In a letter dated Oct. 23, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) advised the NGFA and North American Export Grain Association (NAEGA) that it is making some changes in how it plans to calculate future increases in export tonnage fees.
Specifically, Randall Jones, deputy administrator of the Federal Grain Inspection Service, wrote that the agency would be "revisiting" its tonnage estimates based upon inspection data for fiscal year 2009, which it said "may average higher" than its initial 69-million-metric-ton projection. Jones said GIPSA also would examine additional ways to make its services more cost-effective, and noted it has converted some employees to a 2-2-3 work schedule to reduce overtime costs; realigned duties at several field office locations to avoid filling vacated positions; and changed sub-offices to duty points to eliminate unnecessary costs associated with maintaining an office. Jones said the agency also is working with Washington state to "fully identify" the source of its grain-inspection costs; a similar report is expected soon on the grain-inspection costs of GIPSA's Portland, Ore., location.
The NGFA and NAEGA on Oct. 12 had submitted several specific recommendations to the agency designed to limit potential increases in the tonnage fees, which apply to the official sampling, inspection, weighing and certification of grain. The increase initially contemplated by GIPSA could have exceeded 50 percent. The tonnage fee is in addition to the hourly rate paid by exporters for official personnel to be on-site to perform actual official inspection and weighing services. Among other things, the NGFA and NAEGA had urged the agency to utilize a 73-million-metric-ton scenario (rather than 69 million metric tons) for estimating revenues generated from export inspections; consider further reductions in overall program costs; and provide justification for the differences in cost-per-metric-ton for vessel loadings in Portland, Ore. (served by federal employees) versus Washington state (served by a delegated state agency).