Browse: Departments   Dates   Agencies  

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

CFR Citation: 43 CFR Parts 2800, 2880, and 2920

RIN ID: RIN 1004-AD87

WO ID: [WO-350-07-1430-PN]

NOTICE: Part II

DOCUMENT ACTION: Proposed Rule.

SUBJECT CATEGORY: Update of Linear Right-of-Way Rent Schedule

DATES: We will accept comments and suggestions on the proposed rule until February 11, 2008.

DOCUMENT SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) proposes to amend its rightofway regulations to update the linear rightofway rent schedule in 43 CFR parts 2800 and 2880. The rent schedule covers most linear rightsofway granted under Title V of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended (FLPMA), and Section 28 of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended (MLA). Those laws require the holder of a rightofway grant to pay annually, in advance, the fair market value to occupy, use, or traverse public lands for facilities such as power lines, fiber optic lines, pipelines, roads, and ditches.

Section 367 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (the Act) directs the Secretary of the Interior to update the per acre rent schedule found in 43 CFR 2806.20. The Act requires that the BLM revise the per acre rental fee zone value schedule by state, county, and type of linear rightofway use to reflect current land values in each zone. The Act also requires the Secretary of Agriculture (Forest Service) to make the same revisions for rightsofway on National Forest System (NFS) lands.

SUMMARY: Interior Department, Land Management Bureau,

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

I. Public Comment Procedures
II. Background
III. Discussion of Proposed Rule
IV. Procedural Matters
I. Public Comment Procedures

Electronic Access and Filing Address

You may view an electronic version of this proposed rule at the BLM's Internet home page at http://www.blm.gov. You may also comment via the Internet to: http://www.regulations.gov (Include ``Attn: AD87''). If you submit your comments electronically, please include your name and return address in your Internet message. If you do not receive a confirmation from the system that we have received your Internet message, contact us directly at (202) 4525030.

Written Comments

Confine written comments on the proposed rule to issues pertinent to the proposed rule and explain the reasons for any recommended changes. Where possible, reference the specific section or paragraph of the proposal which you are addressing. The BLM need not consider or include comments in the Administrative Record for the final rule, which it receives after the comment period closes (see DATES), or comments delivered to an address other than those listed above (see ADDRESSES).

Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

Written comments, including the names, street addresses, and other contact information about respondents, will be available for public review at the above address during regular business hours (7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m.), Monday through Friday, except holidays.

Reviewing Comments Submitted by Others

Comments, including names and street addresses of respondents, and other contact information will be available for public review at the address listed under ``ADDRESSES: Personal or messenger delivery'' during regular hours (7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m.), Monday through Friday, except holidays.

Interagency Coordination

The United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (FS), will adopt without rulemaking the revisions to the linear rightofway rent schedule promulgated by BLM through this rulemaking. The rent for a linear rightofway across NFS lands must be determined in accordance with BLM regulations at 43 CFR 2806.20, as updated through this rulemaking. None of the other sections in 43 CFR subpart 2806 apply to the FS's rightofway program, and any revisions made to that subpart through this rulemaking do not apply to the FS's rightofway program. II. Background

Statutory: Section 367 of the Act, entitled ``Fair Market Value Determinations for Linear RightsofWay Across Public Lands and National Forests,'' directs the Secretary of the Interior to: (1) Update 43 CFR 2806.20, which contains the per acre rent schedule for linear rightsofway; and (2) Revise the per acre rental fee zone value schedule by state, county, and type of linear rightofway uses to reflect current values of land in each zone. The Act also directs the Secretary of Agriculture to adopt the revisions to the linear rightof way rent schedule.

Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: The BLM published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) in the Federal Register on April 27, 2006 (see 71 FR 24836). The comment period for the ANPR ended on May 30, 2006. The purpose of the ANPR was to encourage members of the public to provide comments and suggestions to help with updating the BLM's and the FS's rent schedule, as described in the Act. The BLM received ten responses to the ANPR, including comments on six specific questions posed there. The BLM has utilized the comments received from the ANPR extensively in the development of the proposed rule (see discussion of the proposed rule in Section III. below).

Current Linear Rent Schedule: On July 8, 1987, and September 30, 1987, the BLM published regulations establishing rent schedules for linear rightsofway
[[Page 70377]]
granted under Section 28 of the MLA and Title V of FLPMA (52 FR 25818 and 52 FR 36576). The FS uses these same schedules to charge rent for rightsofway across NFS lands. Therefore, updates to these schedules would also impact the FS and users of NFS lands.

The 1987 rent schedule was developed to set fair market rent, while minimizing the need for individual real estate appraisals for each rightofway requiring rent payments, as well as to avoid the costs, delays, and unpredictability of the appraisal process in reasonably setting fair market rent.

The 1987 rent schedule defines eight fee zones based on the distribution of average land values by county in Puerto Rico and in each of the states, except Alaska and Hawaii. (The existing rent schedule does not apply to Alaska and Hawaii; the proposed schedule would. Linear rightofway rental fees in Alaska are currently determined on a casebycase basis based on local market values. There are no linear rightsofway in Hawaii currently administered by either the BLM or the FS). Under the 1987 regulations, a county is assigned to one of the eight zone values, based on land values in the county: lowervalue counties are assigned lowernumbered zones. The eight zone values are set at $50, $100, $200, $300, $400, $500, $600, and $1,000 per acre. A county's zone value is translated into a per acre zone rent by use of the adjustment formula described below. To calculate the annual rightofway rental payment, the zone rent is multiplied by the total acreage within the rightofway. The formula for zone rent is:

Zone rent = (zone value) x (impact adjustment) x (Treasury Security Rate)

The zone value term in the formula is the land value that is established for each of the eight zones. The zone values established in 1987 have not been updated since that time; however, it is generally recognized that land values have increased in most areas over the past 20 years.

The impact adjustment term (or encumbrance factor) in the formula reflects the differences in landuse impacts between: (1) Oil, gas, and other energyrelated pipelines, roads, ditches, and canals; and (2) Electrical transmission and distribution lines, telephone lines, and nonenergy related pipelines. Energyrelated pipelines and roads are considered as having a greater surface disturbance impact on the land, and are adjusted to 80 percent of the zone value. Electrical transmission and distribution lines, phone lines, and nonenergy related pipelines with a smaller area of disturbance, are adjusted to 70 percent of the zone value.

The Treasury Security term in the formula reflects a reasonable rate of return to the United States for the use of the land within the rightofway. The 1987 regulations are based on a rate of return of 6.41 percent for a 1year Treasury Security.

The zone rent is adjusted annually by the change in the Gross Domestic Product, Implicit Price Deflator index.

BLM RightofWay Program and Revenues

The BLM administers 94,500 rightsofway, of which 65,000 are authorized under the FLPMA and 29,500 are authorized under the MLA. However, only 48,000 are subject to a rental payment. Wyoming and New Mexico together account for slightly more than 30,000 of the rightsof way subject to rent. The BLM collected over $18 million in rightofway rental receipts for fiscal year 2006. This total includes receipts from both linear and sitetype rightsofway, and includes any reversals and/or transfers which may have occurred during the fiscal year. Seventyeight percent of all rightofway rent receipts were collected by five BLM State Offices. These five State Offices and the revenues collected are listed in Table 1.

Table 1.RightofWay Rental Receipts for ``Top Five'' BLM State Offices
Total rental State office receipts (FY 2006) Nevada.................................................. $3,955,955 California.............................................. 3,255,602 Wyoming................................................. 2,987,481 New Mexico.............................................. 2,569,861 Arizona................................................. 1,391,588
Total................................................. 14,160,487

Rent receipts from communication uses, which have their own rent schedule, totaled nearly $5 million, while receipts from other site type rightsofway, which normally require an appraisal to determine rent, and/or initial ad hoc billings, totaled approximately $7 million.

The BLM collected $6.3 million total rent for 10,859 linear rights ofways, but only $5.4 million was determined using the current Per Acre Rent Schedule in fiscal year 2006. Of this amount, only 94 bills (for $12,600) were for rent payment periods less than 1 year, while 4,534 bills (for $4,340,000) were issued for annual rental payment periods. The annual rental bills included 81 bills that were issued for approximately $920,000 for linear rightsofway located in high value areas. The rent for these bills was generated using a similar methodology as the linear rent schedule, but utilizing higher land values supported by appraisal data (used to develop ``unique zones'' with annual per acre rent values ranging from $280 to $6,000). The average annual rent bill, including the 81 bills using the ``unique zone'' values, equaled $957. Another 4,600 bills were issued for $569,750, covering a 5year rent payment period. The average 5year bill totaled $124, or less than $25 on an annual basis. A total of $1,210,300 was billed for rent payment periods between 6 and 30 years.

To summarize, in fiscal year 2006 the BLM collected a total of $18 million in rightofway rent receipts, but of that only $5.4 million was calculated using the current Per Acre Rent Schedule. Another $900,000 was calculated using similar methodology as the Per Acre Rent Schedule, but utilized higher land values (unique zones) supported by appraisal data. In addition, over half of all bills generated for linear rightofway grants in fiscal year 2006 were for multiyear periods of 5 years or more.

Under the current policy for implementing the 2005 rightofway regulations (see 70 FR 20969) (hereafter referred to as the 2005 regulations), holders have the option, until January 2009, to pay rent annually, for 5 years, 10 years, or for the term of the grant. The BLM established this policy (see Washington Office Information Bulletin 2006006) to provide holders a transition period from annual and 5year billing periods (under the 1987 regulations) to a minimum 10year billing period under the 2005 regulations. Because the BLM can bill for multiyear periods, except for communication uses, only about 20 to 25 percent of the total grants subject to rent are billed in any given year. The average annual rental bill in 2006, for 4,450 bills issued for linear grants subject to the linear rent schedule, was approximately $773. However, the average rental amount for 4,600 bills that were for a 5year period was only $124, or less than $25 per year. In comparison, the average annual bill for the 81 authorizations determined by ``unique zone'' land values was $11,400.
III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

Part 2800 RightsofWay Under FLPMA

The BLM is proposing to amend the Per Acre Rent Schedule in its rightofway regulations at 43 CFR parts 2800 and 2880. The rent schedule covers most linear rightsofway granted under Title V of FLPMA and Section 28 of the MLA. These laws require the holder of [[Page 70378]]
a rightofway grant to pay annually, in advance, the fair market value to occupy, use, or traverse public lands for facilities such as power lines, fiber optic lines, pipelines, roads, and ditches.

As mentioned above, the Act directs the Secretary of the Interior to update the per acre rent schedule in the BLM's existing regulations at 43 CFR 2806.20. The Act specifically requires that the BLM revise the per acre rental fee zone value schedule by state, county, and type of linear rightofway use to reflect current land values in each zone. The Per Acre Rent Schedule applies to linear rightsofway the BLM issues under 43 CFR parts 2800 and 2880. All of these changes are a direct requirement of the statute. So as not to be redundant, we discuss the components and application of the rent schedule primarily in part 2800 and will not repeat those discussions in part 2880. However, we will note any differences in part 2880 that are necessary based upon specific statutory provisions of the MLA.

In addition to revising the Per Acre Rent Schedule, the proposed rule would make minor revisions to parts 2800 and 2880 to bring the existing regulations into compliance with the statutory rent schedule changes discussed above. Finally, there are a number of minor corrections and changes in the proposed rule that are not directly related to the rent schedule.

These proposed changes are limited in scope and address trespass and the new rental payments, land status changes, annual rental payments, phasedin rental increases, and reimbursements of monitoring costs and processing fees. These latter items would correct some existing errors in the current regulations and clarify others. This proposed rule would:
(1) Make clear that the rent exemptions listed in section 2806.14 do not apply if the applicant/holder is in trespass;
(2) Provide that only the Per Acre Rent Schedule will be used to determine rent for linear rightofway grants, unless the land encumbered by the grant is to be transferred out of Federal ownership; (3) Provide for an annual rent payment term when the annual rent for nonindividuals is $1,000 or more;
(4) Provide for a onetime rent payment for grants and easements when the land encumbered by the grant or easement is to be transferred out of Federal ownership;
(5) Provide for a limited onetime, 2year phrasein period for holders of MLA authorizations if they pay rent annually and the payment of the new rental amount would cause the holder undue hardship; (6) Revise section 2920.6 to require reimbursement of processing and monitoring costs under sections 2804.14 and 2805.16 for applications for leases and permits issued under Title II of FLPMA; (7) Amend section 2920.8(b) to assess a nonrefundable processing fee and monitoring fee under sections 2804.14 and 2805.16 for each request for renewal, transfer, or assignment of a lease or easement; (8) Amend sections 2805.11(b)(2) and 2885.11(a) so that all grants, except those issued for a term of 3 years or less and those issued in perpetuity under FLPMA, terminate on December 31 of the final year of the grant; and
(9) Amend sections 2805.14(f) and 2885.12(e) to make it clear that you may assign your grant, without the BLM's prior written approval, if your authorization so provides.

Subpart 2805Terms and Conditions of Grants

The BLM is proposing two minor revisions to two sections in subpart 2805, which addresses the terms and conditions of FLPMA rightofway authorizations.

Section 2805.11 What does a grant contain?

Current section 2805.11(b)(2) states that all grants, except those issued for a term of less than 1 year and those issued in perpetuity, expire on December 31 of the final year of the grant. The BLM uses the calendar year, not the fiscal year or the anniversary date, as the rental period for grants. Terminating grants on December 31 allows for consistency and ease of administration, because after the initial billing period only full calendar years are included in subsequent billing periods. However, the BLM often issues shortterm rightofway grants for 3 years or less to allow the holder to conduct temporary activities on public land. Current section 2806.23(b) and proposed section 2806.25(c) both explain that the BLM considers the first partial calendar year in the rent payment period to be the first year of the rental term. Therefore, a 3year grant actually has a term period of 2 years plus the time period remaining in the calendar year of issuance. A 2year grant has a term period of 1 year plus the time period remaining in the calendar year of issuance. Depending on when the grant is issued, the actual term could be just over 2 years for a 3year grant and could be just over 1year for a 2year grant. Under the proposed rule, all grants, except those issued for a term of 3 years or less and those issued in perpetuity, would terminate on December 31 of the final year of the grant. The proposed changes to this section would allow the holder to use shortterm grants for the full period of the grant. For example, if a 3year grant were issued under the proposed rule on October 1, 2008, it would terminate on September 30, 2011, instead of December 31, 2010, under the current rule. If a 2year grant were issued under the proposed rule on October 1, 2008, it would terminate on September 30, 2010, instead of December 31, 2009, under the current rule. In most cases, the BLM would assess a onetime rental bill for the term of the grant which would lessen any administrative impact which might otherwise result from this revision.

Section 2805.14 What rights does a grant convey?

Current section 2805.14(f) states that you have a right to assign your grant to another, provided that you obtain the BLM's prior written approval. The BLM is proposing to add the phrase ``unless your grant specifically states that such approval is unnecessary'' at the end of this sentence to indicate that BLM's prior written approval may be unnecessary in certain cases. In most cases, assignments would continue to be subject to the BLM's written approval. However, with the proposed change, the BLM could amend existing grants to allow future assignments without the BLM's prior written approval. This may be especially important to the future administration of a grant when the land encumbered by a grant is being transferred out of Federal ownership, and there is a request to convert an existing grant to an easement or a perpetual grant under section 2807.15(c).

Subpart 2806Rents

Sections 2806.10 through 2806.16 of subpart 2806 contain general rent provisions that apply to grants. No changes are proposed to these general provisions except to section 2806.14.
Section 2806.14 Under what circumstances am I exempt from paying rent?

Current section 2806.14 identifies those circumstances where a holder or facility is exempt from paying rent. None of the current circumstances change under the proposed rule. We have, however, added a provision (proposed section 2806.14(b)) that states that the exemptions in this section do not apply if you are in trespass. The addition of this provision makes it clear that the penalties specified in subpart [[Page 70379]]
2808Trespass, which includes the assessment of rent for use of the public land, and possible additional penalties which are based upon the rent value, apply to all entities in trespass, even those entities that may otherwise be exempt from paying rent under section 2806.14. This is consistent with how trespass penalties are assessed under current policy, and provides for consistency with similar provisions in subpart 2888Trespass. Section 2888.10(c) states that the BLM will administer trespass actions for MLA grants and temporary use permits (TUPs) as set forth in section 2808.10(c) and section 2808.11, except that the rental exemption provisions of part 2800 do not apply to grants issued under part 2880. Adding a new provision at section 2806.14(b) makes it clear that the rental exemption provisions do not apply to trespass situations covered under subpart 2808, as they likewise do not apply to trespass situations covered under subpart 2888. The proposed rule would remove the phrase ``except that the rental exemption provisions of part 2800 (section 2806.14) do not apply to grants issued under this part'' from section 2888.10(c), because the cross reference is no longer necessary (see preamble discussion for proposed section 2888.10(c)). Section 2806.20 What is the rent for a linear rightofway grant?

This section explains that the BLM will use the Per Acre Rent Schedule, except as described in section 2806.26, to calculate rent for linear rightofway grants. The per acre rent from the schedule (for all types of linear rightofway facilities regardless of the granting authority, e.g., FLPMA, MLA, and their predecessors) is the product of three factors: The per acre zone value multiplied by the encumbrance factor multiplied by the rate of return. The following discussion explains how the BLM adjusted these factors in the current Per Acre Rent Schedule to arrive at the Per Acre Rent Schedule in the proposed rule, including the determination of per acre land values by county, as directed by the Act.

Use of a Schedule

Section 367 of the Act directs the Secretary of the Interior to ``revise the per acre rental fee zone value schedule by State, county, and type of linear rightofway use to reflect current values of land in each zone.'' Therefore, the proposed rule retains the use of a schedule and no alternative rental fee options are considered. County Land ValuesUse of Published Data

In the 1987 rent schedule, the average per acre land value for each county was based upon a review of the typical per acre value for the types of lands that the BLM and the FS had allocated to various utility and rightofway facilities. These values were mapped, reviewed, and adjusted, resulting in the placement of each county (except Coconino County, Arizona, which was split by the Colorado River) in one of eight zones ranging in value from $50 to $1,000 per acre.

In the ANPR, the BLM requested comments regarding what available published information, statistical data, or reports the BLM should use to update the current linear rightofway rental fee zone values. The BLM stated in the ANPR that it was considering using existing published information or statistical data for updating the rent schedule, such as information published by the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). The NASS publishes two reports:
(1) The Census of Agriculture published every 5 years (NASS Census); and
(2) The annual Land Values and Cash Rents Summary (Annual Report).

The NASS Census includes average per acre land and building values by county, or other geographical areas, for each state. The land values are reported for cropland, woodland, permanent pasture, and rangeland and include noncommercial, nonresidential buildings. The NASS data in the Annual Report includes average per acre values for cropland, pastureland, and farm real estate, but only on a statewide basis, and not on a countywide basis. Another shortcoming of the Annual Report is the absence of any data for Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico. You can find more detailed information about these two reports at the NASS Web site at: http://www.nass.usda.gov/index.asp.

The BLM received four comments in response to our request in the ANPR for comment on the use of available published information. One commenter said that the NASS data is appropriate. Two commenters recommended using the NASS Census of Agriculture (5year census) for countylevel data. One commenter stated that the NASS data seems appropriate for updating the schedule, so long as agricultural uses are not reflected in the land values used.

The BLM agrees with the commenters that support the use of the NASS Census data to determine the average per acre value for each county. The proposed rule uses the NASS data. The NASS publishes average per acre land and building values, by state and county, each 5 year period in its NASS Census report. The most recent county values are from the 2002 NASS Census, which was published in June 2004. The next NASS Census report will provide 2007 data, and it is due to be published in June 2009.

Other Federal and state agencies regularly use the NASS Census data when it is necessary to obtain average per acre land value for a particular state or county. In addition, Congress specifically endorsed the use of this data for rental determination purposes when it passed the ``National Forest Organizational Camp Fee Improvement Act of 2003'' (Pub. L. 1087) (16 U.S.C. 6232). This law established a formula for determining rent for organizational camps located on NFS lands by applying a 5 percent rate of return to the average per acre land and building value, by state and county, as reported in the most recent NASS Census. That law also provides for a process to update the per acre land values annually based on the change in per acre land value, by county, from one census period to another. The law does not mandate the use of zones or a schedule, which eliminates the need for an annual index adjustment to keep the schedule or zones current. However, the range between the high and low county values which results from using the components mandated under Public Law 1087, including the use of a 100 percent encumbrance factor, is significantly greater than the range between the high and low zone values which result from using the components established under this proposed rule. Thus, there is potential for significantly higher per acre rental amounts when using only the county land per acre value approach as compared to the per acre rental amounts generated using the zone value approach proposed in this rule.

The BLM also requested in the ANPR comments regarding whether the proposed Per Acre Rent Schedule should split some states and counties into more than one zone and whether the schedule should apply to Alaska. The BLM received three comments regarding whether some counties should be split into more than one zone. One commenter said that any consideration of splitting states or counties into more than one zone should involve discussions with stakeholders. One commenter said that zones smaller than a single county may lead to undue administrative burden for the BLM (establishing boundaries and collecting data). For very highvalued lands, rent
[[Page 70380]]
could be based on 25 percent of the assessed value, according to one commenter. Alternatively, highvalued BLM lands could be sold or exchanged. One commenter said that wide variations in land values within a state or county may require applying the zone methodology at the substate or subcounty level. Regarding whether the Per Acre Rent Schedule should apply to Alaska, one commenter stated that the new linear rightofway rent schedule should apply to public and NFS lands in Alaska if similar published data for land values is available for Alaska as for the lower 48 states and the data produces a reasonable per acre rental value.

In this proposed rule, the BLM does not split any county into more than one zone because there is no published data, easily obtainable, that would support making such a split. However, we do propose that the schedule apply to Alaska since the NASS Census does include average per acre land and building values for five Alaska areas: Fairbanks; Anchorage; Kenai Peninsula; Aleutian Islands; and Juneau. This data does produce a reasonable per acre rental value and is comparable to the per acre rent values from contracted appraisals and/or local rent schedules now in effect in some BLM and FS offices. The NASS Census data does not define the actual boundaries for the five areas, and therefore we specifically ask for comments to assist the BLM and the FS in determining and identifying the ontheground area to be included in each of the five Alaska areas in the NASS Census. For example, the NASS Census average per acre land value for the Fairbanks ``area'' could be used for all public lands administered by the BLM Fairbanks District Office; and the NASS Census average per acre land value for the Anchorage ``area'' could apply to all public lands administered by the BLM Anchorage District Office, and so forth. Another approach, which the BLM and the FS prefer, would be to identify specific geographic or management areas and apply the most appropriate per acre land value from the five Alaska NASS Census areas to the BLM/FS identified geographic or management areas based on similar landscapes and/or similar average per acre land values. Under this approach, the FS plans to use the NASS census data for the Kenai Peninsula for all NFS lands in Alaska, except for NFS lands located in the Anchorage and Juneau areas. For NFS lands located in the Municipality of Anchorage, the NASS census data for the Anchorage area would apply. For NFS lands in the downtown Juneau area (Juneau voting precincts 1, 2, and 3), the NASS census data for the Juneau area would apply.

Puerto Rico, which has no public lands administered by the BLM, is not divided into counties. However, the NASS publishes average farmland values for the entire Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. The FS plans to use the NASS average farmland values ($5,866 per acre in 2002) for linear rightofway authorizations located on NFS lands in Puerto Rico. Per Acre Zone Values

The 1987 linear rent schedule contains eight separate zones representing average per acre land value from $50 per acre to $1,000 per acre. The schedule contains two zones with a $50 range, five zones with a $100 range, and one zone with a $400 range. All the counties in the 48 contiguous states, except one and Puerto Rico, are in one of the eight zones based on their estimated average per acre land value. The lone exception, as mentioned above, is Coconino County, Arizona, where the area north of the Colorado River is in one zone, and the area south of the river is in a different zone.

In the ANPR, the BLM requested comments regarding the appropriate number of rental zones for the revised rent schedule, and received three comments. One commenter said that the number of zones (8) in the current schedule is sufficient. Two commenters said that the number of zones should not be changed, unless the NASS Census data indicates the need for a change.

In the proposed rule, the number of zones has been increased from the current 8 to 12, in order to accommodate the range of 3,080 county land values contained in the NASS Census. For the same reason, it was necessary to increase the dollar value per zone. In the 2002 NASS Census, the county land and building per acre value ranged from a low of $75 to a high of $98,954. To accommodate such a wide range in average per acre land values, the BLM proposes two zones with $250 increments, three zones with $500 increments, one zone with a $1,000 increment, one zone with a $2,000 increment, one zone with a $5,000 increment, two zones with $10,000 increments, one zone with a $20,000 increment, and one zone with a $50,000 increment (see Table 2Zone Thresholds).
Table 2.Zone Thresholds
2002 County land and building Zone value Zone 1................................. $1 to $250.
Zone 2................................. $251 to $500.
Zone 3................................. $501 to $1,000.
Zone 4................................. $1,001 to $1,500.
Zone 5................................. $1,501 to $2,000.
Zone 6................................. $2,001 to $3,000.
Zone 7................................. $3,001 to $5,000.
Zone 8................................. $5,001 to $10,000. Zone 9................................. $10,001 to $20,000. Zone 10................................ $20,001 to $30,000. Zone 11................................ $30,001 to $50,000. Zone 12................................ $50,001 to $100,000.

The proposed zones accommodate the per acre land and building values of 100 percent of the total number of counties in the 2002 NASS Census (see Table 3). As land values increase or decrease, it may be necessary to adjust either the number of zones and/or the dollar value per zone. The proposed rule would allow adjustments to the number of zones and/or the dollar value per zone after every other NASS Census is published (once each tenyear period). The adjustments must accommodate 100 percent of the county per acre land and building values reflected in the 5Year Census. The BLM, specifically asks for comments on whether 100 percent of the counties should be covered by the per acre rent schedule. Only 14 of the 3,080 counties have per acre land values in excess of $30,000. If Zones 11 and 12 were deleted from the per acre rent schedule, the 14 counties with per acre land values in excess of $30,000 would be included in Zone 10 for purposes of calculating rent for any rightsofway located in these counties. The use of zones in this manner would then serve as a rental ``cap'' for any rightsofway located in a county with per acre land values statistically outside of the norm. However, it would also significantly limit the dollar amount of the onetime payment for perpetual rightofway grants under proposed sections 2806.25(c) and 2885.22(b), and may not achieve the objectives of the Act to ``revise the per acre rental fee zone value schedule by state, county, and type of linear rightofway uses to reflect current value of land in each zone.''
[[Page 70381]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11DE07.003

The 2002 NASS Census per acre land and building value for each county (or similar area) and the corresponding zone number in the Per Acre Rent Schedule are listed for informational purposes at the end of this proposed rule. Most of the areas subject to the proposed Per Acre Rent Schedule are called ``counties.'' Exceptions include Alaska ``areas,'' the ``Commonwealth'' of Puerto Rico, and Louisiana ``parishes.'' To make the terminology uniform in this proposed rule, all such areas are referred to as counties.

Encumbrance Factor

The BLM is proposing an encumbrance factor (EF) of 50 percent for all types of linear rightofway facilities. This is a change from the current rule where the EF for roads and energy related pipelines and other facilities is 80 percent and the EF for telephone and electrical transmission facilities is 70 percent. This change is the result of public comments on the ANPR, a review of industry practices in the private sector, and a review of the Department of the Interior (DOI) appraisal methodology for rightofway facilities located on Federal lands.

The EF is a measure of the degree that a particular type of facility encumbers the rightofway area and/or excludes other types of land uses. If the EF is 100 percent, the rightofway facility (and its operation) is encumbering the rightofway area to the exclusion of all other uses. The land use rent for such a facility would be calculated on the full value of the subject land (annual rent = full value of land x rate of return). If the EF is 40 percent, the rightofway facility (and its operation) is only partially encumbering the rightofway area so that other uses could theoretically coexist alongside the rightof way facility. The land use rent for such a facility would be calculated on only 40 percent of the full value of the subject land (annual rent = full value of land x 40 percent x by rate of return).

Two comments received on this topic suggested that an EF could be as low as 1015 percent if the rightofway facility is located on undevelopable terrain; a 25 percent EF be used for a transmission line that does not impact development of land (``setback areas''); a 50 percent EF be used if development is restricted, but not prohibited, or if other land uses are still possible; and a 70 percent EF be used if development or other uses are severely restricted. Another commenter stated that the EF should be lowered to 2550 percent for power lines because in the private sector, an electrical utility typically makes a onetime payment of 50 percent fair market land value for a perpetual easement, allowing other use(s) within the corridor as long as the use(s) do not interfere with the power line. The commenter also stated that most of the uses that the BLM authorizes can also be conducted within a power line corridor without interfering with the power line and without restricting the additional use. One commenter encouraged BLM to use a lower EF than 70 percent, based on common real estate practice relating to utility easements. The commenter stated that when utilities negotiate the purchase price for easements on private land, they typically apply a factor of 50 percent or less to the fee simple value of the land involved, to reflect that the utility easement is less than fee ownership and has a reduced impact. This commenter further stated that the BLM should use a 50 percent or lower encumbrance (Impact Adjustment) factor and should allow a rightofway applicant to demonstrate that an even lower impact factor should apply.

The BLM reviewed several appraisal reports (prepared by the DOI's Appraisal Services Directorate) for rightofway facilities located on Federal lands which showed an EF ranging from 25 percent (for buried telephone lines) to 100 percent (for major oil pipelines and electrical transmission lines). The BLM also reviewed one appraisal report that was prepared by a contractor for the BLM. The contractor did an independent solicitation of industry practices regarding this factor and again found anecdotal evidence that EFs vary from 25 percent to 100 percent, with 50 to 75 percent being the most common. One holder provided anecdotal evidence that its company typically used a 40 percent EF for buried facilities and a 60 percent EF for above ground facilities when negotiating land use rental terms for its facilities across private lands. One holder contracted with a private appraisal firm to determine an appropriate EF for a major
[[Page 70382]]
pipeline and found that a 75 percent EF is fairly typical for major projects. Finally, our review showed that many state and Federal agencies have established an EF by statute or by policy, usually in the 70 percent to 100 percent range.

The BLM recognizes that the EF is closely related to the type of rightofway facility authorized, as well as how it is operated and administered. However, to assign a specific EF for each type of facility, or type of terrain, would be counterproductive to the purpose of using a schedule in the first place, i.e., for
administrative simplicity and the cost savings that a schedule provides to both the BLM and the applicant/holder in determining rent for right ofway facilities on public lands. In determining an appropriate EF, consideration should be given to the fact that the BLM grants rights ofway for a specified term, usually 20 to 30 years. The rights granted are subject to provisions for renewal, relinquishment, abandonment, termination, or modification during the term of the grant. The EF should also recognize that the grants issued for rightofway facilities are nonexclusive, i.e., the BLM reserves the right to authorize other uses within a rightofway area, as long as the uses are compatible. Given these considerations, and the research and analysis cited above, along with consideration of public comments, the BLM has determined that a 50 percent EF (in both the current and proposed per acre linear rent schedule, the EF is and would be applied to the upper limit of each zone value) is a reasonable and appropriate component for use in the rent formula for linear rightofway facilities located on public lands. The BLM welcomes any additional comments regarding the proposed use of a 50 percent EF, especially since this is a significant reduction from the 80 percent and 70 percent EFs used in the current per acre rent schedule.

Rate of Return

The rate of return component used in the Per Acre Rent Schedule reflects the relationship of income to property value, as modified by any adjustments to property value, such as the EF discussed above. The BLM reviewed a number of appraisal reports that indicated that the rate of return for the land can vary from 7 to 12 percent, and is typically around 10 percent. These rates take into account certain risk considerations, i.e., the possibility of not receiving or losing future income benefits, and do not normally include an allowance for inflation. However, a holder seeking a rightofway from the BLM must show that it is financially able to construct and operate the facility. In addition, the BLM can require surety or performance bonds from the holder to ensure compliance with the terms and conditions of the authorization, including any rental obligations. This reduces the risk and should allow the BLM to utilize a ``safe rate,'' e.g., the prevailing rate on insured savings accounts or guaranteed government securities that include an allowance for inflation.

The rate of return for the current rent schedule is 6.41 percent, which was the 1year Treasury Securities ``Constant Maturity'' rate for June 30, 1986. Two commenters stated that this rate of return is an acceptable rate of return for rightofway uses on public lands. Another commenter stated that the Treasurybill (Tbill) rate of 6.41 percent in the current rent schedule is not unreasonably high given current Tbill rates around 5 percent. This commenter also stated that an annual adjustment of the Tbill rate would lead to uncertainty in rental fees, which would have a negative impact on utilities and customers, and duplicates the changes reflected in the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) index. Land values tend to move opposite to the Tbill rate, so including this update in the formula would lead to overly large rental rates. According to this commenter, a better approach would be to use the 10year average of the 1year Tbill rates. Three commenters supported updating the rate of return annually, using some multiyear average of the 1year Tbill rates. The commenters said that this approach would provide for a current rate of return, while avoiding abrupt changes.

Given the above considerations, the BLM has determined that an initial rate of return based on the 10year average of the U.S. 30year Treasury bond yield rate would be reasonable since most rightofway authorizations are issued for a term of 30 years. The ``initial'' rate would be effective for a 10year period, and then would adjust automatically to the then existing 10year average of the U.S. 30year Treasury bond yield rate. This method of establishing the rate of return eliminates a ``onepointintime'' high or low rate with a rate that reflects an average over the preceding decade. The proposed rule would allow for use of the 10year average of the U.S. 20year Treasury bond yield rate if the 30year U.S. Treasury bond yield rate is not available. The BLM welcomes any comments regarding the method that we propose to establish the initial rate of return and how we propose to update it each 10year period.

2002 (Base Year) Per Acre Rent Schedule

Based upon the above discussion, the Per Acre Rent Schedule for the base year, calendar year 2002, is shown in Table 4:
Table 4.2002 Per Acre Rent Schedule Per acre rent for all types of linear rightof way facilities Initial rate issued under of return10 either FLPMA or Encumbrance year average MLA or their County zone number and per acre zone value factor 30year TBond predecessors. To (percent) (19922001) be adjusted (percent) annually for changes in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPIU) Zone 1 $250.................................................. 50 6.47 $8.09 Zone 2 $500.................................................. 50 6.47 $16.18 Zone 3 $1,000................................................ 50 6.47 $32.35 Zone 4 $1,500................................................ 50 6.47 $48.53 Zone 5 $2,000................................................ 50 6.47 $64.70 Zone 6 $3,000................................................ 50 6.47 $97.05 [[Page 70383]]
Zone 7 $5,000................................................ 50 6.47 $161.75 Zone 8 $10,000............................................... 50 6.47 $323.50 Zone 9 $20,000............................................... 50 6.47 $647.00 Zone 10 $30,000.............................................. 50 6.47 $970.50 Zone 11 $50,000.............................................. 50 6.47 $1,617.50 Zone 12 $100,000............................................. 50 6.47 $3,235.00

As discussed above, the most recent NASS Census data available is for calendar year 2002 and that data is therefore used to develop the initial or base Per Acre Rent Schedule. Proposed section 2806.20 explains that the base 2002 Per Acre Rent Schedule would be adjusted annually in accordance with section 2806.22(a) and that it would be revised in accordance with sections 2806.22(b) and (c) at the end of each 10year period starting with the base year of 2002. These adjustments to the 2002 Per Acre Rent Schedule, as well as the proposed Per Acre Rent Schedule for 2007 are discussed below. Section 2806.20 further explains that counties (or other geographical areas) would be assigned to an appropriate zone in accordance with section 2806.21. Finally, section 2806.20 explains that you may obtain a copy of the current Per Acre Rent Schedule from any BLM state or field office or by writing: Director, BLM, 1849 C St., NW., Mail Stop 1000 LS, Washington, DC 20240. The BLM also posts the current rent schedule on the BLM Homepage on the Internet at http://www.blm.gov. Because current schedules are easily available, the BLM does not intend to publish an updated Per Acre Rent Schedule each year in the Federal Register. Section 2806.21 When and how are counties or other geographical areas assigned to a County Zone Number and Per Acre Zone Value?

This section explains that counties (or other geographical areas) would be assigned to a county zone number and per acre zone value in the Per Acre Rent Schedule based upon their average per acre land and building value published in the Census of Agriculture by the NASS. The initial assignment of counties to the zones in the base year (2002) Per Acre Rent Schedule is based on data contained in the most recent NASS Census (2002). For example, San Juan County, New Mexico, has a 2002 NASS Census average per acre land and building value of $324. Since this amount falls between $251 and $500, San Juan County is assigned to Zone 2 on the Per Acre Rent Schedule. The 2002 NASS Census per acre land and building value for each county and the corresponding zone number in the Per Acre Rent Schedule are listed for informational purposes at the end of this proposed rule.

This proposed section further explains that subsequent assignments of counties would occur every 5 years following the publication of the NASS Census. The next scheduled NASS Census will be for calendar year 2007, but the data will not be published until June 2009. If the average per acre land and building value of San Juan County stays between $251 and $500 in the 2007 NASS Census, San Juan County would remain in Zone 2 on the Per Acre Rent Schedule. However, if the average per acre land and building value were to drop to $240, San Juan County would be reassigned to Zone 1 on the Per Acre Rent Schedule used for calendar year 2010. Likewise, if the average per acre land and building value were to increase to $540, San Juan County would be reassigned to Zone 3 on the Per Acre Rent Schedule used for calendar year 2010. Section 2806.22 When and how does the Per Acre Rent Schedule change?

This section explains that the BLM would adjust the per acre rent in section 2806.20 for all types of linear rightofway facilities in each zone each calendar year based on the difference in the U.S. Department of Labor CPIU, from January of one year to January of the following year.

The annual price index component used in the Per Acre Rent Schedule allows the rent per acre amount to stay current with inflationary or deflationary trends. If the rent schedule were not based on the ``zone'' concept, where county per acre land values were placed into a corresponding zone value, the price index adjustment would not be necessary, assuming the county per acre land values were kept current. However, since the Act directs the BLM to ``revise the per acre rental fee zone value schedule by state, county, and type of linear rightof way use to reflect current values of land in each zone,'' the proposed rule retains the zone concept as well as the annual price index adjustment.

The current Per Acre Rent Schedule is adjusted annually by the change in the Implicit Price Deflator, Gross Domestic Product index (IDPGDP) from the second quarter to the second quarter. From the initial rent schedule in 1987 to the rent schedule for 2007, the change in the IPDGDP index increased the rent per acre amounts by 62.2 percent. In comparison, the CPIU index increased 85.8 percent for the same period. Because the growth rate for the IDPGDP is generally less than that for the CPIU, one ANPR commenter suggested using half of the CPIU index rather than the current 100 percent of the IDPGDP as the CPIU is more easily available. The commenter said that halving the CPIU number is in line with the lesser IDPGDP and allows for a normalization of the annual index adjustment while still allowing for increases with inflation.

Two ANPR commenters stated that the payment due date (January 1) comes less than one month after the payment
[[Page 70384]]
amount is announced in December. The commenters recommended using an earlierpublished index than the current one (July of each year). Another commenter stated that the IDPGDP is reported as a national number only and does not reflect any potential regional changes in the price level. As such, the Consumer Price Index may offer an alternative index to that of using the IDPGDP.

When in 1995 the BLM and the FS finalized the rent schedule for communication uses and facilities located on public and NFS lands, the agencies chose to use the CPIU as the annual index to keep the per acre rental amounts current with inflationary and deflationary trends. The CPIU was chosen because it is the most common index used by economists and the Federal Government to reflect inflationary and deflationary trends in the economy as a whole; it is the most recognizable and familiar index to the American consumer; and it can be easily obtained from published sources by both Federal agencies and the American public. For these reasons, the BLM has chosen to use the difference in the CPIU, from January of one year to January of the following year, as the annual price index for the Per Acre Rent Schedule in the proposed rule. In addition to being a reasonable index, using the difference in the CPIU, from January of one year to January of the following year (instead of from July of one year to July of the following year), would provide nearly a full year's notification to holders of the change in the annual index and the impact that the change might have on the following year's rental amount. Table 5 shows the Per Acre Rent Schedules for the years 2002 through 2007, using the CPIU index (Note: Rent paid for years 20022007 under the current schedule would not be recalculated using the rates in Table 5). Table 5.20022007 Per Acre Rent Schedules 2003 Per 2004 Per 2005 Per 2006 Per 2007 Per acre rent acre rent acre rent acre rent acre rent (1.1 (2.6 (1.9 (3.0 (4.0 percent CPI percent CPI percent CPI percent CPI percent CPI 2002 Per U Increase U Increase U Increase U Increase U Increase County zone number and per acre acre rent from from from from from zone value (base year) January January January January January 2001 to 2002 to 2003 to 2004 to 2005 to January January January January January 2002) 2003) 2004) 2005) 2006) Zone 1$250...................... $8.09 $8.18 $8.39 $8.55 $8.80 $9.16 Zone 2$500...................... 16.18 16.35 16.78 17.10 17.61 18.31 Zone 3$1,000.................... 32.35 32.71 33.56 34.19 35.22 36.63 Zone 4$1,500.................... 48.53 49.06 50.33 51.29 52.83 54.94 Zone 5$2,000.................... 64.70 65.41 67.11 68.39 70.44 73.26 Zone 6$3,000.................... 97.05 98.12 100.67 102.58 105.66 109.89 Zone 7$5,000.................... 161.75 163.53 167.78 170.97 176.10 183.14 Zone 8$10,000................... 323.50 327.06 335.56 341.94 352.20 366.28 Zone 9$20,000................... 647.00 654.12 671.12 683.88 704.39 732.57 Zone 10$30,000.................. 970.50 981.18 1,006.69 1,025.81 1,056.59 1,098.85 Zone 11$50,000.................. 1,617.50 1,635.29 1,677.81 1,709.69 1,760.98 1,831.42 Zone 12$100,000................. 3,235.00 3,270.59 3,355.62 3,419.38 3,521.96 3,662.84

Table 5 displays the per acre rent values for each county zone for the 2002 base year and each subsequent year after application of the annual index. The annual index adjustments would continue until the Per Acre Rent Schedule is revised under paragraph (b) of this section. The per acre rent values would then be recalculated based on the revised zone values and rate of return, but maintaining the 50 percent EF. The annual index adjustments would then continue on an annual basis until the next potential revision to the Per Acre Rent Schedule 10 years later. In the event that the NASS Census stops being published, or is otherwise unavailable, then the only changes to the rent schedule would be the annual index adjustment and the revision of the rate of return under paragraph (c) of this section.

Section 2806.22 also explains that the BLM would review the NASS Census data from the 2012 NASS Census, and each subsequent 10year period, and if appropriate, revise the number of county zones and the per acre zone value. Any revision must include 100 percent of the number of counties and listed geographical areas for all states and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and must reasonably reflect their average per acre land and building values contained in the NASS Census. The BLM may revise the number of zones and the per acre zone value in the 2002 base Per Acre Rent Schedule (section 2806.20(a)) following the publication of the 2012 NASS Census. Since the 2012 NASS Census data will not be available until early 2014, based on current timeframes, any revision would be applicable for the calendar year 2015 rent schedule. In the event that the NASS Census data becomes available in midyear 2013, the revisions could be applicable for the calendar year 2014 Per Acre Rent Schedule. However, this is unlikely due to the extensive data verification process that is undertaken by NASS. Although the NASS Census occurs each 5year period, the revision to the number of zones and the per acre zone value will occur each 10year period after publication of the NASS Census in 2012, 2022, 2032, and so forth. Based on historic trends in average per acre land values, the BLM does not foresee that it would be necessary to revise the Per Acre Rent Schedule after each NASS Census period; the BLM finds, however, that it would likely be necessary to revise the Per Acre Rent Schedule after every other NASS Census period (each 10year period) in order to keep the schedule current with existing per acre land values.

This section further explains that the BLM would revise the Per Acre Rent Schedule at the end of calendar year 2011 and at the end of each 10year period thereafter to reflect the average rate of return for the preceding 10year period for the 30year Treasury bond (or the 20year Treasury bond if the 30year Treasury bond is not available). The initial rate of return for the 2002 base rent schedule is 6.47 percent, which is the average 30year Treasury bond yield
[[Page 70385]]
rate for the 10year period from 1992 through 2001. The subsequent rate of return would be determined by the average 30year Treasury bond yield rate for the 10year period from 2002 through 2011 and would apply to the updated rent schedule for calendar year 2013.

The adjustments provided by this section would keep the Per Acre Rent Schedule current relative to average per acre land value as directed by the Act. In addition, since the adjustments would be based on easily accessible public information, the changes should not be either burdensome to administer or surprising in their outcome. Section 2806.23 How will BLM calculate my rent for linear rightsofway the Per Acre Rent Schedule covers?

Proposed sections 2806.23(a) and (b) are similar to and replace current sections 2806.22(a) and (b), respectively. Proposed section 2806.23(a) explains that (except as provided by sections 2806.25 and 2806.26) the BLM calculates rent by multiplying the rent per acre for the appropriate county (or other geographical area) zone from the current schedule by the number of acres (as rounded up to the nearest tenth of an acre) in the rightofway area that fall in each zone and multiplying the result by the number of years in the rental period. The proposed rent calculation methodology is identical to the current rent calculation methodology; only the components of the formula (average per acre land value; county zones; the EF; and rate of return) would be revised. For example, an existing pipeline rightofway in New Mexico occupies 0.74 acres of public land in Chaves County and 4.8 acres of public land in Eddy County. The 2002 NASS Census indicates that the average per acre land and building value for Chaves County is $212 (Zone 1 on the Per Acre Rent Schedule) and $255 for Eddy County (or Zone 2 on the Per Acre Rent Schedule). The per acre rent value for calendar year 2007 for Zone 1 is 9.16 and for Zone 2 it is $18.31. The 2007 annual rent for the portion of the rightofway in Zone 1 (Chaves County) is $7.33 (0.74 acres (rounded up to 0.8 acres) multiplied by $9.16 = $7.33). The 2007 annual rent for the portion of the rightof way in Zone 2 (Eddy County) is $87.89 (4.8 acres multiplied by $18.31 = $87.89). The total 2007 rent for the entire grant would be $95.22. If the holder is not an individual, given that the annual rent is $1,000 or less, the holder has the option to pay for the entire remaining term of the grant, or to pay rent at 10year intervals, not to exceed the term of the grant (see section 2806.24).

Lastly, this section explains that if the BLM has not previously used the rent schedule to calculate your rent, we may do so after giving you reasonable written notice.
Section 2806.24 How must I make rental payments for a linear grant?

Proposed section 2806.24(a) explains that for linear grants, except those issued in perpetuity, you must make either nonrefundable annual payments or a nonrefundable payment for more than 1 year, as follows: (1) Onetime payments. You may pay in advance the total rent amount for the entire term of the grant or any remaining years.
(2) Multiple payments. If you choose not to make a onetime payment, you must pay according to one of the following methods: (i) Payments by individuals. If your annual rent is $100 or less, you must pay at 10year intervals, not to exceed the term of the grant. If your annual rent is greater than $100, you may pay annually or at 10year intervals, not to exceed the term of the grant. For example, if you have a grant with a term of 30 years, you may pay in advance for 10 years, 20 years, or 30 years, but not 15 years.
(ii) Payments by all others. If your annual rent is $1,000 or less, you must pay rent at 10year intervals, not to exceed the term of the grant. If your annual rent is greater than $1,000, you may pay annually or at 10year intervals, not to exceed the term of the grant.

Proposed section 2806.24(a) would replace the rent payment options in current section 2806.23(a). Currently, only individual grantholders with annual rent in excess of $100 have the option to pay their rent annually or at multiyear intervals of their choice. All other grant holders must pay a onetime rent payment for the term of the grant or pay rent at 10year intervals not to exceed the term of the grant. These provisions were incorporated in the 2005 regulations to help reduce or eliminate costs associated with the billing and collection of annual rent to both the BLM and the holder. However, many holders have pointed out since implementation of these provisions that making rent payments, especially for existing grants, for 10 to 30year terms (100 years for grants issued in perpetuity) can be an extreme financial hardship, especially for small business entities operating on limited annual budgets.

For FLPMA authorizations, the BLM has some ability to address these issues under the ``undue hardship'' provisions in current section 2806.15(c), but this process can be burdensome on the holders, requires approval of the appropriate BLM State Director, and is not available to holders of MLA authorizations. Several holders of MLA authorizations pointed out that the annual rent payment for some of thei

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT For information on the substance of the proposed rule, please contact Bil Weigand at (208) 3733862 or Rick Stamm at (202) 4525185. For information on procedural matters, please contact Ian Senio at (202) 4525049. Persons who use a
telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 18008778339 to contact the above individuals during business hours. FIRS is available twentyfour hours a day, seven days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individuals. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.