660 
Second, a user fee system must be equitable. It must fairly dis- 
tribute the costs of the program among the users of the program. 
The overall costs allocated to the program users must not be bur- 
densome, and the allocation to any particular user must not be 
unfair. 
Third, a user fee system must be auditable. It must be clear and 
specific so that there is no confusion or misunderstanding regard- 
ing the costs and procedures. 
Developing a system along these three principles will require an- 
swers to a number of specific questions. These include, what will be 
the basis of the costs recovered by the user fee? That is, which 
costs will be paid for by the program users and which will not? 
What formula will be used to allocate the costs among the users— 
will it be based solely on tonnage, or will other factors be consid- 
ered? What minimum necessary administrative procedures should 
be set up for fee collection, rebates and the like? 
Because of the complexities of these issues, we propose that the 
law be amended to provide the agency with broad authority to im- 
plement a fee system. This system should be established in accord- 
ance with the three principles I have discussed. I would be pleased 
to provide the committee with the appropriate legislative language 
to accomplish this purpose. 
We further propose to answer more detailed questions, consistent 
with the principles I have enunciated, in establishing the fee 
system through the rulemaking process. This will give the affected 
public a chance to participate in the development of this user fee 
system. We will, of course, work with the subcommittees and staff 
throughout the rulemaking process to develop an administratable, 
equitable and auditable user fee system. 
Now I realize that you may have some problems as to the degree 
of congressional control over this fund and we appreciate that con- 
cern. For example, the agencies could present their proposed fees 
to the Congress annually. There may be other alternatives. We are 
willing to work with the subcommittees on these questions. 
Now I would like to turn to a review of the amendments before 
the subcommittees today. Among our concerns with these amend- 
ments are: The complexity of having four different fees; the degree 
to which we may recoup costs for the designation of new sites; the 
time span for cost recovery; and the overlapping authority of the 
proposed Ocean Waste Management Commission with other Feder- 
al agencies and commissions. 
The proposed amendment to H.R. 6118 defines four major compo- 
nents of the fee system. They are a permit processing fee, a site 
designation fee, a monitoring fee, and a special fee to support the 
operation of a proposed Ocean Waste Management Commission. All 
of these provisions appear as amendments to section 104(b) of the 
act. I shall review each of these proposed fees in turn, and discuss 
our concerns with them. 
The current act provides for a permit processing fee to be as- 
sessed by the Administrator of EPA or the Secretary of the Army. 
This provision is modified slightly by the proposed amendment to 
clarify that Federal agencies are not to be assessed permit process- 
ing fees. The Agency is in full agreement with this provision. 
