A bill to amend the Federal Power Act to remove the authority of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to collect land use fees for land that has been sold, exchanged, or otherwise transferred from Federal ownership but that is subject to a power site reservation.

Mr. President, we often hear refrains of the need to make government policies more fair, clear, or simple--especially when these policies involve the collection of fees or taxes. Today I rise to introduce legislation to fix an inherently unfair policy by prohibiting the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission from charging land-use fees for hydropower projects that are no longer located on federal land.

FERC is responsible for licensing private, municipal and state hydropower projects. Pursuant to the Federal Power Act, the Commission is authorized to collect fees from project owners for those hydro projects located on federal lands. The rationale behind these land-use fees is to recompense the United States for the ``use, occupancy, or enjoyment'' of its federal lands. The Federal Government is, in some sense, a landlord for these types of projects, and can collect just and reasonable rent from its tenants. The current level of these rents is a separate issue--which I encourage all of my colleagues to examine as well since FERC is seeking to change its collection methodology and increase those fees--but today I am focused on how a technicality in federal law allows the government to continue to collect land-use fees even when the land at issue has been transferred out of federal ownership. Under current law, if the Federal Government sold the land underneath a hydropower project to the operator, or transferred it into state ownership, FERC would continue to assess full land use fees against the operator. This untenable situation is like a landlord continuing to collect rent from a tenant even after the tenant buys the house outright!

While the inherent unfairness of such a scenario is clear, the statutory and regulatory web that has created this snare is extremely complex. In addition to allowing for the collection of federal land-use fees, the Federal Power Act also contains a section regarding Power Site Classifications, or PSCs. A PSC attaches to the land when a preliminary hydropower license application is made, and entitles the government, or its designees, to enter the associated land and develop a hydropower project if some other person or operation is occupying it. These classifications are similar to easements, in that they permanently attach to the title of the lands. The purpose of PSCs is to make sure that hydropower can be developed in the limited number of areas on federal land that are suitable, and furthermore that once such an area is identified by a preliminary application, that the site is not then diverted to an alternate use.

However, FERC has interpreted the statutory fee collection provisions to give these PSCs another affect that is not in keeping with this purpose--to charge land-use fees from existing hydropower operators in cases where the Federal Government no longer owns the land. In such a case, there is no need for a PSC to preserve the hydropower value of land as it is already being used for power production. Nor is the Federal Government somehow missing out on other beneficial uses of the land, because it no longer owns the land at issue. But FERC's current interpretation of the FPA is that a PSC qualifies as a significant enough interest in the associated land to justify the collection of full land-use fees.

When I first learned of this issue, I asked FERC for a list of the hydropower projects for which it was collecting these PSC-based federal land-use fees. Apparently, while FERC has been perfectly capable of collecting these fees, it has been less diligent in keeping track of which projects are located on lands that 2 have since been transferred away from federal ownership. Despite numerous requests from my office, FERC was unable to produce even a possible list of impacted projects. Consequently, my staff attempted to survey the number of affected projects by consulting with both the National Hydropower Association and the Alaska Power Association. This search identified 15 possible projects subject to these PSC land use fee collections--10 of which are located in my home state of Alaska. While some may dismiss these fees as being relatively minor, I can tell you that these annual federal fees for land not even owned by the Federal Government can represent a significant hardship for my constituents.

The bill I am introducing today would put a halt to this kind of fee collection. It simply says that when FERC is making fee determinations, it cannot take PSCs into account. Therefore, the only land that the Federal Government will be able to collect ``use, occupancy, and enjoyment'' fees is for land that it actually owns. I hope all of my colleagues can agree this treatment is a fair resolution of the issue and I ask for their support.

Mr. President, we often hear refrains of the need to make government policies more fair, clear, or simple--especially when these policies involve the collection of fees or taxes. Today I rise to introduce legislation to fix an inherently unfair policy by prohibiting the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission from charging land-use fees for hydropower projects that are no longer located on federal land.

FERC is responsible for licensing private, municipal and state hydropower projects. Pursuant to the Federal Power Act, the Commission is authorized to collect fees from project owners for those hydro projects located on federal lands. The rationale behind these land-use fees is to recompense the United States for the ``use, occupancy, or enjoyment'' of its federal lands. The Federal Government is, in some sense, a landlord for these types of projects, and can collect just and reasonable rent from its tenants. The current level of these rents is a separate issue--which I encourage all of my colleagues to examine as well since FERC is seeking to change its collection methodology and increase those fees--but today I am focused on how a technicality in federal law allows the government to continue to collect land-use fees even when the land at issue has been transferred out of federal ownership. Under current law, if the Federal Government sold the land underneath a hydropower project to the operator, or transferred it into state ownership, FERC would continue to assess full land use fees against the operator. This untenable situation is like a landlord continuing to collect rent from a tenant even after the tenant buys the house outright!

While the inherent unfairness of such a scenario is clear, the statutory and regulatory web that has created this snare is extremely complex. In addition to allowing for the collection of federal land-use fees, the Federal Power Act also contains a section regarding Power Site Classifications, or PSCs. A PSC attaches to the land when a preliminary hydropower license application is made, and entitles the government, or its designees, to enter the associated land and develop a hydropower project if some other person or operation is occupying it. These classifications are similar to easements, in that they permanently attach to the title of the lands. The purpose of PSCs is to make sure that hydropower can be developed in the limited number of areas on federal land that are suitable, and furthermore that once such an area is identified by a preliminary application, that the site is not then diverted to an alternate use.

However, FERC has interpreted the statutory fee collection provisions to give these PSCs another affect that is not in keeping with this purpose--to charge land-use fees from existing hydropower operators in cases where the Federal Government no longer owns the land. In such a case, there is no need for a PSC to preserve the hydropower value of land as it is already being used for power production. Nor is the Federal Government somehow missing out on other beneficial uses of the land, because it no longer owns the land at issue. But FERC's current interpretation of the FPA is that a PSC qualifies as a significant enough interest in the associated land to justify the collection of full land-use fees.

When I first learned of this issue, I asked FERC for a list of the hydropower projects for which it was collecting these PSC-based federal land-use fees. Apparently, while FERC has been perfectly capable of collecting these fees, it has been less diligent in keeping track of which projects are located on lands that 2 have since been transferred away from federal ownership. Despite numerous requests from my office, FERC was unable to produce even a possible list of impacted projects. Consequently, my staff attempted to survey the number of affected projects by consulting with both the National Hydropower Association and the Alaska Power Association. This search identified 15 possible projects subject to these PSC land use fee collections--10 of which are located in my home state of Alaska. While some may dismiss these fees as being relatively minor, I can tell you that these annual federal fees for land not even owned by the Federal Government can represent a significant hardship for my constituents.

The bill I am introducing today would put a halt to this kind of fee collection. It simply says that when FERC is making fee determinations, it cannot take PSCs into account. Therefore, the only land that the Federal Government will be able to collect ``use, occupancy, and enjoyment'' fees is for land that it actually owns. I hope all of my colleagues can agree this treatment is a fair resolution of the issue and I ask for their support.

Mr. President, today I am proud to join my colleague Senator Snowe in once am introducing legislation to improve aviation safety.

The Safe Skies Act we are introducing today will close a loophole in the Department of Transportation's recent rule on pilot fatigue, and ensure that pilots of cargo planes are just as well rested and prepared for their important work as the pilots of passenger planes who they share airports and airways with.

Following the tragic crash of Flight 3407 in 2009, Senator Snowe and I introduced legislation to address several important aviation safety issues, including the need to update pilot fatigue regulations to reflect new, scientific research.

Under the new rule issued by the Department of Transportation, pilots of passenger planes will be limited to flying eight or nine hours, depending on the start time. Minimum rest periods will be 10 hours, with the opportunity for eight hours of uninterrupted sleep.

Unfortunately, cargo pilots were left out of the rule--which undermines the one level of safety we are trying to achieve in our airline industry.

Current rules regarding cargo flight operations permit cargo pilots to be on duty as many as 16 hours during a 24-hour period, regardless of when they begin their shift. Compared to passenger pilots, cargo pilots are permitted to fly 60 percent more hours--as much as 48 hours in a 6-day period.

Keeping cargo pilots out of the improved flight and duty time regulations does not make sense; they too need rest in order to safely perform their jobs. And the safety of our skies depends on all pilots performing well.

This legislation directs the Secretary of Transportation to apply the same flight and duty time regulations for pilots of passenger planes to cargo pilots as well. This bill is supported by the Airline Pilots Association, the Independent Pilots Association and the Coalition of Airline Pilots Associations, and has been championed in the House by Representatives Chip Cravaack and Timothy H. Bishop.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this legislation as part of our ongoing efforts to improve the safety of our Nation's aviation system.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Water and Power of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Wednesday, September 19, 2012, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC.

The purpose of this hearing will be to hear testimony on four items:

S. 3265, a bill to amend the Federal Power Act to remove the authority of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to collect land use fees for land that has been sold, exchanged, or otherwise transferred from Federal ownership but that is subject to a power site reservation;

H.R. 2842, Bureau of Reclamation Small Conduit Hydropower Development and Rural Jobs Act of 2012;

S. 3464, Mni Wiconi Project Act Amendments of 2012; and

S. 3483, Crooked River Collaborative Water Security Act.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record `should send it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by email to [email protected].

For further information, please contact Sara Tucker at (202) 224-6224 or Meagan Gins at (202) 224-0883.