Document ID: FERC-2023-0974-0001
Agency: ferc
Document Type: Notice
Title: Reporting Costs for Other Federal Agencies' Administrative Annual Charges for Fiscal Year 2022
Posted Date: 2023-07-28T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 144 (Friday, July 28, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48837-48841]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-16030]

[[Page 48837]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AD23-4-000]

Billing Procedures for Annual Charges for the Costs of Other 
Federal Agencies for Administering Part I of the Federal Power Act; 
Notice Reporting Costs for Other Federal Agencies' Administrative 
Annual Charges for Fiscal Year 2022

    1. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is 
required to determine the reasonableness of costs incurred by other 
Federal agencies (OFAs) \1\ in connection with their participation in 
the Commission's proceedings under the Federal Power Act (FPA) Part I 
\2\ when those agencies seek to include such costs in the 
administrative charges licensees must pay to reimburse the United 
States for the cost of administering Part I.\3\ The Commission's Order 
on Remand and Acting on Appeals of Annual Charge Bills \4\ determined 
which costs are eligible to be included in the administrative annual 
charges. This order also established a process whereby the Commission 
would annually request each OFA to submit cost data, using a form \5\ 
specifically designed for this purpose. In addition, the order 
established requirements for detailed cost accounting reports and other 
documented analyses to explain the cost assumptions contained in the 
OFAs' submissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The OFAs include: the U.S. Department of the Interior 
(Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, National Park 
Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of the Solicitor, 
Office of Environmental Policy & Compliance); the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture (U.S. Forest Service); the U.S. Department of Commerce 
(National Marine Fisheries Service); and the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers.
    \2\ 16 U.S.C. 791a-823d (2018).
    \3\ See id. 803(e)(1) and 42 U.S.C. 7178 (2018).
    \4\ 107 FERC ] 61,277, order on reh'g, 109 FERC ] 61,040 (2004).
    \5\ Other Federal Agency Cost Submission Form, available at 
https://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/forms.asp#ofa.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. The Commission has completed its review of the forms and 
supporting documentation submitted by the U.S. Department of the 
Interior (Interior), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (Agriculture), 
and the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) for fiscal year (FY) 
2022. This notice reports the costs the Commission included in its 
administrative annual charges for FY 2023.

Scope of Eligible Costs

    3. The basis for eligible costs that should be included in the 
OFAs' administrative annual charges is prescribed by the Office of 
Management and Budget's (OMB) Circular A-25--User Charges and the 
Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board's Statement of Federal 
Financial Accounting Standards (SFFAS) Number 4--Managerial Cost 
Accounting Concepts and Standards for the Federal Government. Circular 
A-25 establishes Federal policy regarding fees assessed for government 
services and provides specific information on the scope and type of 
activities subject to user charges. SFFAS Number 4 provides a 
conceptual framework for federal agencies to determine the full costs 
of government goods and services.
    4. Circular A-25 provides for user charges to be assessed against 
recipients of special benefits derived from federal activities beyond 
those received by the general public.\6\ With regard to licensees, the 
special benefit derived from federal activities is the license to 
operate a hydropower project. The guidance provides for the assessment 
of sufficient user charges to recover the full costs of services 
associated with these special benefits.\7\ SFFAS Number 4 defines full 
costs as the costs of resources consumed by a specific governmental 
unit that contribute directly or indirectly to a provided service.\8\ 
Thus, pursuant to OMB requirements and authoritative accounting 
guidance, the Commission must base its OFA administrative annual charge 
on all direct and indirect costs incurred by agencies in administering 
Part I of the FPA. The special form the Commission designed for this 
purpose, the ``Other Federal Agency Cost Submission Form,'' captures 
the full range of costs recoverable under the FPA and the referenced 
accounting guidance.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ OMB Circular A-25 6.
    \7\ OMB Circular A-25 6.a.2.
    \8\ SFFAS Number 4 ] 7.
    \9\ For the past few years, the form has excluded ``Other Direct 
Costs'' to avoid the possibility of confusion that occurred in 
earlier years as to whether costs were being entered twice as 
``Other Direct Costs'' and ``Overhead.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. Our guidance directs the OFAs to ensure that the costs are for 
FPA Part I activities and that the documented costs are segregated 
between activities covering municipal projects from those for non-
municipal projects. This year, we also asked the OFAs to provide 
additional narrative descriptions of the type of work performed in 
administering FPA Part I (including a list of the projects for which 
work was performed during the covered period) and a detailed 
description of what managerial/administrative or other activities are 
included in the non-specific category.

Commission Review of OFA Cost Submittals

    5. The Commission received cost forms and other supporting 
documentation from the Departments of the Interior, Agriculture, and 
Commerce. The Commission completed a review of each OFA's cost 
submission forms and supporting reports. In its examination of the 
OFAs' cost data, the Commission considered each agency's ability to 
demonstrate a system or process which effectively captured, isolated, 
and reported FPA Part I costs as required by the ``Other Federal Agency 
Cost Submission Form.''
    6. The Commission held a Technical Conference on March 23, 2023 to 
report its initial findings to licensees and OFAs. Representatives for 
several licensees and most of the OFAs attended the conference. 
Following the technical conference, a transcript was posted, and 
licensees had the opportunity to submit comments to the Commission 
regarding its initial review.
    7. Idaho Falls Group (Idaho Falls) filed written comments \10\ 
raising concerns that several of the agencies failed to provide a list 
of projects for which activities were taken during the fiscal year. The 
issues are addressed in the Appendix to this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Letter from Michael A. Swiger, Van Ness Feldman, to the 
Honorable Kimberly D. Bose, FERC, Docket No. AD23-4-000 (filed April 
17, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. After additional review, full consideration of the comments 
presented, and in accordance with the previously cited guidance, the 
Commission accepted as reasonable any costs reported via the cost 
submission forms that were clearly documented in the OFAs' accompanying 
reports and/or analyses. These documented costs will be included in the 
administrative annual charges for FY 2023.

[[Page 48838]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN28JY23.048

    9. Figure 1 summarizes the total reported costs incurred by 
Interior, Agriculture, and Commerce with respect to their participation 
in administering Part I of the FPA. Additionally, Figure 1 summarizes 
the reported costs that the Commission determined were clearly 
documented and accepted for inclusion in its FY 2023 administrative 
annual charges.

Summary Findings of Commission's Costs Review

    10. As presented in Figure 1, the Commission has determined that 
$5,152,487 of the $5,935,317 in total reported costs were reasonable 
and clearly documented in the OFAs' accompanying reports and/or 
analyses. Based on this finding, 13% of the total reported cost was 
determined to be unreasonable. The Commission notes the most 
significant issue with the documentation provided by the OFAs was the 
lack of detailed description of type of work performed and a list of 
projects for work performed during the fiscal year.
    11. The cost reports that the Commission determined were clearly 
documented and supported could be traced to detailed cost-accounting 
reports, which reconciled to data provided from agency financial 
systems or other pertinent source documentation. A further breakdown of 
these costs is included in the Appendix to this notice, along with an 
explanation of how the Commission determined their reasonableness.

Points of Contact

    12. If you have any questions regarding this notice, please contact 
Raven Rodriguez at (202) 502-6276.

    Dated: July 24, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.

Appendix

    The supporting documentation provided by Interior's Bureau of 
Land Management (BLM), Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), National 
Park Service (NPS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), Office of 
Environmental Policy & Compliance (OEPC), and Office of the 
Solicitor (SOL) can be found in the Commission's eLibrary electronic 
filing system using the following information:

Docket No. AD23-4-000

    As part of their supporting documentation for FY 2022, the 
participating Interior organizations provided detailed cost-
accounting reports from their financial accounting systems that 
clearly tracked FPA Part I-related costs through specific job and 
activity-based codes. The reporting entities also further clarified 
how FPA Part I-related costs were being recorded and classified, 
including job cost-code tables to support their municipal and non-
municipal distinctions, narrative descriptions of the type of work 
performed and listing of the projects for which work was performed. 
In addition, the various Interior organizations' indirect cost rates 
were substantiated and deemed reasonable based on the detailed 
explanation provided in their submission. Figures 2 through 8 below 
detail the specific reported and accepted cost categories for these 
organizations.
    Idaho Falls group raises concerns regarding BLM's cost 
submission not containing information of work performed or a list of 
projects. BLM subsequently provided a list of five projects for 
which BLM performed work. The projects listed are licensed projects 
that are partially located on BLM land. However, BLM provided no 
statement even generally describing what work was done on these 
projects. Therefore, we are disallowing the costs.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN28JY23.049

[[Page 48839]]

    Idaho Falls Group proposes exclusion of all of Reclamation costs 
because the projects listed by Reclamation were all federal projects 
rather than projects licensed under Part I of the FPA. We reviewed 
the submittal and confirmed that no projects subject to the 
Commission's jurisdiction were listed; therefore, we are disallowing 
the costs submitted by Reclamation costs.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN28JY23.050

    Idaho Falls Group raises concerns regarding the Commission's 
acceptance of NPS' costs arguing that NPS' cost of non-project 
specific work, $342,626.76, comprises 55% of its total direct costs 
and lacks sufficient explanation. NPS, in response to Idaho Falls' 
comment, notes that it does not have a system in place to track 
allowable costs incurred by NPS staff in other programs and parks 
across the Service. It states that if these costs were included in 
the submittal, the percentage of non-specific costs would not be as 
high. Subsequent response contain an adequate explanation of non-
specific costs as well as a list of projects. We are accepting the 
submitted costs.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN28JY23.051

    Idaho Falls Group raises no concerns regarding the Commission's 
acceptance of FWS' costs. FWS provided a list of projects for all 
but one of its branches, with a brief description of activities 
undertaken for each. We accept most of the submitted costs.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN28JY23.052

[[Page 48840]]

    Idaho Falls Group raises concerns regarding the Commission's 
acceptance of costs submitted by SOL, arguing that while SOL did 
submit a general description of the types of activities in each cost 
code, it did not provide a list of projects that the its staff 
worked on during the fiscal year. At the technical conference, the 
SOL representative acknowledged that SOL did not provide a project 
list, noting that SOL's system was not set up for project by project 
reporting. Because the new requirement to provide a list of projects 
was not provided to the OFAs until after the fiscal year had passed, 
we will not use the missing project list as a disqualifying factor 
for this billing cycle. The submittal otherwise provided sufficient 
information for a determination. Therefore, we are accepting the 
submitted costs.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN28JY23.053

    Based on OEPC's initial submission, we originally disallowed 
costs in the non-specific cost category due to the absence of an 
explanation. Idaho Falls, in its comments, noted its agreement with 
the proposed disallowance, noting the high percentage of non-
specific costs. After the technical conference, OEPC provided 
clarification containing the reclassification of some erroneously 
coded costs as well as an explanation of non-specific costs. We find 
the explanations reasonable and accept the costs.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN28JY23.054

    The supporting documentation provided by Agriculture's U.S. 
Forest Service can be found in the Commission's eLibrary electronic 
filing system using the following information: Docket No. AD23-4-000
    As part of its supporting documentation for FY 2022, Forest 
Service provided detailed cost-accounting reports from its financial 
accounting system that clearly tracked FPA Part I-related costs 
through specific job and activity-based codes. Forest Service also 
further clarified how FPA Part I-related costs were being recorded 
and classified, including job cost-code tables to support its 
municipal and non-municipal distinctions, narrative descriptions of 
the type of work performed and listing of the projects for which 
work was performed. In addition, its indirect cost rates were 
substantiated and deemed reasonable based on the detailed 
explanation provided in its submission.
    Idaho Falls states in its comments that it concurs with our 
findings with regard to the costs submitted by Forest Service.

[[Page 48841]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN28JY23.055

    The supporting documentation provided by the U.S. Department of 
Commerce's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) can be found in 
the Commission's eLibrary electronic filing system using the 
following information: Docket No. AD23-4-000
    As part of its supporting documentation for FY 2022, NMFS 
provided detailed cost-accounting reports from its financial 
accounting system that clearly tracked FPA Part I-related costs 
through specific job and activity-based codes. NMFS also further 
clarified how FPA Part I-related costs were being recorded and 
classified, including job cost-code tables to support its municipal 
and non-municipal distinctions, narrative descriptions of the type 
of work performed and listing of the projects for which work was 
performed. In addition, its indirect cost rates were substantiated 
and deemed reasonable based on the detailed explanation provided in 
its submission.
    Idaho Falls argues in its comments that all costs associated 
with NMFS' PHY General/Non-Specific category should be disallowed 
because NMFS fails to explain why the majority of time is spent on 
non-project specific activities that are only generally related to 
FPA Part I. Following the technical conference, NMFS provided a 
fuller description of the non-project specific work performed. We 
find the explanations reasonable and accept the costs.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN28JY23.056

[FR Doc. 2023-16030 Filed 7-27-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P