Subpart D-Fees § 311.30 Fees for services and copies. (a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, there will be no charge for making an identifiable record available for inspection pursuant to § 311.21. (b) The maximum number of copies of any document which may be supplied is 10. (c) Except as provided in paragraphs (a) and (g) of this section the following is a schedule of fees for services and copies: (i) For each one-quarter man-hour or fraction thereof spent in excess of the first quarter-hour in searching for or producing a requested record other than records in a public reference facility maintained pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 522(a)(2). $1. (ii) For copies of documents other than those duplicated and distributed for no fee: Each page- $0.30. (iii) Certification for each document.- $1. (iv) Attestation under the seal of the Commission $3. (v) Where return of copies is requested to be by mail, postal fees as are necessary must be prepaid with the request. (d) Payment for copies and services shall be made in cash, by U.S. postal money order, or by check payable to the Director, Office of Administration. Stamps will not be accepted as payment. (e) If the Director determines that a record cannot be made available without significant disruption of normal business activities, he may secure an estimate of the cost of making the record available and require the person filing the request to deposit that amount prior to commencing a search for the record or prior to producing it for inspection. When the actual cost of making the record available exceeds or is less than the amount deposited by more than $1 an adjustment in the form of a supplemental payment or refund, as appropriate, must be made. In determining whether the search for a record will disrupt normal business activities, the Director may take into account the cumulative effect upon business activities of all other pending requests for records under this part, whether made by the same person or by other persons. (f) The intent of this section is to apply the user charge statute (31 U.S.C. 483a) in accordance with the guidance of the user charges policy contained in Bureau of the Budget Circular A-25, "User Charges," which states generally that when services are provided that are above and beyond those which accrue to the public at large a charge should be made to recover the cost of rendering the services. (g) When the request for copies of any record available for inspection pursuant to § 311.21 is by the Federal Government or an agency or instrumentality thereof copies as requested will be made available without charge. Subpart E-Appeals § 311.40 Appeals. (a) Any person aggrieved by any determination made or action taken by the Director pursuant to the provisions of this part may file an appeal. (b) An appeal must be filed with the Office of General Counsel, Price Commission, within 30 days of the determination or action appealed from. (c) An appeal may be filed by letter or other written statement setting forth the pertinent facts. (d) The Chairman of the Commission, or his delegate, reserves the right to require the person filing the appeal to present additional evidence or information in support of his appeal. (e) The Chairman of the Commission, or his delegate, will promptly review each appeal and notify the appellant, in writing, of his decision. Motel units as residences. Capital improvements installed but not functional before Aug. 15, 1971. Base rent rather than current rent to be used for future increases. Posting item prices. Funeral directors as service organi zations and retailers. Landlord's records as to base prices. 1972-63 22 percent increase from prior period. 1972-64 Parking under commercial agreement. 1972-65 Substantial number of transactions. 1972-66 Taxi rate reporting requirements. 1972-67 Municipalities-fees for services. 1972-68 Muncipalities--allowable costs. 1972-69 Retail price increases determining violations. 1972-70 Formula rental payments. 1972-71 1972-72 Rent-10 percent rule. Determination of base price where there are branch stores. 1972-73 Determination of base price of advance ticket sales. 1972-74 F.O.B. prices which anticipate transportation cost reductions. [Price Commission Ruling 1971-1] WATER SERVICE CHARGES Facts. City A is composed of several departments under the supervision of a city council and mayor. Some of the departments are financed by property tax revenues (e.g. police and fire departments), while others are financed by service charges (e.g. garbage collection and water departments). The garbage collection department has incurred cost increases after November 14, 1971, without any gain in productivity. The water department has incurred no such cost increases. Issues. May the city increase its service charge for water service to cover the increased costs of the garbage collection department? Ruling. No. The city may not increase the water service rates to cover the increased costs of the garbage collection department. Even though State and local income, sales, and real estate taxes are not subject to the provisions of the Economic Stabilization Act of 1970 because they are not prices (Economic Stabilization Regulations § 101.1 (c) (1)), service charges imposed by State or local governments are not exempt. Any person who carries on the trade or business of selling or making available services is a service organization, as defined in Economic Stabilization Regulations § 300.101 (b) (3), and this definition includes government instrumentalities. Therefore, each city department which renders services financed by service charges imposed on the recipients of that service is a service organization, and may charge a price in excess of the base price only to reflect allowable costs in effect on November 14, 1971, and cost increases incurred after November 14, 1971, reduced to reflect productivity gains. On the facts given above, only the garbage collection department has incurred such increased costs and therefore only the service charges imposed for the garbage collection service could be increased. This ruling has been approved by the General Counsel of the Price Commission. [36 F.R. 23109, Dec. 3, 1971] [Price Commission Ruling 1971-2] SEWER AND WATER SERVICE CHARGES Facts. City A is limited by State law to a real property tax rate below that necessary to pay for its general governmental functions. It generates the additional revenues necessary to perform those functions by charging more for sewer and water services than is necessary to pay for those services. It has incurred additional costs in performing its general governmental functions. Issue. May the city raise the service charges on its sewer and water service to pay the increased costs incurred in performing its general governmental functions? Ruling. The city may not increase its sewer and water service charges to pay the increased costs incurred in performing its general governmental functions. A city which operates a sewer and water department is to that extent a "service organization" within the definition provided by Economic Stabilization Regulations 300.101(b) (3). Therefore, it can increase its charges only to reflect its allowable costs in effect on November 14, 1971, and cost increases it incurred after November 14, 1971, reduced to reflect productivity gains. On these facts, the city itself, and not the sewer and water department, incurred the additional costs, and thus the sewer and water department cannot increase its rates to reflect such additional costs. This ruling has been approved by the General Counsel of the Price Commission. [36 F.R. 23108, Dec. 3, 1971] [Price Commission Ruling 1971-3] WAGE INCREASES Facts. On November 18, 1971, Company A agreed to pay a wage increase to its employees of approximately 16 percent per year. Company A wants to raise its prices to reflect in full this wage increase on the grounds that the increase is an "allowable cost" within the meaning of Price Commission regulations, § 300.101 (c) (2). Issue. Is the wage increase which exceeds the general guidelines of 5.5 percent per year granted by Company A an allowable cost within the meaning of Price Commission regulations, § 300.101 (c) (2)? Ruling. For a company which agreed to a general wage increase after the guideline of 5.5 percent per year for wage increases had been announced on November 8, 1971, increased "allowable costs" for the purpose of justifying a price increase shall not generally include increased wage payments, including fringe benefits, in excess of 5.5 percent per year. Payments to replenish major deficiencies in a welfare fund which are necessary to protect the pensions of men already retired constitute an exception. This interpretation does not apply to wage increases for workers making less than minimum wage standards of general applicability. Nor does it preclude a company from obtaining an "exception by ruling" as provided by Price Commis sion regulations, § 300.612, if the company can demonstrate that not counting the increased wage costs in excess of 5.5 percent with respect to its particular situation constitutes a gross inequity. This ruling has been approved by the General Counsel of the Price Commission. [36 F.R. 23661, Dec. 11, 1971] [Price Commission Ruling 1971-4] PRENOTIFICATION Facts. Company A had sales in its last fiscal year of $150 million. It has prenotified the Price Commission of every price increase it has put into effect. Issue. Must Company A also report to the Price Commission at the end of its next fiscal quarter? Ruling. Yes, all prenotification firms are required to submit quarterly reports to the Price Commission on Form PC-1 in addition to prenotifying the Commission of proposed price increases, pursuant to § 300.051(d). This ruling has been approved by the General Counsel of the Price Commission. [36 F.R. 24077, Dec. 18, 1971] [Price Commission Ruling 1971-5] Facts. For the purposes of filing income tax returns, preparing financial statements, and its general business operations, Corporation X maintains its books and records according to a fiscal year ended December 31st. On November 14, 1971, Phase II of the economic stabilization program, established pursuant to the Economic Stabilization Act of 1970, became operative. Issue. Whether or not Corporation X must change from a fiscal year ended December 31st to a fiscal year ended November 13th. Ruling. Corporation X may continue to maintain its books and records on the basis of a fiscal year ended December 31st. Although November 14, 1971 is a reference date or starting point which may be determinative of whether certain requirements may be operative with respect to the granting and implementation of certain price adjustments, there is no mandate in the Act or the regulations that the fiscal year of Corporation X be changed to end on November 13th. Moreover, this same rule would apply regardless of what date the fiscal year of Corporation X ended upon. Further, it is to be noted that the "fiscal year" referred to in this ruling is intended to mean a period of 12 months. This ruling has been approved by the General Counsel of the Price Commission. [36 F.R. 24232, Dec. 22, 1971] [Price Commission Ruling 1972-1] BUS OPERATORS Facts. An operator of school buses holds contracts for the transportation of school children with several school districts. The contracts are negotiated each year during June and July. All the contracts for the school year 1971-72 were signed in June, 1971 except one with School District A which was signed July 20, 1971. Wages of his drivers were increased by 5 percent in contracts signed July 27, 1971. Issue. May the operator increase his service charges for transportation for the school year 1972-73 to be negotiated next summer? Ruling. The bus operator may increase his charges to all school districts with which he will contract to furnish transportation services for 1972-73. However, in accordance with the conditions in § 300.14 of the Economic Stabilization Regulations, increases in charges are authorized only to reflect allowable costs in effect on November 14, 1971, and cost increases incurred after November 14, 1971, reduced to reflect productivity gains, and only if the increased prices do not increase the firm's total profits, as a percentage of sales, before income taxes, over those which prevailed during the base period. The base price from which the allowable increase is to be computed is the price of the contract with School District A which was entered into during the freeze base period-July 16 to August 14, 1971. Accordingly, the bus operator may charge in excess of the price in this contract so much as is necessary to absorb increases in allowable costs, such as wages (subject generally to a limitation of 5.5 percent on increases made after November 8, 1971), maintenance, replacements, licenses, etc. This ruling has been approved by the General Counsel of the Price Commission. [37 F.R. 247, Jan. 7, 1972] [Price Commission Ruling 1972-2] CRITERIA FOR CORPORATE PRICE INCREASES Facts. A manufacturer, a corporation, manufactures three separate items. The corporation has been actively engaged in the business since 1967. It computes its net income on the basis of a calendar year. In the year 1968 the corporation had net income, before income taxes and extraordinary items, equal to 5 percent of its sales. In the years 1969 and 1970 the respective figures for net income, before income taxes, and extraordinary items, were 6 percent and 7 percent. Beginning December 31, 1971, the corporation proposes to increase the prices of each of its three products by 3 percent because the cost of certain raw materials used in the products has increased by 4 percent and many of its employees have received a 2 percent wage increase. Annual sales of the corporation do not and have never exceeded $1 million. Issue. May the corporation increase its prices by more than 2.5 percent after November 13, 1971, and, if so, what factors would determine the amount of the increase? Ruling. It is possible that the corporation may increase its prices more than 2.5 percent. Prices after November 13, 1971, are to be established in accordance with Price Commission guidelines. The 2.5 percent figure represents a goal for average price increases across the entire economy, but individual price changes may be above or below that figure, depending upon allowable cost increases and net profit margins. Under Economic Stabilization Regulation § 300.12, manufacturers may charge prices for products in excess of the base prices to reflect increases in allowable costs in effect on November 14, 1971, and cost increases incurred after November 14, 1971 reduced to reflect productivity gains. However, the effect of all of a manufacturer's price changes cannot be to increase its profit margin as a percentage of dollar sales, before income taxes, over that which prevailed during the base period. The "base period", as defined in Economic Stabilization Regulations § 300.5 means the average of any two of a person's last three fiscal years ended prior to August 15, 1971. The selection of such two fiscal years is to be made by the person. Therefore, increases in the manufacturer's prices of the three products would be determined by reference to the profit margin determinations for any two of the years 1968, 1969 and 1970. It would also be determined by reference to increases in allowable costs and by productivity gains. However, the profit margin determinations are to be made by reference to the three products manufactured and not merely to each product individually. This ruling has been approved by the General Counsel of the Price Commission. [37 F.R. 247, Jan. 7, 1972] [Price Commission Ruling 1972-3] Facts. A U.S. corporation, A, buys raw leather from a foreign dealer who delivers the leather to corporation A in the United States. Upon receipt of the leather, corporation A manufactures leather jackets that it sells to clothing wholesalers in the United States. The jackets are not custom made to order. Issue. How are these two transactions covered by the regulations? Ruling. The first sale of an import into the customs territory of the United States is exempt. Economic Stabilization Regulations § 101.32 (d) (2). The price may be whatever is agreed upon between the foreign exporter and U.S. importer. Therefore, in the example above, the sale of the leather goods by the foreign dealer to corporation A is exempt. When the importer sells the article (whether changed or not, or incorporated into another product) to a U.S. purchaser. that sale is subject to control and the rules of the Price Commission apply. Thus, the sale by corporation A to the U.S. retailers is subject to the rules of the Price Commission. The price charged by corporation A to the U.S. wholesalers may exceed corporation A's base price (as defined in Subpart F of the regulations) only if it reflects cost increases, subject to adjustments for productivity gains and subject to the rule that its profit margin as a percentage of sales may not be greater than the average of the best two of the last 3 fiscal years ended prior to August 15, 1971. Economic Stabilization Regulation, 300.12. This ruling has been approved by the General Counsel of the Cost of Living Council. [37 F.R. 247, Jan. 7, 1972] |