere, fees 

were set based on average level of effort, 

in order to control for outlying 

scenarios. 

Several commenters asked why fees 

for services provided for their class of 

animals or products were greater than 

the same service provided for other 

classes of animals or products. 

As noted in the November 2024 

notice, the differing proposed adjusted 

fees are the result of differing average 

levels of effort needed to complete each 

service. The same service can take 

different average levels of effort to 

complete for different classes of animal 

or products. For example, the average 

level of effort associated with the 

inspection of imported cattle differs 

from that associated with horses. This 

can be the result of many factors, 

including, but not limited to increased 

technical complexity associated with 

the task for a certain class of animals or 

products, specialized requirements that 

must be met and/or evaluated that are 

not applicable to other classes of 

animals or products, and, particularly in 

the case of endorsement of export 

certificates, extensive and nonstandardized documentation and 

attestations. 

A commenter asked how the cost-ofliving adjustment (COLA) and consumer 

price index (CPI) percentages referenced 

in the November 2024 notice were 

calculated and stated that this was not 

explained thoroughly in the notice. The 

manner in which COLA and CPI are 

calculated for purposes of the user fee 

regulations was discussed at length in 

October 2022 proposed rule to revise the 

regulations, and the terms cost of living 

and Consumer price index are defined 

in the regulations themselves. 

The same commenter asserted that we 

needed to provide justification in the 

November 2024 notice that COLA and 

CPI adjustments directly impact direct 

and indirect costs to the Agency. 

We disagree. The relationship was 

discussed in the October 2022 proposed 

rule to revise the regulations. 

Although many commenters stated 

they understood the need for fee 

increases in general, several 

commenters raised concerns regarding 

the increase in user fees for their 

respective industries. Several 

commenters noted that the notice 

provided cost calculation tables for 

certain fees, but not for others, and 

asked that the final notice provide the 

relevant cost calculations that led to 

each fee. Other commenters stated that 

the data provided in the November 2024 

notice was insufficient to assess 

whether the proposed fee was justified 

and asked for additional source data to 

evaluate the fee. Specific fee classes that 

were flagged as needing additional 

information included those for new and 

amended import permits, those for 

disease tests for imported equines, those 

for inspection of horses intended for 

export, those for export health 

certificates for bovine germplasm, and 

those for endorsement of export health 

certificates. 

We believe that the October 2022 

proposed rule and the August 2023 final 

rule provided the cost components used 

to calculate each fee, as well as the 

nature of the underlying Agency costs in 

each component. The examples in the 

November 2024 notice were illustrative 

to show the real costs in each 

component for various fee types. 

However, in response to these 

requests and in the interest of full 

transparency, we are making all cost 

data on which the fees were based 

available at www.aphis.usda.gov/ 

business-services/vs-fees. Please note 

that, due to the size of the files, they 

must be downloaded before viewing. 

A commenter noted that the notice 

did not address reimbursable overtime 

rates, and provided comment on these 

rates. However, we stated in the October 

2022 proposed rule that reimbursable 

overtime would not be part of the 

notice-based process under which the 

November 2024 notice was issued, but 

rather would be adjusted periodically 

through a separate rulemaking process. 

A commenter suggested that we 

amend the duration for which import 

permits are valid. This is outside the 

scope of both this notice and the user 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with NOTICES
1944 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 6 / Friday, January 10, 2025 / Notices 

fee regulations under which this notice 

was issued. 

A commenter suggested that APHIS 

not require permit amendments, which 

are assessed a user fee, for import 

permits for equines when a change of 

expected itinerary occurs. This likewise 

is outside the scope of both this notice, 

and the user fee regulations under 

which this notice was issued. 

A commenter suggested that all export 

health certificates should be 

electronically generated and filed. 

To the extent that our trading partners 

allow this practice, we will pursue it. 

However, we note that foreign nations 

are sovereign to set their own import 

requirements for agricultural products, 

including the form of export health 

certificates that they will accept. 

A commenter referenced a 2024 

United States Animal Health 

Association (USAHA) resolution related 

to equine imports, and asked for a 

comprehensive review report to be 

supplied to the industry related to the 

Agency’s use of personnel resources in 

order for the industry to be able to 

evaluate the merits of the November 

2024 notice. 

The commenter is referring to 

Resolution 7 passed at the 2024 Annual 

USAHA conference, found here: https:// 

usaha.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/ 

2024-USAHA-Resolutions-7.pdf. The 

resolution called for ‘‘a comprehensive 

formal official review of all programs 

and units involved in the international 

movement of equine and equid 

products,’’ including a review of 

personnel resources, management 

protocols, policy and procedure 

documents and protocols, international 

movement data, and memoranda of 

understanding, derogations and waivers. 

This request significantly exceeds the 

scope of this notice and is not necessary 

in order to evaluate whether the fees 

have been calculated correctly. In this 

regard, we are making all source data 

used to calculate the fees publicly 

available in tandem with this final 

notice. 

Comments Regarding Specific Costs 

and Fees 

In our November 2024 notice, we 

indicated that factors leading to the 

increase of the fees included increased 

level of effort and expertise associated 

with providing different services. As an 

illustrative example, we indicated that 

export health certificates had 

historically been VS forms that allowed 

information to be presented in a 

standardized way. However, in recent 

years, many countries have changed 

their import requirements and now 

require country and species-specific 

health certificates. We also noted that 

the certificates can now vary widely in 

terms of the information they contain, 

the requirements they cite, and the type 

of certificate that can be used. We 

provided further that all export health 

certificates must now be verified for 

each animal or shipment of product 

being exported. We noted that all of 

these factors had increased the level of 

effort needed to complete the work, and 

increased the need for subject matter 

expertise to ensure the work addresses 

the additional complexities now 

involved. 

Several commenters stated that 

endorsement of export health 

certificates for bovine germplasm had 

become more streamlined, rather than 

more complex, and argued that fees 

should have gone down, rather than 

risen, if based on the level of 

complexity. 

Endorsement of export health 

certificates for bovine germplasm falls 

within the larger category of 

endorsement of export health 

certificates for animal products and is 

not disaggregated from endorsements for 

export health certificates of other types 

of products, for which level of effort and 

complexity has increased. 

Additionally, we note that increased 

level of complexity was not the sole 

factor leading to the increased fees. 

Rather, the fees were set based on all 

cost components listed in the 

regulations, and all cost components 

associated with the fees have increased 

since they were last set. 

Several commenters stated that 

subject matter expertise was not 

specifically needed to endorse export 

health certificates for animal products. 

We disagree that subject matter 

expertise is not needed for the 

endorsement of export certificates for 

animal products. Some of the 

endorsements are lengthy in terms of 

documentation and highly complex. 

Moreover, many countries specifically 

require endorsement by individuals 

with a certain level of credentials, 

technical expertise, and/or experience. 

While APHIS does attempt to ensure 

these are actually required for the 

endorsements in question through trade 

negotiations and the development of 

export protocols, as noted previously, 

foreign countries are sovereign and may 

set their own import requirements. 

In our November 2024 notice, we 

stated that the total information 

technology (IT) costs included in the 

update were $6,461,071.38 for ImportExport to ensure funding is available as 

costs are actualized. 

A commenter asked us what IT 

improvements had been budgeted in 

this estimate, and how industry and 

APHIS would be able to use them. 

The costs include not only 

development of new IT and equipment 

costs, but also operation and 

maintenance costs, new information 

technology and equipment costs. With 

that being said, projected projects 

include: 

• APHIS–VS Trade System 

Modernization design and development, 

including live animal exports and 

imports, animal import center 

reservations, and product import and 

export certificates and facility 

inspections. 

• Further development of APHIS’ 

EFile system, which handles APHIS’ 

permitting processes. 

• Further development and identified 

enhancements to APHIS’ Veterinary 

Export Health Certification System, also 

known as VEHCS. 

• Design and development of the User 

Fee invoicing system. 

A commenter asked why the fee for 

housing, care, feed, and handling of 

miniature horses while in importrelated quarantine was increasing at a 

greater rate than the fee for similar 

services for non-miniature equines. 

They also inquired why there is not a 

depreciation of the fee for miniature 

horses for instances of prolonged care, 

as there is for non-miniature equines. 

As noted in the paragraphs below 

table B in the November 2024 notice, 

this is because the fee for such services 

for miniature horses is based on an 

alternate fee structure for instances 

when there is no identifiable volume in 

the previous year, when the fee is rarely 

charged, or when APHIS cannot readily 

identify level of effort. In such 

instances, we will calculate the fee 

based on the last available historic data, 

including inflation, program, agency, 

department and support costs, imputed 

costs, and reserve. 

There is not a depreciation of the fee 

for instances of prolonged care for 

miniature horses, as there is for nonminiature equines, because there was 

not such a depreciation for miniature 

horses previously in the regulations, as 

there was for non-miniature equines. As 

noted previously, the August 2023 final 

rule did not amend the fee categories, 

but, rather, moved the current fee 

categories from the regulations to a 

website. 

In the November 2024 notice, we 

proposed to increase the fees for 

processing import permit applications. 

Several commenters stated that 

import permits for their class of animal 

or animal products and/or their 

exporting country were routine and 

processing fees should not have 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 6 / Friday, January 10, 2025 / Notices 1945 

increased to the extent that we 

proposed. 

The processing of import permits is a 

service where disaggregation based on 

the class of animal or animal product or 

the exporting country in question is not 

possible. The fees were calculated based 

on the average level of effort to complete 

the issuance of import permits. 

Additionally, as a matter of 

transparency, we are making all cost 

data on which the fees were based 

available at www.aphis.usda.gov/ 

business-services/vs-fees. 

Therefore, in accordance with 

§ 130.3(a), we are updating the fees as 

proposed and without modification. 

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

1622 and 8301–8317; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 

136a; 31 U.S.C. 3701, 3716, 3717, 3719, 

and 3720A; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4. 

Done in Washington, DC, this 6th day of 

January 2025. 

Donna Lalli, 

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 2025–00421 Filed 1–8–25; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Forest Service 

Land Management Plan Direction for 

Old-Growth Forest Conditions Across 

the National Forest System; 

Withdrawal 

AGENCY: Forest Service, Department of 

Agriculture. 

ACTION: Notice; withdrawal. 

SUMMARY: The United States Department 

of Agriculture is withdrawing its notice 

of intent to prepare an environmental 

impact statement (EIS) for the Land 

Management Plan Direction for OldGrowth Forest Conditions Across the 

National Forest System. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jennifer McRae, Planning Team Leader, 

at 202–791–8488. 

Individuals who use 

telecommunications devices for the 

hearing impaired may call 711 to reach 

the Telecommunications Relay Service, 

24 hours a day, every day of the year, 

including holidays. 

Christopher French, 

Deputy Chief, National Forest System. 

[FR Doc. 2025–00390 Filed 1–8–25; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3411–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Forest Service 

Final Record of Decision for the 

Revised Land Management Plan for the 

Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests 

AGENCY: Forest Service, Agriculture 

(USDA). 

ACTION: Notice of approval of the 

Revised Land Management Plan for the 

Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests. 

SUMMARY: Heath Perrine, Acting Forest 

Supervisor for the Nez Perce-Clearwater 

National Forests, Northern Region, 

signed the final Record of Decision 

(ROD) for the Revised Land 

Management Plan (LMP) for the Nez 

Perce-Clearwater National Forests. The 

final ROD documents the rationale for 

approving the Revised LMP and is 

consistent with the Reviewing Officers’ 

responses to objections and instructions. 

DATES: The Revised LMP for the Nez 

Perce-Clearwater National Forests will 

become effective 30 days after the 

publication of this notice of approval in 

the Federal Register (36 CFR 

219.17(a)(1)). 

ADDRESSES: To view the final ROD, 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

(FEIS), Revised LMP, and other related 

documents, please visit the Nez PerceClearwater National Forests website at: 

https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/nezperce

clearwater/landmanagement/planning/ 

?cid=FSEPRD1206684. The Forest 

Service will also publish a legal notice 

of approval in the newspaper of record, 

Lewiston Morning Tribune, and post a 

copy of this legal notice on the Nez 

Perce-Clearwater National Forests’ 

website listed above. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sara 

Daugherty, Forest Planner, Nez PerceClearwater National Forests, by email at 

sara.daugherty@usda.gov or by phone at 

(208) 963–4206. 

Individuals who use 

telecommunication devices for the deaf 

(TDD) may call the Federal Information 

Relay Service (FIRS) at (800) 877–8339, 

24 hours a day, every day of the year, 

including holidays. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Nez 

Perce-Clearwater National Forests in the 

Northern Region spans six ranger 

districts and covers approximately four 

million acres across seven counties in 

north central Idaho, stretching from the 

Bitterroot Mountains on the Idaho and 

Montana border to the east, Salmon 

River to the south, Hells Canyon to the 

west, and the Palouse Prairie and North 

Fork Clearwater River basin to the 

north. The Nez Perce-Clearwater 

National Forests range in elevation from 

1,000 to over 8,900 feet and support 

diverse ecosystems and uses. The Nez 

Perce-Clearwater National Forests 

contain habitats essential for a wide 

variety of species and serves critical 

headwaters of the Clearwater River. The 

Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests 

also provide opportunities for 

recreation, timber harvesting, livestock 

grazing, and mineral development that 

contribute to the quality of life and 

economies of the surrounding 

communities. 

The Revised LMP was shaped by the 

best available scientific information, 

current laws, and public, governmental, 

and tribal input. It was developed 

pursuant to the 2012 Forest Service 

Planning Rule (36 CFR 219) and will 

replace the current Forest Plans that 

were released in 1987. The Revised LMP 

includes desired conditions, objectives, 

standards, guidelines, management 

approaches, management area 

allocations, and land suitability for 

project and activity decision-making, 

which will guide resource management 

activities on the Nez Perce-Clearwater 

National Forests. It also includes 

wilderness recommendations and 

identifies eligible and suitable wild and 

scenic river segments. 

The Nez Perce-Clearwater National 

Forests initiated LMP revision in 2013 

and engaged with the public and tribal, 

federal, state, and local governments. 

The Forests consulted with the Nez 

Perce Tribe during the planning process, 

ensuring tribal-related plan direction 

accurately reflects the Nez PerceClearwater National Forests’ tribal trust 

relationship and ensures that the Treaty 

with the Nez Perce of 1855 is honored. 

Between 2012 and 2020, the Nez PerceClearwater National Forests conducted 

26 formal public comment and informal 

public feedback opportunities. The 

Forests received and analyzed more 

than 33,000 public comments. 

Hundreds of people attended 45 inperson and virtual public meetings, 

open houses, and webinars. 

A 90-day public comment period on 

the draft LMP and associated draft EIS 

was initiated on December 20, 2019, and 

subsequently extended 30 days. The 

Forests used these comments to inform 

and the preferred alternative for the 

FEIS and Revised Plan. A draft ROD, 

Revised LMP, and FEIS were released 

on November 28, 2023, initiating a 60- 

day objection filing period that closed 

January 29, 2024. The Forest Service 

received approximately 275 eligible 

objections to the draft ROD and 5 

objections filed by 13 individuals and 

organizations to the list of species of 

conservation concern. The Reviewing 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with NOTICES