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. ................................................................ Welcome and Introductions. 

9:15 a.m.–9:30 a.m. ........................................................... Brief history of 25 CFR part 170 and process for updating the regulation. 

9:30 a.m.–10 a.m. .............................................................. MAP–21 and its impacts on 25 CFR part 170. 

10 a.m.–10:15 a.m. ............................................................ Break. 

10:15 a.m.–11:45 a.m. ....................................................... Discussion of updates to 25 CFR part 170. 

11:45 a.m.–1 p.m. .............................................................. Break. 

1 p.m.–3 p.m. ..................................................................... Continue discussion of updates to 25 CFR part 170. 

3:15 p.m.–4 p.m. ................................................................ Update regarding National Tribal Transportation Facilities Inventory (NTTFI) quality 

assurance review. 

4 p.m.–4:30 p.m. ................................................................ Closing Comments. 

4:30 p.m. ............................................................................ Adjourn. 

Dated: April 9, 2013. 

Kevin Washburn, 

Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs. 

[FR Doc. 2013–08665 Filed 4–11–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–4J–P 

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 http:// 

www.regulations.gov using the 

electronic comment form provided on 

that site. An electronic copy of this 

document is also available at the 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site for 

easy reference. Paper comments that 

duplicate the electronic submission are 

not necessary as all comments 

submitted to http://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. 

mstockstill on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 71 / Friday, April 12, 2013 / Proposed Rules 21863 

1The 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. 

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-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. 

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 

http://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. 

mstockstill on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

21864 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 71 / Friday, April 12, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

2This 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. 

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. 

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 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.). 

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 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: 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: 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

(2) Fax: 202–493–2251. 

(3) Mail or Delivery: Docket 

Management Facility (M–30), U.S. 

mstockstill on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS