New Filing Fees

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