[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 144 (Thursday, July 28, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page ]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-18381]
[Federal Register: July 28, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION
46 CFR Parts 514, 552, 560 and 572
[Docket No. 94-15]
New Filing Fees
AGENCY: Federal Maritime Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Maritime Commission (``Commission'' or ``FMC''),
pursuant to the Independent Offices Appropriation Act (``IOAA''),
proposes to establish filing fees for tariffs, service contract
essential terms (``ETs''), financial reports in the domestic offshore
trades, general rate increases in the domestic offshore trades, and
agreements. The services provide special benefits to identifiable
members of the public and assessment of fees therefor comports with
direction of the Office of Management and Budget.
DATES: Comments due September 12, 1994.
ADDRESSES: Comments (original and fifteen copies) to: Joseph C.
Polking, Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, 800 North Capitol
Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20573-0001, 202-523-5725.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeremiah D. Hospital or George Smolik,
Bureau of Trade Monitoring and Analysis, Federal Maritime Commission,
800 North Capitol Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20573-0001, 202-523-
5790.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission, under the IOAA, is
authorized to establish fees for services and benefits that it
provides. The IOAA states:
(a) . . . That each service or thing of value provided by an
agency . . . to a person . . . be self-sustaining to the extent
possible.
(b) . . . Each charge shall be--
(1) fair; and
(2) based on--
(A) the costs to the Government;
(B) the value of the service or thing to the recipient;
(C) public policy or interest served; and
(D) other relevant facts.
31 U.S.C. 9701.
The primary guidance for implementation of the IOAA is Office of
Management and Budget (``OMB'') Circular A-25, as revised July 8, 1993.
OMB Circular A-25 requires that a reasonable charge be made to each
recipient for a measurable unit or amount of Government service from
which the recipient derives a benefit, in order that the Government
recover the full cost of rendering that service.
OMB Circular A-25 further provides that full cost be determined or
estimated from the best available records in the agency, and that it
cover the direct and indirect costs to the Government of providing a
good resource or service, including but not limited to:
(1) Direct and indirect personnel costs, including salaries and
fringe benefits such as medical insurance and retirement.
(2) Physical overhead, consulting, and other indirect costs
including material and supply costs, utilities, insurance, travel,
and rents or imputed rents on land, buildings, and equipment.
(3) The management and supervisory costs.
(4) The costs of enforcement, collection, research,
establishment of standards, and regulation, including any
environmental impact statements.
OMB Circular A-25 further calls for a biennial reassessment of user
charges, with related adjustment of fees, if necessary, and the
establishment of new fees where none exists.
The courts have interpreted the IOAA on several occasions,
establishing general standards that agencies must meet in establishing
fees. In 1974, the Supreme Court ruled that a fee may only be charged
for a special benefit provided to identifiable beneficiaries measured
by its value to the recipient. The special benefit is also required to
have some connection between the agency and the recipient other than
the mere fact of regulation or the adoption of some practice of general
benefit to the industry as a whole. Thus, the Court upheld that portion
of OMB Circular A-25 stating that there could be no charge where the
identity of the beneficiary is obscure and the services can be
primarily considered to benefit the general public. See National Cable
Television Association v. United States, 415 U.S. 336 (1974) and FPC v.
New England Power Co., 415 U.S. 345 (1974).
In 1976, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit rendered a series of decisions that provided additional
guidance for agencies adopting or revising fee schedules issued under
the IOAA. See National Cable Television Association v. F.C.C., 554 F.2d
1094 (D.C. Cir. 1976); Electronics Industries Association v. F.C.C.,
554 F.2d 1109 (D.C. Cir. 1976); Capital Cities Communications Inc. v.
F.C.C., 554 F.2d 1135 (D.C. Cir. 1976). In those decisions, the court
set out the following guidelines:
1. An agency may impose a reasonable charge on recipients for an
amount of work for which they benefit. The fees must be for specific
services to specific persons. These services include the issuance of
a license and assistance in complying with a statutory duty such as
tariff filing.
2. The fees may not exceed the cost to the agency in rendering
the service.
3. An agency may recover the full cost of providing a service to
an identifiable beneficiary regardless of the incidental public
benefits which may flow from service.
Also, when an agency proposes a fee, it must meet the following
requirements:
1. The agency must justify the assessment of a fee by a clear
statement of the particular service or benefit for which it seeks
reimbursement.
2. The agency must calculate the cost basis for each fee by:
a. Allocating specific expenses of the cost basis of the fee to
the smallest practical unit.
b. Excluding expenses that service an independent public
interest; and
c. A public explanation of the specific expenses included in a
cost basis for a particular fee, and an explanation of the criteria
used to include or exclude a particular item.
3. The fee must be set to return the cost basis at a rate that
reasonably reflects the cost of the services performed and value
conferred on the payor.
Electronic Industries Association v. F.C.C., 554 F.2d at 1117.
The above guidelines were followed by the Commission when it last
updated its schedule of filing and service fees in 1983. Dockets Nos.
82-32 and 82-33, Filing and Service Fees, 21 S.R.R. 1517, 21 S.R.R.
1575 (1983). At that time, the Commission conducted cost studies to
determine the processing costs for its various fee items.
The Commission's current filing and service fees, however, do not
include fees for certain services that appear to provide special
benefits to identifiable members of the public. In light of OMB's
requirement that agencies assess fees for all identifiable special
benefits, and, in particular, OMB's direction that the FMC consider
implementation of tariff and service contract filing fees to offset its
FY 1996 appropriation,\1\ the Commission is proposing new fees for
several services. In keeping with OMB Circular A-25, the new fees
reflect the fully distributed cost of those services. The proposed new
fees are set forth in this Notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\OMB has expressed its desire for the Commission to establish
fees through its ``passback'' to the Commission's FY 1995 budget
submission for FY 1996. After OMB reviews the Commission's agency
budget proposal for the upcoming fiscal year, OMB ``passes back''
its budget proposal to the agency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the instant rulemaking, the Commission is issuing a
companion rulemaking (Docket No. 94-14, Update of Existing Filing and
Service Fees), updating the FMC's fees to reflect the fully distributed
current costs to the Commission.
Methodology
The Commission has reviewed its services and determined where it
should establish fees pursuant to OMB Circular A-25. Tariff filing,
filing of ETs, filing of financial reports in the domestic offshore
trades, processing of general rate increases in the domestic offshore
trades, and filing of agreements have been identified as areas where
new fees could be assessed under the authority of the IOAA and OMB
Circular A-25.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\The Commission has determined that enforcement activities are
not appropriate for assessing fees because they are adjudicatory
functions that have broad publc significance and a quasi-judicial
impact. The public is the primary beneficiary for such actions. The
Commission's enforcement programs are geared to providing protection
for the shipping public. Therefore, formal adjudications and
compliance audits were not considered activities for which fees
should be assessed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The methodology employed to calculate direct costs of services was
based on the method employed by the Commission the last time it
considered fees in Dockets Nos. 82-23 and 82-33, Filing and Service
Fees, supra. Surveys were conducted to determine the time and cost
involved in providing particular services to arrive at the direct labor
costs for those services, including, as appropriate, the costs for
clerical support staff, professionals, supervisors, and bureau
directors. Multiplying the number of hours expended by each employee to
provide a particular service with the employee's hourly wage, plus a
$1.00 cost to process the check, yielded the direct labor cost for
providing the service.
According to OMB Circular A-25, fees are to be based on the full
cost of a service, which includes all direct and indirect costs.
Therefore, indirect costs (overhead and other assignable costs) were
added to the direct labor cost to arrive at a fully distributed cost
for providing a particular service. A somewhat modified method was used
to calculate fees for tariff filing, and is explained later.
In developing a methodology for determining indirect costs, the
Commission adopted the approach used by the Interstate Commerce
Commission (``ICC'').\3\ Three categories of indirect costs were
identified: Government overhead costs (basically personnel fringe
benefits); Commission general and administrative expenses; and office
general and administrative expenses.\4\ The calculations for indirect
costs are discussed below and set forth in Appendix A. A detailed
summary of the data used to arrive at the proposed fees is available
from the Secretary of the Commission upon written request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\The ICC's mandate is similar to the Commission's, i.e.,
regulating segments of the transportation industry, and its fee
schedule and methodologies have been reviewed by the courts and
deemed acceptable, in many respects. See Central & Southern Motor
Freight Tariff Ass'n v. U.S., 777 F.2d 722, (D.C. Cir. 1985)
(``Central & Southern'').
\4\The ICC employs an additional indirect cost item for
operations overhead, which apportions senior executive time across
fee-generating activities. Because the Commission was able to
account for senior executive time in each service item, a separate
overhead would be redundant. Accordingly, this ICC component was not
included in our calculations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The first component of indirect costs is Government overhead costs,
which are fringe benefits and other wage-related government
contributions contained in OMB Circular A-76. These include leave and
holidays, retirement, workmen's compensation awards, health and life
insurance, and Medicare. These are expressed as percentages of basic
pay, and are applied to direct labor costs.
The next component of indirect costs is Commission general and
administrative costs. These costs include all salaries and overhead,
such as rent, utilities, supplies, and equipment, allocated across the
Offices of the Commissioners, Managing Director, General Counsel, and
Bureau of Administration. The total of these allocated costs is divided
by the total funding for the agency as reflected in the FMC's OMB
budget submission in FY 1994. The resulting percentage is allocated
across all Commission programs. As with Government overhead, Commission
general and administrative costs are also applied to direct labor
costs.
The final component of indirect costs is office general and
administrative overhead expenses. These expenses are limited to the
overhead of those bureaus and offices that are involved in fee-
generating activities, i.e., Office of the Secretary, Bureau of
Tariffs, Certification and Licensing (``BTCL''), and Bureau of Trade
Monitoring and Analysis (``BTMA''). They are similar to the expenses
for Commission general and administrative expenses mentioned above,
except that no personnel costs are included. Certain expenses which
have no nexus with any fee activity, e.g., the procurement of Census
data, have been excluded from this calculation. As with Commission
general and administrative expenses, the office general and
administrative expenses are divided by the total funding for the fee-
generating bureaus and offices to arrive at a percentage that is to be
applied to direct labor costs.
Adding all the components of indirect costs gives an indirect cost
factor that is added to direct labor costs to arrive at fully
distributed costs. The indirect cost factor under this methodology is
99.50 percent.
Proposed Fees
Each service or special benefit for which fees are proposed is
described below, as well as the direct labor cost to the FMC of
providing a particular service, the indirect cost, the fully
distributed cost, and the proposed fee associated with each service for
which fees are proposed. A summary schedule of proposed fees is
provided in Appendix B.
Fees Related to the Filing of Rate Increases and Reports in the
Domestic Offshore Trades
Part 552 provides for the orderly acquisition of data to be
utilized in evaluating the reasonableness of rates in the domestic
offshore trades filed by vessel-operating common carriers
(``carriers'') subject to the provisions of the Intercoastal Shipping
Act, 1933 (``1933 Act''), 46 U.S.C. app. 843. All persons engaged in
common carriage via cargo vessels in the domestic offshore trades
(except persons engaged in intrastate operations in Alaska and Hawaii)
are required by the 1933 Act to file a Statement of Financial and
Operating Data for each domestic service in which they are engaged. See
46 CFR Sec. 552.2(a).
Upon application for submission of alternative data, the Commission
may relieve a carrier from full compliance with Part 552 and permit it
to submit alternative data. The carrier receives a benefit from this
service because of the significant time saved in not preparing detailed
financial statements. The proposed fee for processing such applications
is derived as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dollars
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct Labor Cost........................................... $82.99
Indirect Cost............................................... 82.58
Fully Distributed Cost...................................... 165.56
Proposed Fee................................................ \5\165.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\All proposed fees are rounded down to the nearest dollar.
Upon application for extension of time for filing, the Commission
may grant reasonable extensions of the time limit prescribed for filing
the statements required by Part 552. The benefit the carrier receives
from this service is that it is not subject to the time constraints in
the rule. The proposed fee for processing such applications is derived
as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dollars
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct Labor Cost........................................... $27.89
Indirect Cost............................................... 27.75
Fully Distributed Cost...................................... 55.64
Proposed Fee................................................ 55.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upon application for waiver of detailed reporting requirements, the
Commission shall grant a waiver of the detailed reporting requirements
to carriers that have earned gross revenues of $25 million or less for
the reporting period in a particular trade. The carrier receives a
benefit from this waiver because it does not have to prepare detailed
financial statements. The proposed fee for processing such applications
is derived as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dollars
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct Labor Cost........................................... $51.87
Indirect Cost............................................... 51.61
Fully Distributed Cost...................................... 103.48
Proposed Fee................................................ 103.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part 522 defines general rate increases (``GRIs'') in the domestic
offshore trades, and describes the financial and operating data
required to support GRIs (section 552.2(f)). The specific benefit to
the filer of a GRI is the potential for increased revenues.\6\ This
benefit derives directly from a Commission finding that the particular
rate of return generated by a proposed GRI is reasonable. In making
this finding, the Commission conducts an extensive analysis of the
supporting data, and develops its own benchmark figures for comparison
with the filer's calculated rate of return based on its proposed GRI.
Accordingly, the Commission is proposing to assess a filing fee for
GRIs in the domestic offshore trades to cover the full cost of
analyzing the reasonableness of a proposed GRI. The proposed fee is
derived as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\An additional benefit accruing to carriers operating in the
domestic offshore trades is that potential entrants, by law, are
restricted, i.e., foreign-flag carriers are prohibited from
operating in the domestic trades. See section 27 of the Merchant
Marine Act of 1920, 46 U.S.C. app. 883.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dollars
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct Labor Cost........................................... $5,990.64
Indirect Cost............................................... 5,960.69
Fully Distributed Cost...................................... 11,951.33
Proposed Fee................................................ 11,951.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission recognizes the special circumstances present in the
domestic offshore trades regarding the price leadership role played by
certain carriers, and invites comments on alternative methods for
assessing the Commission's cost of analyzing the reasonableness of GRIs
in these trades.
Agreement Filing Fees
The processing of agreements benefits the filing parties because of
the concomitant antitrust immunity conferred by the Shipping Act, 1916
(``1916 Act''), 46 U.S.C. app 801 et seq., and the Shipping Act of 1984
(``1984 Act''), 46 U.S.C. app. 1701 et seq. There are strong
similarities between FMC agreements and those ICC agreements for which
fees were assessed in Central & Southern.
Agreements enable joint ratemaking or cost-cutting measures to
accrue to the benefit of the signatory parties. The sales revenues or
cost savings, or both, can add up to millions of dollars for one
carrier, let alone several carriers. Such savings far offset the
proposed filing fee for an agreement that enables carriers to
accomplish such monetary gains. Savings to carriers and others in
excess of the fee amounts can also be realized even through routine
arrangements to share office space, equipment, staff and supplies.
Accordingly, fees are being proposed for various agreement filings.
Agreement filings accompanied by an Information Form must be
analyzed for compliance with statutory requirements under section 6(g)
and section 10 of the 1984 Act, 46 U.S.C. app. 1705(g), 1709. In the
domestic offshore trades, certain types of agreement filings require a
detailed justification\7\ that must be analyzed for compliance with
statutory requirements under section 15 of the 1916 Act, 46 U.S.C. app.
814. These types are submitted to the Commission for its review, and,
under the 1916 Act, approval. The proposed fee for processing such
agreements is derived as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\Proponents must demonstrate that their agreement is required
by a serious transportation need, is necessary to secure important
public benefits, or will further a valid regulatory purpose of the
1916 Act. See Federal Maritime Commission et. al. vs Aktiebolaget
Svenska Amerika Linien; 390 U.S. 238-253 (1968).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dollars
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct Labor Cost........................................... $703.24
Indirect Cost............................................... 699.72
Fully Distributed Cost...................................... 1,402.96
Proposed Fee................................................ 1,402.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreement filings that do not require an Information Form must be
analyzed for compliance with statutory requirements under section 10
and section 6(g) of the 1984 Act. In the domestic offshore trades,
agreement filings that do not require detailed justification must be
analyzed for compliance with statutory requirements under section 15 of
the 1916 Act. These are submitted to the Commission for its review,
and, under the 1916 Act, approval. The proposed fee for processing such
agreements is derived as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dollars
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct Labor Cost........................................... $348.76
Indirect Cost............................................... 347.02
Fully Distributed Cost...................................... 695.78
Proposed Fee................................................ 695.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreement filings reviewed under Delegated Authority are processed
administratively without direct Commission review, and do not require
the filing of an Information Form under the 1984 Act. The proposed fee
for processing such agreements is derived as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dollars
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct Labor Cost........................................... $177.13
Indirect Cost............................................... 176.24
Fully Distributed Cost...................................... 353.37
Proposed Fee................................................ 353.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marine terminal and carrier exempt agreements are processed
administratively without direct Commission review under the 1916 Act
and the 1984 Act. The proposed fee for processing such agreements is
derived as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dollars
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct Labor Cost........................................... $60.23
Indirect Cost............................................... 59.93
Fully Distributed Cost...................................... 120.16
Proposed Fee................................................ 120.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tariff and ET Filing Fees
Section 8 of the 1984 Act, 46 U.S.C. app. 1707, requires common
carriers and conferences of such common carriers to file with the
Commission and keep open to public inspection, tariffs showing all
rates, charges, classifications, tariff rules and practices for
transportation between U.S. and foreign ports and between points on any
through route that is established. Section 8 also requires service
contracts and their ETs are to be filed by the 1984 Act.
Section 2 of the 1933 Act, 46 U.S.C. 844, requires that every
domestic offshore carrier file with the Commission, and keep open to
public inspection, tariffs showing its rates, fares and charges for or
in connection with transportation between all points on its own route,
and all points on any through route established in conjunction with
other carriers.
Under court precedent interpreting the IOAA and OMB Circular A-25,
tariff and ET filings with the Commission appear to be an activity for
which fees should be imposed. Moreover, OMB has urged the Commission to
establish fees in this area through its passback to the Commission's FY
1995 budget submission for FY 1996. The Federal Communication
Commission's (``FCC'') imposition of fees for processing carrier
tariffs has been upheld, Electronics Industries Ass'n v. FCC, 554 F.2d
1109, 1115 (D.C. Cir. 1976), as has the ICC's imposition of fees for
processing tariffs, Central & Southern, 777 F.2d at 730-736. The courts
in these cases noted that tariff processing benefits tariff filers in
helping to maintain rate stability.
While the shipping public derives benefits from having tariffs
filed at the Commission, the courts have concluded that the words
``special benefits'' as used in OMB Circular A-25 mean that there need
only be a special private benefit to an identifiable beneficiary, FPC
v. New England Power Co., 415 U.S. at 349-51, regardless of incidental
public benefits, National Cable Television, 554 F.2d at 1114-5; Central
& Southern, 777 F.2d at 731-32, and have concluded that ``[i]f the
asserted public benefits are the necessary consequence of the agency's
provision of the relevant private benefits, then the public benefits
are not independent, and the agency would therefore not need to
allocate any costs to the public.'' Central & Southern, 777 F.2d at
732. Finding that a ``principal function'' of tariff filing is the
establishment of rate stability, the court in Central & Southern found
the benefit to the shippers and other carriers as ``incidental'' to the
``independent'' rate stability benefit and sufficient to justify the
full cost imposition of tariff processing on tariff filers. Central &
Southern, 777 F.2d at 733-36.
Commission precedent and the legislative history of the 1984 Act
indicate that ``rate stability'' is one of the purposes of requiring
carrier tariffs to be filed at the FMC. See Section 19 Investigation,
1935, 1 U.S.S.B.B. 470, 498-500 (1935); H.R. Rept. No. 53, Part 1, 98th
Cong., 1st Sess. 18-19 (1983). Thus, under the rationale of Central &
Southern, the collection of the full costs of processing tariff filings
at the FMC appears justified.
However, because we recognize that there exists a public benefit
from tariff filing in addition to that derived by tariff filers, the
Commission invites the industry to comment on to what extent the public
benefit of tariff filing is ``independent'' or ``incidental'' to that
of tariff filers, and, if ``independent,'' to comment on what
proportion of the costs to tariff-filing carriers should be pro-rated
to reflect any specific benefit to the general public. Below are the
methodologies employed to calculate the cost of tariff and ET filing.
Developing cost data for assessing a user fee for tariff filing
presented unique problems. Unlike other fees, there is no data
regarding costs for filing in the Commission's Automated Tariff Filing
and Information System (``ATFI''). Because ATFI is a relatively new
system, the Commission has had limited experience in estimating the
cost of processing each ATFI filing type,\8\ but has nevertheless
distinguished organizational records and ETs as unique elements within
the tariff filing system. The Commission creates organizational records
for its own administrative purposes, and that cost is included as part
of the registration fee under ATFI. See Docket No. 94-14, Update of
Existing Filing and Service Fees, for a discussion on registration
fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\The ATFI system is capable of identifying eight filing
``objects''; organizational record, tariff record, location group,
inland rate table, rule, commodity description, tariff line item
(``TLI''), and essential term (this last object consists primarily
of test).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The cost of processing ETs was determined based on a survey of the
amount of time the FMC spends reviewing ETs at a point in time. The
Commission was able to distinguish ETs from other tariff filings
because the amount of time required to process ETs remains relatively
constant over time. In contrast, the amount of time devoted to the
processing of other tariff filing types tends to vary substantially
from individual item to item.
The Commission was able to estimate the total amount of time its
staff spends, on average, reviewing tariff filings during a given year:
approximately 42,000 hours. This figure was derived by surveying and
summing the amount of time the FMC spends reviewing individual tariff
filing elements at a point in time, and projecting that amount over a
year. Although the total amount of time spent reviewing tariff filing
remains relatively stable over time, the amount of time spent reviewing
individual elements varies on a daily basis. As a result, it was
determined not to estimate the cost of processing tariff filing on an
element by element basis, but rather to calculate the cost of tariff
filing review based on the more reliable total number of hours spent
reviewing tariff filings.
Multiplying the hours spent by the average hourly wage of all
reviewers ($19.56), direct labor costs for reviewing ATFI filings in a
given year were calculated to be $821,520. Adding the indirect cost
factor (99.50 percent), fully distributed cost for filings are about
$1,639,000. To arrive at a per-filing cost, the fully distributed cost
is divided by the estimated number of filings (approximately
5,500,000), giving a per-filing cost of $0.29.
Since the Commission pays a contractor for maintaining the ATFI
system, the allocation of the contractor cost to each tariff filing is
appropriate. Contractor data show that the total time the system is
used annually is approximately 1,753,958 minutes, while industry use of
the system for filing totals 451,203 minutes, or 25.72 percent of total
system time used. The remaining time was used mostly by the Commission
staff and by retrievers of data. Using this factor, the portion of the
contractor cost ($1,100,000) allocated to filing is $282,920
($1,338,514 x 25.72 percent). Allocating the $282,920 across the
5,500,000\9\ filings gives a per-filing system cost of approximately
$0.05. The per-filing system cost is added to the $0.29 per-filing cost
to derive a total cost of $0.34 per filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\This figure includes tariff filings and ET filings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As mentioned, the Commission was able to distinguish ETs from the
other filings. Since ETs are similar in nature from one contract to the
next and are in text format, processing time for the most part remains
constant over time. It takes, on average, five minutes to review a
typical ET filing. Again using the average hourly wage for reviewers,
the direct labor cost for processing an ET filing is $1.62. Summing the
direct labor cost and the indirect cost factor (99.50 percent), the
fully distributed cost for processing an ET filing is $3.24. Adding the
system charge of $0.05, the fully distributed cost comes to $3.29 per
filing.
In keeping with OMB Circular A-25, the Commission intends to update
its fees on an annual basis. In updating its fees, the Commission will
incorporate changes in wages and salaries of its employees into direct
labor costs associated with its services, and recalculate its indirect
costs (overhead) based on current level costs.
The Commission certifies pursuant to section 605(b) of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), that this rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities, including small businesses, small organizational units and
small government jurisdictions. The Commission recognizes that the
proposed fees may have some impact on the shipping industry, but not of
the magnitude that would be contrary to the requirements of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. For the most part, entities impacted by the
proposed increases are ocean common carriers who traditionally have not
been viewed as small entities. Moreover, the Commission grants a waiver
of the detailed reporting requirements to carriers which earn gross
revenues of $25 million or less in a particular trade in accordance
with 46 CFR 552.2(e). Furthermore, Commission regulations provide for
waiver of fees for those entities that can make the required showing of
undue hardship.
OMB review is not required because this proposed rule does not
contain any collection of information requirements as defined by the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, as amended.
List of Subjects
46 CFR Part 514
Freight, Harbors, Maritime carriers, and Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
46 CFR Part 552
Maritime carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and
Uniform System of Accounts.
46 CFR Part 560
Administrative practice and procedure, Antitrust, Freight, Maritime
carriers, Penalties, and Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
46 CFR Part 572
Administrative practice and procedure, Maritime carriers, and
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, the Independent Offices Appropriations
Act, 31 U.S.C. 9701, and section 17 of the Shipping Act of 1984, 46
U.S.C. app. 1716, the Commission proposes to amend title 46 of the Code
of Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 514--TARIFFS AND SERVICE CONTRACTS
1. The authority citation for Part 514 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 46 U.S.C. app.
804, 812, 814-817(a), 820, 833a, 841a, 843, 844, 845, 845a, 845b,
847, 1702-1712, 1714-1716, 1718, 1721 and 1722; and sec. 2(b) of
Public Law 101-92, 103 Stat. 601.
2. In Sec. 514.1, the heading is revised and a new paragraph (f) is
added to read as follows:
* * * * *
Sec. 514.1 Scope, purpose, requirements, penalties and fees.
* * * * *
(f) Filing fee. Under the authority of the Independent Offices
Appropriation Act, 31 U.S.C. 9701, the Commission assesses a filing fee
for ATFI filings. See Sec. 514.21(i) for filing fees.
3. In Sec. 514.21, paragraph (i) is added to read as follows:
Sec. 514.21 User charges.
* * * * *
(i) Tariff filing fee. The fee for tariff filing in either the
foreign or domestic offshore commerce of the United States shall be 34
cents per filing object; the fee for filing service contract essential
terms shall be $3.29 per filing object; the Commission shall bill
filers monthly for both tariff filing and the filing of service
contract essential terms.
PART 552--FINANCIAL REPORTS OF VESSEL OPERATING COMMON CARRIERS BY
WATER IN THE DOMESTIC OFFSHORE TRADES
4. The authority citation for Part 552 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 553; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 46 U.S.C. app. 817(a),
820, 841a, 843, 844, 845, 845a, and 847.
5. In Sec. 552.2, the title is revised, new paragraphs (c)(3),
(d)(3), and (f)(3) are added, and a sentence is added at the end of
paragraph (e) to read as follows:
* * * * *
Sec. 552.2 General requirements and fees.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(3) Applications shall be accompanied by remittance of a $55 filing
fee.
(d) * * *
(3) Applications shall be accompanied by remittance of a $165
filing fee.
(e) * * * Applications shall be accompanied by remittance of a $103
filing fee.
(f) * * * (3) The filing of proposed rate changes described in this
paragraph shall be accompanied by remittance of a $11,951 filing fee.
* * * * *
PART 560--AGREEMENTS BY COMMON CARRIERS AND OTHER PERSONS SUBJECT
TO THE SHIPPING ACT, 1916
6. The authority citation for Part 560 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 553; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 46 U.S.C. app. 814,
817(a), 820, 821, 833a and 841a.
* * * * *
Subpart C--Exemptions
* * * * *
7. The following identical text is added as Secs. 560.302(c),
560.303(c), 560.304(c), 560.305(c), 560.306(f), 560.307(g), 560.308(c)
and 560.309(d) reading as follows:
( ) The filing fee for such agreements is described in section
560.401(c).
* * * * *
Subpart D--Filing and Form of Agreements
* * * * *
8. In section 560.401, the title is revised and a new paragraph (c)
is added to read as follows:
* * * * *
Sec. 560.401 Filing of Agreements; fees.
* * * * *
(c) Agreement filings for Commission action requiring detailed
justification and review by the Commission shall be accompanied by
remittance of a $1,402 filing fee; agreement filings for Commission
action not requiring detailed justification, but requiring review by
the Commission, shall be accompanied by remittance of a $695 filing
fee; and, agreement filings for terminal and carrier exempt agreements
shall be accompanied by remittance of a $120 filing fee.
Part 572--AGREEMENTS BY COMMON CARRIERS AND OTHER PERSONS SUBJECT
TO THE SHIPPING ACT OF 1984
9. The authority citation for Part 572 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 553; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 46 U.S.C. app. 1701-
1707, 1709-1710, 1712 and 1714-1717.
Subpart C--Exemptions
10. The following identical text is added as Secs. 572.302(d),
572.303(c), 572.304(c), 572.305(c), 572.306(f), 572.307(g), 572.308(e),
572.309(c), 572.310(c) and 572.311(d) reading as follows:
( ) The filing fee for such agreements is described in
Sec. 572.401(f).
11. In section 572.401, the title is revised, and a new paragraph
(f) is added to read as follows:
* * * * *
Sec. 572.401 Filing of agreements; filing fees.
* * * * *
(f) Agreement filings for Commission action requiring an
Information Form and review by the Commission shall be accompanied by
remittance of a $1,402 filing fee; agreement filings for Commission
action not requiring an Information Form, but requiring review by the
Commission, shall be accompanied by remittance of a $695 filing fee;
agreement filings reviewed under delegated authority shall be
accompanied by remittance of a $353 filing fee; and agreement filings
for terminal and carrier exempt agreements shall be accompanied by
remittance of a $120 filing fee.
By the Commission.
Joseph C. Polking,
Secretary.
Appendix A to the Proposed Rule
Indirect Cost Calculations
[Applied to Direct Cost]
A. Government Overhead Costs
Fringe benefits and
other wage-related
government
contributions from
OMB Circular A-76:
Leave and
Holidays...... 19.70%
Retirement..... 21.70%
Workmen's Comp.
Awards........ 1.70%
Health, Life
Insurance..... 4.70%
Medicare....... 1.45%
----------------------------------------
Total........ 49.25%
B. Commission General and Administrative
Expenses allocated
to the offices of
the Commissioners,
Managing Director,
General Counsel,
and Bureau of
Administration (FY
1994 amounts from
FY 1995 OMB
Budget):
1. Personnel
Costs......... $4,155,500
2. Rent,
Communications
and Utilities. 1,009,468
3. Annual
Report........ 3,000
4. Data
Information... 20,000
5. Printing.... 9,619
6. Equipment
Maintenance... 24,878
7. Leasehold
Improvements.. 20,000
8. Supplies and
Materials..... 43,784
9. ADP Supplies 7,297
10. Furniture
and Equipment. 9,288
11. Postage.... 16,790
12. Fiscal
Services...... 24,878
13. Health
Services...... 8,127
14. Protective
Services...... 32,122
15. Duplicating
Supplies...... 7,982
16. Travel..... 42,000
----------------------------------------
Total........ $5,434,733
Calculation of
overhead
percentage:
Commiss
ion G & A
Agency Funding
=............. % Overhead
Total
Agency Funding
for FY 1994... $18,900,000
Commiss
ion G & A..... $5,434,733
Overhea
d Percentage
($5,434,733
$18,900,000):. 28.76%
C. Office General and Administrative
Overhead expenses
allocated to
Offices and
Bureaus involved
in fee-generating
activities
(excluding ATFI):
1. Rent,
Communications
, and
Utilities..... $968,401
2. Postage..... 18,518
3.
Miscellaneous
Printing...... 10,597
4. Credit
Reports....... 8,750
5. Equipment
Maintenance... 27,405
6. Fiscal
Services...... 27,405
7. Health
Services...... 10,962
8. Protective
Services...... 31,790
9. Supplies and
Materials..... 48,233
10. ADP
Supplies...... 8,039
11. Duplicating
Supplies...... 8,770
12. Furniture
and Equipment. 3,654
13. ADP
Equipment..... 6,577
----------------------------------------
Total........ $1,179,101
Calculation of
overhead
percentage:
Overhea
d Expenses
Bureau/Office
Funding =..... % Overhead
Funding
for Bureaus/
Offices (FY
1994 amounts
from FY 1995
OMB Budget):
and
Secretary. $910,000
Trade
Monitoring
and
Analysis.. $1,846,000
Tariffs,
Certificat
ion and
Licensing. $2,730,000
----------------------------------------
Total.... $5,486,000
Office
G & A:........ $1,179,101
Overhea
d Percentage
($1,179,101
$5,486,000):.. 21.49%
D. Total Indirect
Cost Factor (Sum of
A through C)
A. Government
Overhead Costs.... 49.25%
B. Commission
General and
Administrative.... 28.76%
C. Office General
and Administrative 21.49%
----------------------------------------
Total........ 99.50%
Appendix B to the Proposed Rule
Federal Maritime Commission
[Summary of Proposed Fees]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CFR citation and application or service Proposed fee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part 514--TARIFFS AND SERVICE CONTRACTS
514.21(i):
Tariff filing................................. 34 cents per filing
object.
Filing service contract essential terms....... $3.29 per filing
object.
Part 552--FINANCIAL REPORTS OF VESSEL OPERATING
COMMON CARRIERS BY WATER IN THE DOMESTIC OFFSHORE
TRADES
552.2(f)General Rate Increase..................... $11,951
552.2(c)Application for Extension of Time for $55
Filing.
552.2(d)Application for Submission of Alternative $165
Data.
552.2(e)Application for Waiver of Detailed $103
Reporting Requirements.
Part 560--AGREEMENTS BY COMMON CARRIERS AND OTHER
PERSONS SUBJECT TO THE SHIPPING ACT, 1916
560.401(c)
Agreement Filings Requiring Detailed $1,402
Justification and Commission Action.
Agreement Filings not Requiring Detailed $695
Justification but Requiring Commission Action.
Agreement Filing for Terminal and Carrier $120
Exempt Agreements.
Part 572--AGREEMENTS BY COMMON CARRIERS AND OTHER
PERSONS SUBJECT TO THE SHIPPING ACT OF 1984
572.401(f)
Agreement Filings Requiring Information Form $1,402
and Commission Action.
Agreement Filings not Requiring Information $695
Form but Requiring Commission Action.
Agreement Filing Reviewed Under Delegated $353
Authority.
Agreement Filing for Terminal and Carrier $120
Exempt Agreements.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 94-18381 Filed 7-27-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-W