U.S. Sens. Bill Nelson (D-FL) and Marco Rubio (R-FL) are pushing to increase business at Florida ports by urging the U.S. Department of Agriculture to restructure the way the agency charges ships to fumigate produce imported into the U.S.
Before a cargo ship offloads any imported produce arriving at a U.S. port, the shipment must first be inspected and fumigated. The fee that a ship pays to have their produce fumigated is set by USDA and is currently charged on a “per-enclosure basis” – meaning, a ship pays the same fee to fumigate a warehouse full of goods in the Northeast as they do to fumigate one shipping container in Florida.
As a result of this new “per-enclosure” fee system that USDA initiated in 2015, some ships arriving in Florida – where each container is fumigated separately – are now having to pay up to 15 times more to have their produce fumigated than they would have to pay at a port in the Northeast U.S. – where ships can offload multiple containers into a single warehouse and have them all fumigated at once.
To prevent shippers from starting to send their produce to ports in the Northeast, instead of Florida, Nelson and Rubio sent a letter today to USDA Secretary Sonny Perdue urging his agency to restructure its fee system once again, but this time in a way that puts Florida’s ports back on a level playing field with others elsewhere in the U.S.
“USDA also has a responsibility to ensure AQI treatment monitoring is equitable and does not advantage some U.S. ports at the expense of others,” the lawmakers wrote. “For example, 300 pallets treated simultaneously in a Philadelphia warehouse would incur one AQI charge of $142, while 300 pallets treated simultaneously in 15 shipping containers in Florida would cost $2,130.”
“Both methods would use the same amount of fumigation product and take the same amount of fumigation time, yet the resulting fees for ports in Florida would be 15 times higher than those paid by ports in the Northeast,” the lawmakers wrote. “We ask that USDA continue to review the current method of applying AQI treatment monitoring fees and identify a more equitable approach.”
In addition to Nelson and Rubio, the letter was signed by Reps. Frederica Wilson, Bill Posey, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Tom Rooney, Carlos Curbelo, Ted Deutch, Darren Soto, Mario Diaz-Balart, Alcee Hastings, Brian Mast, Dennis Ross, Lois Frankel, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Charlie Crist.
Following is the full text of the lawmakers’ letter and a .pdf can be found here.
June 18, 2018
The Honorable Sonny Perdue
Secretary
U.S. Department of Agriculture
1400 Independence Ave., SW.
Washington, DC 20250
Dear Secretary Perdue:
We write to request your assistance in rectifying a growing problem with the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service’s (APHIS) Agricultural Quarantine Inspection (AQI) treatment monitoring fee. Currently, these fees disproportionately affect ports in our state because they are assessed on a per-treatment basis, regardless of the volume of goods treated.
For example, 300 pallets treated simultaneously in a Philadelphia warehouse would incur one AQI charge of $142, while 300 pallets treated simultaneously in 15 shipping containers in Florida would cost $2,130. Both methods would use the same amount of fumigation product and take the same amount of fumigation time, yet the resulting fees for ports in Florida would be 15 times higher than those paid by ports in the Northeast.
We recognize the critical importance of APHIS inspections to protecting U.S. agriculture, but USDA also has a responsibility to ensure AQI treatment monitoring is equitable and does not advantage some U.S. ports at the expense of others. To that end, we would like to draw your attention to the following report language included in the Senate’s Fiscal Year 2019 Agriculture Appropriations bill:
“The Committee notes that assessing AQI treatment monitoring fees on a per-enclosure basis imposes disproportionate impacts on industry and user groups at certain key ports of entry, including ports along the southeast United States. USDA is encouraged to continue conducting a study that specifically outlines the actual costs of treatments, examines the disproportionate impact the fee has on airports and seaports in different regions of the U.S., and evaluates alternative and equitable funding mechanisms. Such report should also incorporate due consideration of the recommendations of the Treatment Fee Working Group’s September 27, 2016 “Report to APHIS”. USDA shall brief the Committee on the status of such study and other efforts to ensure equitable collection of revenues for vital AQI treatment monitoring efforts.”
We ask that USDA continue to review the current method of applying AQI treatment monitoring fees and identify a more equitable approach. We consider this a time-sensitive issue because the treatment monitoring fees are scheduled to increase on January 1, 2019 to $190 per enclosure, and will increase to $237 per enclosure in 2020. We look forward to your assistance in addressing this issue.
Sincerely,
