Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 39 / Monday, February 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 10811 

made in connection with the earlier part 

61 DEIS, including: 

• The emergence of potential LLW 

streams that were not considered in the 

original part 61 rulemaking, including 

large quantities of depleted uranium, 

and possibly incidental wastes 

associated with the commercial 

reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel; and 

• DOE’s increasing use of commercial 

facilities for the disposal of defenserelated LLW streams; and 

• Extensive international operational 

experience in the management of LLW 

and intermediate-level radioactive 

wastes that did not exist at the time part 

61 was promulgated. 

The developments described above 

will need to be considered if the staff 

undertakes a revision of part 61. Waste 

from the Nation’s defense programs has 

been managed by DOE and is not subject 

to part 61. Instead, DOE has used DOE 

Order 435.1 to specify the disposal 

requirements for this waste. The current 

version of this Order has been in place 

for about 11 years and applies to 

management of radioactive waste within 

the DOE complex. Like part 61, Order 

435.1 places a heavy emphasis on 

performance assessment as part of its 

radioactive waste management decisionmaking. DOE recently started a 

comprehensive revision of Order 435.1, 

which it plans to complete sometime in 

2011. The staff plans to consider any 

modifications to Order 435.1 as part of 

a comprehensive revision to part 61. 

In SRM–M100617B (ADAMS 

ML1018203015), the Commission 

directed the staff to outline its approach 

to initiate activities in connection with 

a possible revision to part 61 that is riskinformed, performance-based. However, 

before the start of any rulemaking 

process, the staff recommended that it 

engage stakeholders and solicit their 

views on whether there should be 

amendments to the current part 61 and 

if so, what the nature of those 

amendments should be. This approach 

is consistent with NRC’s openness 

policy and with the type of public 

outreach used by the staff to develop 

part 61. 

II. NRC/DOE Joint Public Workshop 

The purpose of this workshop is to 

gather information from a broad 

spectrum of stakeholders concerning the 

NRC’s proposed options for a 

comprehensive revision to NRC’s and 

DOE’s waste regulations. They include: 

(1) Risk-inform the current part 61 waste 

classification framework, (2) 

comprehensive revision to part 61, (3) 

site-specific waste acceptance criteria, 

(4) international alignment, and (5) 

supersede direction given in Staff 

Requirements Memorandum (SRM)–08– 

0147. This workshop will be conducted 

jointly with DOE who is also 

considering revisions to its Management 

Directive DOE Order 435.1 (Radioactive 

Waste Management). 

The joint public workshop will be 

organized in two sessions (one for each 

agency), followed by a joint ‘‘Panel 

Discussion’’ Session. Session I will 

address DOE Order 435.1. Session I will 

also include an opportunity for 

stakeholder feedback and comments. 

Session II will address the NRC staff’s 

proposed options for any potential 

rulemaking actions with respect to 

revision of 10 CFR part 61 (Licensing 

Requirements for Land Disposal of 

Radioactive Waste) as discussed in the 

NRC Commission Paper SECY–10–0165. 

This SECY paper is available on the 

NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/

reading-rm/doc-collections/

commission/secys/2010/. Session II will 

also include background presentations 

on SECY–10–0165 by NRC staff. 

Following Session II, there will be a 

joint DOE/NRC Panel Discussion to 

explain the agencies’ respective 

positions, future plans, and specific 

views regarding the LLW management 

framework. The panel will also address 

public and stakeholder suggestions and 

comments. 

The public workshop will be held on 

March 4, 2011, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 

p.m. at the Hyatt Regency Phoenix 

Hotel, 122 North Second Street, 

Phoenix, Arizona 85004. Pre-registration 

for this meeting is not necessary. 

Members of the public choosing to 

participate in this meeting remotely can 

do so in one of two ways—online, via 

Webex, or via a telephone (audio) 

connection. Instructions for remote 

participation in this meeting are 

described below. 

To join the online meeting (including 

mobile devices) 

1. Go to https://pec.webex.com/pec/

j.php?ED=7975058&UID=32785548&

PW=NNzA2ZGNlOGYx&RT=MiM1. 

2. If requested, enter your name and 

e-mail address. 

3. If a password is required, enter the 

meeting password: Energy 

4. Click ‘‘Join’’. 

To view in other time zones or 

languages, please click the link: https:// 

pec.webex.com/pec/

j.php?ED=7975058&UID=32785548&

PW=NNzA2ZGNlOGYx&ORT=MiM1. 

To join the audio conference only 

To receive a call back, provide your 

phone number when you join the 

meeting, or call the number below and 

enter the access code. 

Call-in toll-free number (U.S./ 

Canada): 1–877–669–3239 . 

Call-in toll number (U.S./Canada): 

+1–408–600–3600 Toll-free dialing 

restrictions: http://www.webex.com/pdf/ 

tollfree_restrictions.pdf; Access code: 

858 991 753 

The agenda for the public meeting 

will be noticed no fewer than ten (10) 

days prior to the meeting on the NRC’s 

electronic public workshop schedule at 

http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/

public-meetings/index.cfm. 

III. Questions Related to 10 CFR Part 

61, ‘‘Low-Level Radioactive Waste 

Management’’ 

NRC staff is seeking stakeholder input 

to the following three questions that 

will be discussed at the public 

workshop: 

(1) Should the staff revise the existing 

10 CFR part 61? 

(2) What recommendations do you 

have for specific changes to the current 

rule? 

(3) What are your suggestions for 

possible new approaches to commercial 

LLW management? 

NRC plans to consider stakeholder 

views in the development of a revised 

draft of part 61. The staff expects to 

issue a Commission Paper summarizing 

stakeholder views along with a 

recommendation for any future part 61 

rulemaking in calendar year 2012. 

Written comments may be sent to the 

address listed in the ADDRESSES section. 

Questions about participation in the 

public workshops should be directed to 

the points of contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd 

day of February 2011. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Andrew Persinko, 

Deputy Director, Environmental Protection 

and Performance Assessment Directorate, 

Division of Waste Management and 

Environmental Protection, Office of Federal 

and State Materials and Environmental 

Management Programs. 

[FR Doc. 2011–4404 Filed 2–25–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

18 CFR Chapter I 

[Docket No. RM11–6–000] 

Annual Charges for Use of 

Government Lands 

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, DOE. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
10812 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 39 / Monday, February 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

1 16 U.S.C. 803(e)(1) (2006). Section 10(e)(1) also 

requires licensees to reimburse the United States for 

the costs of the administration of Part I of the FPA. 

Those charges are calculated and billed separately 

from the land use charges, and are not the subject 

of this Notice of Inquiry. 

2Pursuant to FPA section 17(a), 16 U.S.C. 810(a) 

(2006), the fees collected for use of government 

lands are allocated as follows: 12.5 percent is paid 

into the treasury of the United States, 50 percent is 

paid into the Federal reclamation fund, and 37.5 

percent is paid into the treasuries of the States in 

which particular projects are located. No part of the 

fees is used to fund the Commission’s operations. 

3See Revision of the Billing Procedures for 

Annual Charges for Administering Part I of the 

Federal Power Act and to the Methodology for 

Assessing Federal Land Use Charges, Order No. 

469, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 30,741, at 30,584 (1987). 

4 Id. 

5 Id. 

6Order Prescribing Amendment to Section 11.21 

of the Regulations Under the Federal Power Act, 

Order No. 560, 56 F.P.C. 3860 (1976). 

7 Id. 

8Order No. 469, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 30,741 at 

30,584. This rate was based on a fluctuating rate 

used by the United States Water Resources Council, 

based primarily upon the average yield of long-term 

United States interest-bearing securities. 

9See Assessment of Charges under the 

Hydroelectric Program, DOE/IG Report No. 0219 

(September 3, 1986); see also More Efforts Needed 

to Recover Costs and Increase Hydropower Charges, 

U.S. General Accounting Office Report No. RCED– 

87–12 (November 1986). 

10Billing Procedure Revisions—Annual Charges 

Methodology for Assessing Federal Land Use 

Charges, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FERC 

Stats. & Regs. ¶ 32,423, at 33,281 (1985). 

ACTION: Notice of Inquiry (NOI). 

SUMMARY: The Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission (Commission) is 

inviting comments on its procedures 

with respect to the assessment of annual 

charges for the use of government lands. 

This Notice of Inquiry will assist the 

Commission in identifying options to 

consider in determining the 

methodology to be used to calculate 

rental rates for use of government lands 

under Part 11 of the Commission’s 

regulations. 

DATES: Comments on this NOI are due 

on April 29, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on the Notice of Inquiry, identified by 

Docket No. RM11–6–000, by one of the 

following methods: 

• Electronic Submission: Documents 

created electronically using word 

processing software should be filed in 

native applications or print-to-PDF 

format, and not in a scanned format, at 

http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ 

efiling.asp. 

• Mail/Hand Delivery: Commenters 

unable to file comments electronically 

must mail or hand deliver an original 

copy of their comments to: Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission, 

Secretary of the Commission, 888 First 

Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. 

These requirements can be found on the 

Commission’s Web site, see, e.g., the 

‘‘Quick Reference Guide for Paper 

Submissions,’’ available at http:// 

www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp, or 

via phone from FERC Online Support at 

202–502–6652 or toll-free at 1–866– 

208–3676. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kimberly Ognisty, (Legal Information), 

Office of General Counsel—Energy 

Projects, Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 

Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502– 

8565. 

Doug Foster, (Technical Information), 

Office of the Executive Director, 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 

Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502– 

6118. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Notice of Inquiry 

Issued February 17, 2011 

1. The Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission is issuing this Notice of 

Inquiry to seek comments on its 

procedures with respect to the 

assessment of annual charges for the use 

of government lands by hydropower 

projects. In particular, the Commission 

is interested in identifying 

administratively practical methods for 

assessing reasonable annual charges that 

compensate the United States for the 

use of its lands. 

I. Background 

2. Section 10(e)(1) of the Federal 

Power Act (FPA) 1 requires Commission 

hydropower licensees using Federal 

lands to: 

pay to the United States reasonable annual 

charges in an amount to be fixed by the 

Commission * * * for recompensing [the 

United States] for the use, occupancy, and 

enjoyment of its lands or other property 

* * * and in fixing such charges the 

Commission shall seek to avoid increasing 

the price to the consumers of power by such 

charges, and any such charges may be 

adjusted from time to time by the 

Commission as conditions may require * * * 

In other words, where hydropower 

licensees use and occupy Federal lands 

for project purposes, they must 

compensate the United States through 

payment of an annual fee, to be 

established by the Commission.2

3. The Commission has employed 

various methodologies to determine the 

charges. The touchstone has been to 

find an administratively practical 

methodology which results in 

reasonably accurate land valuations. 

4. Beginning in 1938, annual charges 

for use of government land were based 

on project-by-project appraisals.3 That 

proved uneconomical because the cost 

of conducting individual appraisals was 

in excess of the value of the land 

involved.4 In 1942, the Commission’s 

predecessor, the Federal Power 

Commission (FPC), developed a 

national average value of $50 per acre, 

to which it applied a four percent rate 

of return to derive an annual land use 

charge of $2.00 per acre.5 The FPC had 

determined that a national average was 

superior to regional or State land values 

because use of the national average 

would simplify the administrative task 

of Commission staff and reduce the 

costs associated with yearly land use 

charge determinations.6 The FPC 

recognized that regional or State 

averages had the advantage of greater 

localization, but concluded that any 

speculative improvement in land value 

accuracy would not be significant 

enough to outweigh the obvious 

administrative economies accruing 

when a single nationwide figure is used 

as the basis for annual charges.7

5. In 1962, the FPC increased the 

national average land value to $60 per 

acre, and in 1976 to $150 per acre. In 

1976, the FPC also adopted a fluctuating 

interest rate to ensure that the rate of 

return would remain current.8

6. In 1985, the Inspector General of 

the Department of Energy concluded 

that the Commission’s existing 

methodology resulted in an undercollection of over $15 million per year 

because it used outdated land values. 

The Inspector General also found that 

the wide variation in land values made 

the use of a zone index preferable to a 

national average. The Inspector General 

recommended that the Commission: 

(1) Base land use charges on the current 

fair market value of the land being used; 

(2) use current long-term interest rates 

in its calculations; and (3) replace the 

national average land value with Stateby-State averages.9

7. In response, the Commission 

instituted a rulemaking for several 

purposes, including to impose Federal 

land use fees that better approximated 

the fair market value of the use of those 

lands. In the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, the Commission noted that 

it had found no existing index of land 

values that accurately reflected current 

economic conditions and conformed 

precisely to the context of land used for 

hydropower projects.10 The 

Commission stated that it was 

considering several proposals for 

assessing land use charges, including: 

(1) Using, with modifications, the 

‘‘Agricultural Land Values and Market 

Outlook and Situation Report,’’ 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 39 / Monday, February 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 10813 

11 Id. 

12 52 FR 82 (Jan. 2, 1987). 

13 Id. 

14Order No. 469, FERC Stats. & Regs. at 30,584. 

15 Id. at 30,589. 

16 Id. at 30,588. 

17See id. at 30,588–89. 

18 Id. (footnotes omitted). The Commission also 

rejected arguments that it should intentionally set 

low land charges based on the public benefits 

provided by hydropower projects. 

19 Id. at 30,591. 

20 Id. at 30,589. 

21 Id. at 30,589–90. 

22 Id. at 30,590. 

23See 18 CFR 11.2(b) (2010). 

24See, e.g., Update of the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission’s Fee Schedule for Annual 

Charges for the Use of Government Lands, 73 FR 

3626 (January 22, 2008), FERC Stats. & Regs. 

¶ 31,262 (2008) 

25 42 U.S.C. 15925 (2006). 

26Update of Linear Right-of-Way Rental 

Schedule, 71 FR 24,836. 

27Update of Linear Right-of-Way Rent Schedule, 

72 FR 70,376. 

28Update of Linear Right-of-Way Rent Schedule, 

73 FR 65,040. 

published by the Department of 

Agriculture, which provided State-byState average farm land and building 

values; (2) conducting individual 

appraisals; or (3) using fees based on a 

licensed project’s gross income or on its 

power generation.11 In a subsequent 

notice requesting supplemental 

comments, the Commission posited 

another alternative that had recently 

become available: basing land use fees 

on a rental schedule for linear rights-ofway being developed jointly by the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture’s Forest 

Service and the U.S. Department of 

Interior’s Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM).12 The Commission explained 

that, although the rental schedule 

concerned linear rights-of-way, it might 

be more representative of the value of 

land used for hydropower projects than 

valuation of farm lands or any other 

then currently-published information.13

8. In its final rule, the Commission 

explained that its existing methodology 

had resulted in under-collection of land 

use charges and was no longer 

reasonable because it used outdated 

land values, that the wide variation in 

land values across the country made use 

of a zone index preferable to a national 

average, and that its previous decision 

not to use such an index because of the 

burden on the Commission to determine 

the value of Forest Service lands was no 

longer an issue because the Forest 

Service and BLM had begun 

promulgating an index setting forth 

those values.14 The Commission agreed 

with the majority of commenters that 

the BLM–Forest Service index more 

accurately reflected typical hydropower 

project lands, and so decided to use that 

index rather than the farm values 

index.15

9. The Commission explained that the 

BLM–Forest Service methodology was 

based on a survey of the various types 

of lands that the Forest Service has 

allowed to be occupied by linear rightsof-way. The schedule was divided into 

regional zones, and provided per acre 

rental fees listed by State and county.16

The Commission decided to continue its 

past practice of doubling the linear 

right-of-way fee in order to establish the 

annual fees for the use of Federal lands 

for project works other than 

transmission lines (e.g., dams, 

powerhouse, and reservoirs) because 

lands used for transmission line rightsof-way would remain available for 

multiple uses, while other Federal lands 

occupied by hydropower project works 

would not.17

10. The Commission found no merit 

to claims that charging fair market value 

for Federal lands is prohibited by the 

FPA: 

All increases in charges will result in some 

impact on consumers. The statutory 

provision bars the Commission from 

assessing unreasonable charges that would be 

passed along to consumers. Reasonable 

annual charges are those that are 

proportionate to the value of the benefit 

conferred. Therefore, a fair market approach 

is consistent with the dictates of the Act. 

Furthermore, as land values have not been 

adjusted in over ten years, an adjustment 

upwards is warranted and overdue.18

The Commission stated that ‘‘the 

Forest Service index is the best 

approximation of reasonable land 

charges’’ and explained that ‘‘the Forest 

Service index will be adopted and 

published each year by the 

Commission.’’ 19

11. The Commission rejected the 

proposal to use the agricultural lands 

value index published by the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, which used 

a State-by-State average value per acre 

of farm land and buildings. The 

Commission concluded that the 

agricultural index would require such 

major adjustments that it would not be 

an efficient measure of land value for 

hydropower projects.20 The 

Commission also rejected using a fee 

based on the percentage of gross sales or 

a rate per kilowatt hour. The 

Commission concluded that a 

percentage of gross sales fee or flat rate 

is not a reasonable method because it 

would charge a royalty as though the 

Federal land being used was producing 

power, which overlooks the fact that 

power output is the result of many 

factors (e.g., water rights, head, project 

structures), and not just the acreage of 

the Federal land involved.21 Finally, the 

Commission rejected the proposal to use 

individual project appraisals, 

concluding that the FPC had abandoned 

the appraisal method in 1942, and again 

after reconsideration in 1976, because 

the cost of individual project appraisals 

was excessive compared to the value of 

the Federal land at issue. Thus, the 

Commission concluded that individual 

appraisals would be too costly and 

result in time-consuming litigation.22

12. Based on these findings, the 

Commission promulgated a regulation 

stating, inter alia, that annual charges 

for the use of government lands would 

be set on the basis of the schedule of 

rental fees for linear rights-of-way (the 

BLM–Forest Service schedule); that 

annual charges for government lands 

occupied by project transmission lines 

would be based directly on the 

schedule, while charges for lands used 

for other project purposes would be 

twice the charges set forth in the 

schedule; and that the Commission, by 

its designee the Executive Director, 

would update its fees schedule to reflect 

changes in land values established by 

the Forest Service.23

13. From 1987 until 2008, BLM and 

the Forest Service did not change the 

1987 linear right-of-way schedule, other 

than to make an adjustment to the fees 

each year to account for inflation. 

Likewise, the only change in the 

Commission’s implementation of its 

annual charges during this period was 

an annual fee update schedule to reflect 

the inflation adjustment.24 In 2005, 

Congress passed the Energy Policy Act 

of 2005 that required BLM ‘‘to update 

[the schedule] to revise the per acre 

rental fee zone value schedule by State, 

county, and type of linear right-of-way 

use to reflect current values of land in 

each zone.’’25 Congress further ordered 

that ‘‘the Secretary of Agriculture shall 

make the same revision for linear rightsof-way * * * on National Forest System 

land.’’ 

14. On April 27, 2006, BLM issued an 

advance notice of proposed rulemaking 

proposing to update the fee schedule.26

BLM stated that it was considering 

using existing published information or 

statistical data, such as information 

published by the National Agricultural 

Statistic Service (NASS), for updating 

the schedule. On December 11, 2007, 

BLM issued a proposed rule updating 

the rental fee schedule,27 and on 

October 31, 2008, it issued a final rule.28

The rule based the updated fee on the 

NASS information, as BLM had 

proposed. BLM noted that the four 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
10814 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 39 / Monday, February 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

29See Fee Schedule for Linear Rights-of-Way 

Authorized on National Forest System Lands, 73 FR 

66,591 (November 10, 2008). The Forest Service 

noted that it had given notice, in the preambles to 

BLM’s proposed and final rules, that it would adopt 

BLM’s revised fee schedule. 

30See, e.g., letter to Portland General Electric Co. 

in Project No. 2030 (January 6, 2009). 

31Update of the Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission’s Fees Schedule for Annual Charges 

for the Use of Government Lands, 74 FR 8184 

(February 24, 2009) FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,288 

(2009). 

32Other licensees, typically in the eastern part of 

the country, had their charges reduced. 

33Update of the Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission’s Fee Schedule for Annual Changes for 

the Use of Government Lands, 129 FERC ¶ 61,095 

(2009). 

34City of Idaho Falls, Idaho v. FERC, No. 09– 

1120, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 13 (DC Cir. Jan. 4, 

2011). 

35See Assessment of Charges under the 

Hydroelectric Program, DOE/IG Report No. 0219 

(September 3, 1986); see also More Efforts Needed 

to Recover Costs and Increase Hydropower Charges, 

U.S. General Accounting Office Report No. RCED– 

87–12 (November 1986). 

commenters who had addressed the 

issue had supported use of the NASS 

data. The Forest Service subsequently 

adopted the BLM revisions.29

15. In January 2009, the Commission 

sent letters to all of its licensees, 

explaining that the Forest Service had 

revised its fee schedule in response to 

direction from Congress and that 

consequently ‘‘for many projects, the 

[fiscal year] 2009 Federal land use 

charges will increase substantially.’’ The 

Commission asked licensees to confirm 

by county the Federal acres that the 

Commission believed to be occupied by 

each project.30

16. On February 17, 2009, the 

Commission issued notice of the Fee 

Update Schedule and based the 

schedule, as in previous years, on the 

BLM’s and Forest Service’s land 

valuations (February 17 Notice).31

Because of the BLM–Forest Service 

revisions, this resulted, in some cases, 

in significantly higher fees being 

assessed.32 In calculating the 2009 fees, 

the Commission used the same 

methodology that it has used for the 

past 21 years: it took the land values 

published by Forest Service and BLM, 

used the information in its files showing 

Federal acreage occupied by individual 

projects, and applied the values for the 

counties in which individual projects 

were located, doubling the values for 

acreage occupied by non-transmission 

line portions of hydropower projects. 

17. On March 6, 2009, the Federal 

Lands Group, a group of licensees 

composed of both municipal and private 

entities, filed a request for rehearing of 

the February 17 Notice. The group 

alleged that the February 17 Notice 

amounted to a rulemaking, improperly 

issued without notice and an 

opportunity for comment, and that the 

Commission had improperly delegated 

its authority to set annual charges to 

BLM and the Forest Service. The group 

asked the Commission to vacate the 

February 17 Notice, rescind annual 

charge bills that had been sent out in 

accordance with it, and reissue bills 

calculated under the prior fees 

schedule. 

18. On October 30, 2009, the 

Commission denied rehearing.33 On 

December 18, 2009, the Federal Lands 

Group filed a petition for review with 

the United States Court of Appeals for 

the District of Columbia Circuit. On 

January 4, 2011, the Court granted the 

petition for review and vacated the 2009 

Update.34 The Court stated that the 

Commission is required by the 

Administrative Procedure Act to seek 

notice and comment on the 

methodology used to calculate annual 

charges because the Commission’s fee 

schedule is based on the Forest 

Service’s land value index, and the 

Forest Service has made changes to the 

methodology underlying its index. We 

begin that process here. 

II. Subject of the Notice of Inquiry 

19. As recounted above, the 

Commission has employed various 

methodologies over the course of its 

history to determine annual charges for 

the use of government lands by 

hydropower projects. The touchstone 

has been to find an administrativelypractical methodology, which results in 

reasonably accurate land valuations. In 

seeking this goal, the methodology has 

been modified on occasion in response 

to concerns such as the cost of 

administering the methodology (e.g., 

rejecting individual appraisals), the 

administrative burden on the 

Commission (e.g., rejecting creation of 

our own index), and the accurate 

collection of fair market value (e.g., 

implementing updates in response to 

the contention that Commission had 

been under-collecting). At times, 

however, a previously-rejected approach 

has been revisited and adopted (e.g., 

Forest Service-BLM index adopted with 

adjustments because Commission would 

not be subject to administrative burden 

of creating its own index). The 

Commission now seeks suggestions for 

creating an administratively-practical 

methodology for assessing annual 

charges for the use of government lands 

that will result in reasonably accurate 

land valuations. The Commission 

specifically seeks comment on existing 

indices that could be used as the basis 

for establishing annual land use charges, 

and whether particular indices are 

better suited for that purpose than 

others. We outline below the major 

objectives in considering a new annual 

charges methodology, and request that 

commenters address how any 

methodology they suggest would be 

consistent with each of those objectives. 

A. Uniform Applicability 

20. Any proposed methodology 

should be uniformly applicable to all 

hydropower licensees. This means that 

the Executive Director should be able to 

take the information in the 

Commission’s files showing Federal 

acreage occupied by individual projects, 

apply the adopted methodology, and 

create an annual charge for the use of 

government lands for each licensed 

project. This has previously been 

possible, for instance, from 1987 to 

2008, with the use of an existing index 

created by the Forest Service and BLM, 

modified as necessary, and updated 

automatically by the Forest Service for 

inflation. 

B. Cost of Administering Collection of 

Annual Charges 

21. The administration of any 

proposed methodology must not impose 

exorbitant costs on the Commission. 

Collection of annual charges and 

application of the ultimate methodology 

should be an annual, routine ministerial 

process that requires reasonable, but not 

overly burdensome, staff effort. 

C. Methodology Not Subject to Review 

on an Individual Basis 

22. Any proposed methodology, once 

adopted, should not be subject to review 

on an individual case-by-case basis. 

Licensees will have the opportunity to 

challenge computational errors by the 

Executive Director in calculating the 

annual charge or the relevant county 

land acreage, but case-by-case 

challenges to the methodology would 

add significantly to the administrative 

cost and burden of collecting annual 

charges. 

D. Fair Market Value 

23. At times in the Commission’s 

history, it has been determined that the 

Commission had not been collecting fair 

market value for the use of government 

lands, which resulted in a substantial 

under-collection.35 To ensure that the 

Commission recovers ‘‘reasonable 

annual charges,’’ any proposed 

methodology must reflect reasonably 

accurate land valuations. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 39 / Monday, February 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 10815 

E. Avoid Increasing Price to Consumers 

of Power 

24. In fixing annual charges, we must 

seek to avoid increasing the price to 

consumers of power by such charges. 

Therefore, any proposed methodology 

should provide reasonable, but not 

excessive, compensation to the United 

States for the use of its lands. 

III. Comment Procedures 

25. The Commission invites interested 

persons to submit comments and other 

information on the matters, issues, and 

specific questions identified in this 

notice. Comments are due April 29, 

2011. Comments must refer to Docket 

No. RM11–6–000, and must include the 

commenter’s name, the organization it 

represents, if applicable, and its 

address. 

26. To facilitate the Commission’s 

review of the comments, commenters 

are requested to provide an executive 

summary of their position. Commenters 

are requested to identify each specific 

question posed by the Notice of Inquiry 

that their discussion addresses and to 

use appropriate headings. Additional 

issues the commenters wish to raise 

should be identified separately. The 

commenters should double-space their 

comments. 

27. The Commission encourages 

comments to be filed electronically via 

the eFiling link on the Commission’s 

Web site at http://www.ferc.gov. The 

Commission accepts most standard 

word processing formats. Documents 

created electronically using word 

processing software should be filed in 

native applications or print-to-PDF 

format and not in a scanned format. 

Commenters filing electronically do not 

need to make a paper filing. 

28. Commenters unable to file 

comments electronically must mail or 

hand deliver an original copy of their 

comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, Secretary of the 

Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 

Washington, DC, 20426. The current 

requirements are specified on the 

Commission’s Web site, see, e.g., the 

‘‘Quick Reference Guide for Paper 

Submissions,’’ available at http:// 

www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp, or 

via phone from FERC Online Support at 

202–502–6652 or toll-free at 1–866– 

208–3676. 

29. All comments will be placed in 

the Commission’s public files and may 

be viewed, printed, or downloaded 

remotely as described in the Document 

Availability section below. Commenters 

are not required to serve copies of their 

comments on other commenters. 

IV. Document Availability 

30. In addition to publishing the full 

text of this document in the Federal 

Register, the Commission provides all 

interested persons an opportunity to 

view and/or print the contents of this 

document via the Internet through the 

Commission’s Home Page (http:// 

www.ferc.gov) and in the Commission’s 

Public Reference Room during normal 

business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. 

Eastern time) at 888 First Street, NE., 

Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426. 

31. From the Commission’s Home 

Page on the Internet, this information is 

available in the Commission’s document 

management system, eLibrary. The full 

text of this document is available on 

eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word 

format for viewing, printing, and/or 

downloading. To access this document 

in eLibrary, type the docket number 

(excluding the last three digits) in the 

docket number field. 

32. User assistance is available for 

eLibrary and the Commission’s Web site 

during normal business hours. For 

assistance, please contact the 

Commission’s Online Support at 1–866– 

208–3676 (toll free) or 202–502–6652 (email at FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov) 

or the Public Reference Room at 202– 

502–8371, TTY 202–502–8659 (e-mail at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov). 

By direction of the Commission. 

Kimberly D. Bose, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2011–4268 Filed 2–25–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R07–OAR–2010–0416; FRL–9271–8] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Determination of Attainment for the 

1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard: States of 

Missouri and Illinois 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to 

determine that the St. Louis (MO-IL) 

metropolitan nonattainment area has 

attained the 1997 8-hour National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) 

for ozone. The St. Louis metropolitan 

ozone nonattainment area includes the 

counties of Franklin, Jefferson, St. 

Charles, and St. Louis as well as St. 

Louis City in Missouri; and the counties 

of Madison, Monroe, St. Clair, and 

Jersey in Illinois. This proposed 

determination is based on three years of 

complete, quality assured ambient air 

quality monitoring data for Missouri 

and Illinois for the 2008 through 2010 

ozone seasons showing attainment of 

the NAAQS at all ozone monitoring 

sites in the nonattainment area. If EPA 

finalizes its proposed determination, it 

will suspend the obligation to submit 

certain ozone attainment demonstration 

requirements, along with other 

requirements related to the attainment 

of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before March 30, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments 

regarding the Missouri portion of the St. 

Louis (MO–IL) metropolitan area, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07– 

OAR–2010–0416, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. E-mail: kemp.lachala@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or Hand Delivery or Courier: 

Lachala Kemp, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Air Planning and 

Development Branch, 901 North 5th 

Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. 

Submit your comments regarding the 

Illinois portion of the St. Louis (MO–IL) 

metropolitan area, identified by Docket 

ID No. EPA–R07–OAR–2010–0416, by 

one of the following methods: 

1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. E-mail: mooney.john@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or Hand Delivery or Courier: 

John M. Mooney, Chief, Attainment 

Planning and Maintenance Section, Air 

Programs Branch, (AR–18J), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R07–OAR–2010– 

0146. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

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

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS