Revision to United States Marshals Service Fees for Services, 21862-21864 [2013-08158]
Download as PDF
21862
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 71 / Friday, April 12, 2013 / Proposed Rules
RNDF continue to be relevant in the
new TTP formula.
• Section 1119 of MAP–21 also made
other miscellaneous changes to the
remainder of the laws governing the
TTP that require BIA to make changes
to 25 CFR part 170.
• The current 25 CFR part 170 was
published in 2004 (69 Federal Register
43090, July 19, 2004). Congress later
enacted the Safe, Accountable, Flexible
and Efficient Transportation Equity
Act—A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–
LU), Public Law 100–59 (August 10,
2005). Certain provisions of 25 CFR part
170 were amended as a result of the
enactment of SAFETEA–LU but the
regulation was not revised at that time.
MAP–21 effectively amends or renders
obsolete parts of 25 CFR part 170 so the
BIA must revise the regulation to bring
it into compliance with MAP–21.
• There have been significant changes
in the way the TTP is delivered to tribes
since 25 CFR part 170 was published in
2004 and the Bureau of Indian Affairs
(BIA) needs to update the regulations to
reflect certain aspects of the changes.
• Tribes, BIA, and FHWA have
identified the lack of requirements for
proposed and access roads to be added
to or remain in the NTTFI as an area of
concern in the current regulation for
many years. Proposed roads are
currently defined by 25 CFR 170.5 as ‘‘a
road which does not currently exist and
needs to be constructed.’’ A primary
access route is the shortest practicable
route connecting two points, including
roads between villages, roads to
landfills, roads to drinking water
sources, roads to natural resources
identified for economic development,
and roads that provide access to
intermodal termini, such as airports,
harbors, or boat landings. See 23 U.S.C.
202(b)(1). During 2012, BIA and FHWA
conducted thirteen tribal consultation
meetings throughout the country on a
joint BIA and FHWA recommendation
for changing how Proposed Roads and
Access Roads would contribute to the
RNDF for Indian Reservation Roads
Program funds. See 25 CFR part 170,
Subpart C. Although MAP–21 replaces
the RNDF as discussed above, BIA
needs to codify the requirements that
Proposed Roads or Access Roads must
meet in order to be added to or remain
in the NTTFI.
• Apart from the consultations, BIA
and FHWA will provide an update
regarding the ongoing NTTFI quality
assurance review. After consulting with
tribes in 2010, BIA and FHWA began
the process of implementing a
comprehensive quality assurance review
of the NTTFI to be compatible with the
Federal-aid highways functional
classification system. During the review,
it was determined that some
transportation facilities in the NTTFI
were missing data, incorrectly classified
data, and contained other technical
errors. The update will discuss the
status and results to date of the quality
assurance review, as well as seek
additional input regarding ways to
continue improving the accuracy of the
NTTFI.
BIA plans to schedule further
consultations at different or additional
locations after a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking is published in the Federal
Register.
MEETING AGENDA FOR MAY 14, 16, AND 21, 2013 (ALL TIMES LOCAL)
Time
Topic
9 a.m.–9:15 a.m. ................................................................
9:15 a.m.–9:30 a.m. ...........................................................
9:30 a.m.–10 a.m. ..............................................................
10 a.m.–10:15 a.m. ............................................................
10:15 a.m.–11:45 a.m. .......................................................
11:45 a.m.–1 p.m. ..............................................................
1 p.m.–3 p.m. .....................................................................
3:15 p.m.–4 p.m. ................................................................
Welcome and Introductions.
Brief history of 25 CFR part 170 and process for updating the regulation.
MAP–21 and its impacts on 25 CFR part 170.
Break.
Discussion of updates to 25 CFR part 170.
Break.
Continue discussion of updates to 25 CFR part 170.
Update regarding National Tribal Transportation Facilities Inventory (NTTFI) quality
assurance review.
Closing Comments.
Adjourn.
4 p.m.–4:30 p.m. ................................................................
4:30 p.m. ............................................................................
Dated: April 9, 2013.
Kevin Washburn,
Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs.
This rule proposes to increase
the fee from $55 per person per hour to
$65 per person per hour for process
served or executed personally by a
United States Marshals Service
employee, agent, or contractor. This
proposed fee increase reflects the
current costs to the United States
Marshals Service for service of process
in federal court proceedings.
SUMMARY:
[FR Doc. 2013–08665 Filed 4–11–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–4J–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
28 CFR Part 0
mstockstill on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
RIN 1105–AB42
Revision to United States Marshals
Service Fees for Services
United States Marshals Service,
Department of Justice.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Apr 11, 2013
Written comments must be
postmarked and electronic comments
must be submitted on or before June 11,
2013. Comments received by mail will
be considered timely if they are
postmarked on or before that date. The
electronic Federal Docket Management
System (FDMS) will accept comments
until Midnight Eastern Time at the end
of that day.
DATES:
[Docket No. USMS 110; AG Order No. 3381–
2013]
Jkt 229001
To ensure proper handling
of comments, please reference ‘‘Docket
ADDRESSES:
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
No. USMS 110’’ on all electronic and
written correspondence. The
Department encourages all comments be
submitted electronically through https://
www.regulations.gov using the
electronic comment form provided on
that site. An electronic copy of this
document is also available at the
https://www.regulations.gov Web site for
easy reference. Paper comments that
duplicate the electronic submission are
not necessary as all comments
submitted to https://www.regulations.gov
will be posted for public review and are
part of the official docket record. Should
you, however, wish to submit written
comments via regular or express mail,
they should be sent to the Office of
General Counsel, United States
Marshals Service, 2604 Jefferson Davis
Highway, Alexandria, VA 22301.
E:\FR\FM\12APP1.SGM
12APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 71 / Friday, April 12, 2013 / Proposed Rules
Joe
Lazar, Associate General Counsel,
United States Marshals Service, 2604
Jefferson Davis Highway, Alexandria,
VA 22301, telephone number (202) 307–
9054 (not a toll-free number).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
mstockstill on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Legal Authority for the United States
Marshals Service To Charge Fees
The Attorney General must establish
fees to be taxed and collected for certain
services rendered by the United States
Marshals Service in connection with
federal court proceedings. 28 U.S.C.
1921(b). These services include, but are
not limited to, serving writs, subpoenas,
or summonses, preparing notices or bills
of sale, keeping attached property, and
certain necessary travel. 28 U.S.C.
1921(a). To the extent practicable, these
fees shall reflect the actual and
reasonable costs of the services
provided. 28 U.S.C. 1921(b).
The Attorney General initially
established the fee schedule in 1991
based on the actual costs of services
rendered and hours expended at that
time, e.g., salaries, overhead. 56 FR
2436–01 (Jan. 23, 1991). Due to an
increase in the salaries and benefits of
United States Marshals Service
personnel over time, the initial fee
schedule was amended in 2000, see 65
FR 47859–01 (Aug. 4, 2000), and again
in 2008, see 73 FR 69552–01 (Nov. 19,
2008). The current fee schedule is
inadequate and no longer reflects the
actual and reasonable costs of the
services rendered.
Federal Cost Accounting and Fee
Setting Standards and Guidelines Being
Used
When developing fees for services, the
United States Marshals Service adheres
to the principles contained in Office of
Management and Budget Circular No.
A–25 Revised (‘‘Circular No. A–25’’).
Circular No. A–25 states that, as a
general policy, a ‘‘user charge * * *
will be assessed against each
identifiable recipient for special benefits
derived from Federal activities beyond
those received by the general public.’’
Id. sec. 6.
The United States Marshals Service
follows the guidance contained in
Circular No. A–25 to the extent that it
is not inconsistent with any federal
statute. Specific legislative authority to
charge fees for services takes precedence
over Circular No. A–25 when the statute
‘‘prohibits the assessment of a user
charge on a service or addresses an
aspect of the user charge (e.g., who pays
the charge; how much is the charge;
where collections are deposited).’’ Id.
sec. 4(b). When a statute does not
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Apr 11, 2013
Jkt 229001
address how to calculate fees or what
costs to include in fee calculations,
Circular No. A–25 instructs that its
principles and guidance should be
followed ‘‘to the extent permitted by
law.’’ Id. According to Circular No. A–
25, federal agencies should charge the
full cost or the market price of providing
services that provide a special benefit to
identifiable recipients. Id. sec. 6(a)(2).
Circular No. A–25 defines full cost as
including ‘‘all direct and indirect costs
to any part of the Federal Government
of providing a good, resource, or
service.’’ These costs may include an
‘‘appropriate share’’ of: (a) ‘‘[d]irect and
indirect personnel costs, including
salaries and fringe benefits such as
medical insurance and retirement’’; (b)
‘‘[p]hysical overhead, consulting, and
other indirect costs including material
and supply costs, utilities, insurance,
travel, and rents or imputed rents on
land, buildings, and equipment’’; (c)
‘‘management and supervisory costs’’;
and (d) ‘‘costs of enforcement,
collection, research, establishment of
standards, and regulation.’’ Id. sec.
6(d)(1).
Processes Used To Determine the
Amount of the Fee Revision
The Attorney General initially
established the fee schedule in 1991
based on the average salaries, benefits,
and overhead of the Deputy U.S.
Marshals who executed process on
behalf of a requesting party. The fee
schedule was revised in 2000 and again
in 2008. The 2008 rates, which are still
being charged, are set forth at 28 CFR
0.114(a) as follows:
• For process forwarded for service
from one U.S Marshals Service office or
suboffice to another—$8 per item
forwarded;
• For process served by mail—$8 per
item mailed;
• For process served or executed
personally—$55 per hour (or portion
thereof) for each item served by one U.S.
Marshals Service employee, agent, or
contractor, plus travel costs and any
other out-of-pocket expenses. For each
additional U.S. Marshals Service
employee, agent, or contractor who is
needed to serve process—$55 per
person per hour for each item served,
plus travel costs and any other out-ofpocket expenses.
• For copies at the request of any
party—$.10 per page;
• For preparing notice of sale, bill of
sale, or U.S. Marshal deed—$20 per
item;
• For keeping and advertisement of
property attached—actual expenses
incurred in seizing, maintaining, and
disposing of the property.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
21863
In 2012, the United States Marshals
Service conducted an analysis to
determine whether, in light of the
increase in salaries and expenses of its
workforce over the previous time
period, the existing fee schedule
continued to reflect the costs of serving
process. The following cost module was
designed to reflect the average hourly
cost of serving process in person on
behalf of a requesting party.
COST MODULE
Hourly Wage .........................
Law Enforcement Availability
Pay ....................................
Fringe Benefits .....................
Indirect Costs ........................
$32.97
Total Personnel Costs ...
65.52
8.24
16.90
7.41
The ‘‘hourly wage’’ in this module
reflects the hourly basic rate for law
enforcement officers at Grade 12, Step 1,
as set forth in the Office of Personnel
Management’s 2012 Salary Table for the
‘‘rest of the United States’’ (available at
https://www.opm.gov/policy-dataoversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/
2012/law-enforcement-officer/
rus_leo_h.pdf). The cost of Law
Enforcement Availability Pay also was
factored into the hourly wage of an
average Criminal Investigator (Deputy
U.S. Marshal).1 The fringe benefits rate
reflected 41 percent of total wage costs.
Finally, the indirect costs, which
reflected the costs of administrative
services, including management/
supervisory compensation and benefits,
depreciation, utilities, supplies, and
equipment, constituted approximately
18 percent of the total wage costs. As a
result of the cost module, the United
States Marshals Service determined that
the existing fee schedule no longer
reflected the actual and reasonable costs
of serving process.
The total personnel costs of serving
process were rounded to the nearest
five-dollar increment. Thus, in order to
recover the actual and reasonable costs
of serving process, the United States
Marshals Service is proposing to charge
$65 per hour (or portion thereof) for
each item served by one United States
Marshals Service law enforcement
officer. This represents a less than 20
percent increase ($10 per hour) from the
existing fee for serving process
established in 2008.
1 The Law Enforcement Availability Pay Act of
1994, Public Law 103–329, tit. VI, sec. 633, 108
Stat. 2425 (1994) (codified at 5 U.S.C. 5545a),
provides that law enforcement officers, such as
Criminal Investigators (Deputy U.S. Marshals), who
are required to work unscheduled hours in excess
of each regular work day, are entitled to premium
pay totaling 25 percent of their base salary.
E:\FR\FM\12APP1.SGM
12APP1
21864
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 71 / Friday, April 12, 2013 / Proposed Rules
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Attorney General, in accordance
with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 605(b)), has reviewed this
proposed rule and, by approving it,
certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Under the current fee structure, the
United States Marshals Service
collected approximately $1,245,000 in
service-of-process fees in FY2012.2 The
implementation of this proposed fee
structure would provide the United
States Marshals Service with an
estimated additional $235,000 in
revenue over the revenue that would be
collected under the current fee
structure. This revenue increase
represents a recovery of costs based on
an increase in salaries, expenses, and
employee benefits over the previous
four-year period.
The economic impact on individual
entities that utilize the services of the
United States Marshals Service will be
minimal. The service of process fees
will only affect entities that pursue
litigation in federal court and, in most
instances, seek to have the U.S.
Marshals levy upon or seize property.
The service of process fees will be
increased by only $10 per hour from the
previous rate increase more than four
years ago. The fees will be consonant
with similar fees already paid by these
entities in state court litigation.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995
This proposed rule will not result in
the expenditure by State, local, and
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or
by the private sector, of $100 million or
more in any one year, and it will not
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. Therefore, no actions were
deemed necessary under the provisions
of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995.
mstockstill on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996
This proposed rule is not a major rule
as defined by section 251 of the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996. 5 U.S.C. 804. This
rule will not result in an annual effect
on the economy of $100 million or
more; a major increase in costs or prices;
or significant adverse effects on
competition, employment, investment,
productivity, innovation, or on the
2 This
amount does not include $986,000 in
United States Marshals Service commissions
collected for sales during FY2012. This proposed
rule does not affect commissions, only the fees
charged for service of process.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Apr 11, 2013
Jkt 229001
ability of United States-based
enterprises to compete with foreignbased enterprises in domestic and
export markets.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563—
Regulatory Review
This regulation has been drafted and
reviewed in accordance with section
1(b) of Executive Order 12866
(‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review’’),
and with section 1(b) of Executive Order
13563 (‘‘Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review’’).
The Department of Justice has
determined that this rule is not a
‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866,
and accordingly this rule has not been
reviewed by the Office of Management
and Budget.
Further, both Executive Orders 12866
and 13563 direct agencies to assess all
costs and benefits of available regulatory
alternatives and, if regulation is
necessary, to select regulatory
approaches that maximize net benefits
(including potential economic,
environmental, public health and safety
effects, distributive impacts, and
equity). Executive Order 13563
emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits, of
reducing costs, of harmonizing rules,
and of promoting flexibility. The
Department has assessed the costs and
benefits of this regulation and believes
that the regulatory approach selected
maximizes net benefits.
Executive Order 13132
This proposed rule will not have
substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with section 6 of Executive
Order 13132, the Department of Justice
has determined that this rule does not
have sufficient federalism implications
to warrant the preparation of a
federalism summary impact statement.
Executive Order 12988
This proposed rule meets the
applicable standards set forth in
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive
Order 12988 concerning civil justice
reform.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
This proposed rule does not contain
collection of information requirements
and would not be subject to the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, as
amended (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 0
Authority delegations (Government
agencies), Government employees,
Organization and functions
(Government agencies), Privacy,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Whistleblowing.
Accordingly, Title 28, Part 0, Subpart
T of the Code of Federal Regulations is
proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 0—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for Part 0
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 28 U.S.C. 509,
510, 515–519.
2. In § 0.114, amend paragraph (a)(3)
by removing the fee ‘‘$55’’ and adding
in its place the fee ‘‘$65’’.
■
Dated: April 1, 2013.
Eric H. Holder, Jr.,
Attorney General.
[FR Doc. 2013–08158 Filed 4–11–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–04–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 100
[Docket No. USCG–2013–0181]
RIN 1625–AA08
Special Local Regulations; Marine
Events, Breton Bay; St. Mary’s County,
Leonardtown, MD
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Coast Guard proposes to
establish special local regulations
during the ‘‘Annual Leonardtown Wharf
Boat Races,’’ a marine event to be held
on the waters of Breton Bay on July 13,
2013, and July 14, 2013. These special
local regulations are necessary to
provide for the safety of life on
navigable waters during the event. This
action is intended to temporarily restrict
vessel traffic in a portion of Breton Bay
during the event.
DATES: Comments and related material
must be received by the Coast Guard on
or before May 13, 2013.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by docket number using any
one of the following methods:
(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov.
(2) Fax: 202–493–2251.
(3) Mail or Delivery: Docket
Management Facility (M–30), U.S.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\12APP1.SGM
12APP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 71 (Friday, April 12, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 21862-21864]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-08158]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
28 CFR Part 0
[Docket No. USMS 110; AG Order No. 3381-2013]
RIN 1105-AB42
Revision to United States Marshals Service Fees for Services
AGENCY: United States Marshals Service, Department of Justice.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule proposes to increase the fee from $55 per person per
hour to $65 per person per hour for process served or executed
personally by a United States Marshals Service employee, agent, or
contractor. This proposed fee increase reflects the current costs to
the United States Marshals Service for service of process in federal
court proceedings.
DATES: Written comments must be postmarked and electronic comments must
be submitted on or before June 11, 2013. Comments received by mail will
be considered timely if they are postmarked on or before that date. The
electronic Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) will accept comments
until Midnight Eastern Time at the end of that day.
ADDRESSES: To ensure proper handling of comments, please reference
``Docket No. USMS 110'' on all electronic and written correspondence.
The Department encourages all comments be submitted electronically
through https://www.regulations.gov using the electronic comment form
provided on that site. An electronic copy of this document is also
available at the https://www.regulations.gov Web site for easy
reference. Paper comments that duplicate the electronic submission are
not necessary as all comments submitted to https://www.regulations.gov
will be posted for public review and are part of the official docket
record. Should you, however, wish to submit written comments via
regular or express mail, they should be sent to the Office of General
Counsel, United States Marshals Service, 2604 Jefferson Davis Highway,
Alexandria, VA 22301.
[[Page 21863]]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joe Lazar, Associate General Counsel,
United States Marshals Service, 2604 Jefferson Davis Highway,
Alexandria, VA 22301, telephone number (202) 307-9054 (not a toll-free
number).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Legal Authority for the United States Marshals Service To Charge Fees
The Attorney General must establish fees to be taxed and collected
for certain services rendered by the United States Marshals Service in
connection with federal court proceedings. 28 U.S.C. 1921(b). These
services include, but are not limited to, serving writs, subpoenas, or
summonses, preparing notices or bills of sale, keeping attached
property, and certain necessary travel. 28 U.S.C. 1921(a). To the
extent practicable, these fees shall reflect the actual and reasonable
costs of the services provided. 28 U.S.C. 1921(b).
The Attorney General initially established the fee schedule in 1991
based on the actual costs of services rendered and hours expended at
that time, e.g., salaries, overhead. 56 FR 2436-01 (Jan. 23, 1991). Due
to an increase in the salaries and benefits of United States Marshals
Service personnel over time, the initial fee schedule was amended in
2000, see 65 FR 47859-01 (Aug. 4, 2000), and again in 2008, see 73 FR
69552-01 (Nov. 19, 2008). The current fee schedule is inadequate and no
longer reflects the actual and reasonable costs of the services
rendered.
Federal Cost Accounting and Fee Setting Standards and Guidelines Being
Used
When developing fees for services, the United States Marshals
Service adheres to the principles contained in Office of Management and
Budget Circular No. A-25 Revised (``Circular No. A-25''). Circular No.
A-25 states that, as a general policy, a ``user charge * * * will be
assessed against each identifiable recipient for special benefits
derived from Federal activities beyond those received by the general
public.'' Id. sec. 6.
The United States Marshals Service follows the guidance contained
in Circular No. A-25 to the extent that it is not inconsistent with any
federal statute. Specific legislative authority to charge fees for
services takes precedence over Circular No. A-25 when the statute
``prohibits the assessment of a user charge on a service or addresses
an aspect of the user charge (e.g., who pays the charge; how much is
the charge; where collections are deposited).'' Id. sec. 4(b). When a
statute does not address how to calculate fees or what costs to include
in fee calculations, Circular No. A-25 instructs that its principles
and guidance should be followed ``to the extent permitted by law.'' Id.
According to Circular No. A-25, federal agencies should charge the full
cost or the market price of providing services that provide a special
benefit to identifiable recipients. Id. sec. 6(a)(2). Circular No. A-25
defines full cost as including ``all direct and indirect costs to any
part of the Federal Government of providing a good, resource, or
service.'' These costs may include an ``appropriate share'' of: (a)
``[d]irect and indirect personnel costs, including salaries and fringe
benefits such as medical insurance and retirement''; (b) ``[p]hysical
overhead, consulting, and other indirect costs including material and
supply costs, utilities, insurance, travel, and rents or imputed rents
on land, buildings, and equipment''; (c) ``management and supervisory
costs''; and (d) ``costs of enforcement, collection, research,
establishment of standards, and regulation.'' Id. sec. 6(d)(1).
Processes Used To Determine the Amount of the Fee Revision
The Attorney General initially established the fee schedule in 1991
based on the average salaries, benefits, and overhead of the Deputy
U.S. Marshals who executed process on behalf of a requesting party. The
fee schedule was revised in 2000 and again in 2008. The 2008 rates,
which are still being charged, are set forth at 28 CFR 0.114(a) as
follows:
For process forwarded for service from one U.S Marshals
Service office or suboffice to another--$8 per item forwarded;
For process served by mail--$8 per item mailed;
For process served or executed personally--$55 per hour
(or portion thereof) for each item served by one U.S. Marshals Service
employee, agent, or contractor, plus travel costs and any other out-of-
pocket expenses. For each additional U.S. Marshals Service employee,
agent, or contractor who is needed to serve process--$55 per person per
hour for each item served, plus travel costs and any other out-of-
pocket expenses.
For copies at the request of any party--$.10 per page;
For preparing notice of sale, bill of sale, or U.S.
Marshal deed--$20 per item;
For keeping and advertisement of property attached--actual
expenses incurred in seizing, maintaining, and disposing of the
property.
In 2012, the United States Marshals Service conducted an analysis
to determine whether, in light of the increase in salaries and expenses
of its workforce over the previous time period, the existing fee
schedule continued to reflect the costs of serving process. The
following cost module was designed to reflect the average hourly cost
of serving process in person on behalf of a requesting party.
Cost Module
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hourly Wage............................................. $32.97
Law Enforcement Availability Pay........................ 8.24
Fringe Benefits......................................... 16.90
Indirect Costs.......................................... 7.41
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Personnel Costs............................... 65.52
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ``hourly wage'' in this module reflects the hourly basic rate
for law enforcement officers at Grade 12, Step 1, as set forth in the
Office of Personnel Management's 2012 Salary Table for the ``rest of
the United States'' (available at https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/2012/law-enforcement-officer/rus_leo_h.pdf). The cost of Law Enforcement Availability Pay also was
factored into the hourly wage of an average Criminal Investigator
(Deputy U.S. Marshal).\1\ The fringe benefits rate reflected 41 percent
of total wage costs. Finally, the indirect costs, which reflected the
costs of administrative services, including management/supervisory
compensation and benefits, depreciation, utilities, supplies, and
equipment, constituted approximately 18 percent of the total wage
costs. As a result of the cost module, the United States Marshals
Service determined that the existing fee schedule no longer reflected
the actual and reasonable costs of serving process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Law Enforcement Availability Pay Act of 1994, Public Law
103-329, tit. VI, sec. 633, 108 Stat. 2425 (1994) (codified at 5
U.S.C. 5545a), provides that law enforcement officers, such as
Criminal Investigators (Deputy U.S. Marshals), who are required to
work unscheduled hours in excess of each regular work day, are
entitled to premium pay totaling 25 percent of their base salary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The total personnel costs of serving process were rounded to the
nearest five-dollar increment. Thus, in order to recover the actual and
reasonable costs of serving process, the United States Marshals Service
is proposing to charge $65 per hour (or portion thereof) for each item
served by one United States Marshals Service law enforcement officer.
This represents a less than 20 percent increase ($10 per hour) from the
existing fee for serving process established in 2008.
[[Page 21864]]
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Attorney General, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), has reviewed this proposed rule and, by
approving it, certifies that this rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Under the
current fee structure, the United States Marshals Service collected
approximately $1,245,000 in service-of-process fees in FY2012.\2\ The
implementation of this proposed fee structure would provide the United
States Marshals Service with an estimated additional $235,000 in
revenue over the revenue that would be collected under the current fee
structure. This revenue increase represents a recovery of costs based
on an increase in salaries, expenses, and employee benefits over the
previous four-year period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ This amount does not include $986,000 in United States
Marshals Service commissions collected for sales during FY2012. This
proposed rule does not affect commissions, only the fees charged for
service of process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The economic impact on individual entities that utilize the
services of the United States Marshals Service will be minimal. The
service of process fees will only affect entities that pursue
litigation in federal court and, in most instances, seek to have the
U.S. Marshals levy upon or seize property. The service of process fees
will be increased by only $10 per hour from the previous rate increase
more than four years ago. The fees will be consonant with similar fees
already paid by these entities in state court litigation.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
This proposed rule will not result in the expenditure by State,
local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private
sector, of $100 million or more in any one year, and it will not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no
actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
This proposed rule is not a major rule as defined by section 251 of
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. 5
U.S.C. 804. This rule will not result in an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices;
or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment,
productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based
enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and
export markets.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563--Regulatory Review
This regulation has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with
section 1(b) of Executive Order 12866 (``Regulatory Planning and
Review''), and with section 1(b) of Executive Order 13563 (``Improving
Regulation and Regulatory Review'').
The Department of Justice has determined that this rule is not a
``significant regulatory action'' under section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866, and accordingly this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget.
Further, both Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to
assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and,
if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that
maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental,
public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity).
Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both
costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of
promoting flexibility. The Department has assessed the costs and
benefits of this regulation and believes that the regulatory approach
selected maximizes net benefits.
Executive Order 13132
This proposed rule will not have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with section 6
of Executive Order 13132, the Department of Justice has determined that
this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant
the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.
Executive Order 12988
This proposed rule meets the applicable standards set forth in
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 concerning civil
justice reform.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
This proposed rule does not contain collection of information
requirements and would not be subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1980, as amended (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 0
Authority delegations (Government agencies), Government employees,
Organization and functions (Government agencies), Privacy, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Whistleblowing.
Accordingly, Title 28, Part 0, Subpart T of the Code of Federal
Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 0--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for Part 0 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510, 515-519.
0
2. In Sec. 0.114, amend paragraph (a)(3) by removing the fee ``$55''
and adding in its place the fee ``$65''.
Dated: April 1, 2013.
Eric H. Holder, Jr.,
Attorney General.
[FR Doc. 2013-08158 Filed 4-11-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-04-P