54454 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 179 / Friday, September 15, 2006 / Notices 

(7 CFR part 1b), and (4) APHIS’ NEPA 

Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part 

372). 

Unless substantial issues with adverse 

environmental impacts are raised in 

response to this notice, APHIS intends 

to issue a finding of no significant 

impact (FONSI) based on the EA and 

authorize shipment of the above product 

for the initiation of field tests following 

the close of the comment period for this 

notice. 

Because the issues raised by field 

testing and by issuance of a license are 

identical, APHIS has concluded that the 

EA that is generated for field testing 

would also be applicable to the 

proposed licensing action. Provided that 

the field test data support the 

conclusions of the original EA and the 

issuance of a FONSI, APHIS does not 

intend to issue a separate EA and FONSI 

to support the issuance of the product 

license, and would determine that an 

environmental impact statement need 

not be prepared. APHIS intends to issue 

a veterinary biological product license 

for this vaccine following completion of 

the field test provided no adverse 

impacts on the human environment are 

identified and provided the product 

meets all other requirements for 

licensing. 

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 151–159; 7 CFR 2.22, 

2.80, and 371.4. 

Done in Washington, DC, this 11th day of 

September 2006. 

Kevin Shea, 

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. E6–15326 Filed 9–14–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Forest Service 

Outfitting and Guiding Land Use Fees 

in the Alaska Region 

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed policy; 

request for comment. 

SUMMARY: The Alaska Region is 

proposing to adopt a long-term flat fee 

policy for outfitters and guides 

operating in the Alaska Region. Under 

the flat fee policy, a single land use fee 

would be charged for each type of 

service provided by outfitters and 

guides in the Alaska Region. 

DATES: Comments must be received in 

writing by December 14, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments to Regional 

Forester, Attention: Recreation, Lands 

and Minerals, P.O. Box 21628, Juneau, 

Alaska 99802–1628; via electronic mail 

to comments-alaska-regionaloffice@fs.fed.us; or via facsimile to (907) 

586–7866. All comments, including 

names and addresses when provided, 

will be placed in the record and will be 

available for public inspection and 

copying. The public may inspect 

comments received on this proposed 

policy in the Recreation, Lands and 

Minerals Staff, Room 519D, Federal 

Office Building, 709 West 9th Street, 

Juneau, Alaska, between 9 a.m. and 4 

p.m. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Trish Clabaugh, (907) 586–8855, or Neil 

Hagadorn, (907) 586–9336. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Forest 

Service issues special use authorizations 

for a variety of uses of National Forest 

System (NFS) lands, including outfitting 

and guiding. Outfitting is defined as 

‘‘renting on or delivering to National 

Forest System lands for pecuniary 

remuneration or other gain any saddle 

or pack animal, vehicle, boat, camping 

gear, or similar supplies or equipment. 

The term ‘outfitter’ includes the holder’s 

employees and agents’’ (36 CFR 251.51). 

Guiding is defined as ‘‘providing 

services or assistance (such as 

supervision, protection, education, 

training, packing, touring, subsistence, 

transporting people, or interpretation) 

for pecuniary remuneration or other 

gain to individuals or groups on 

National Forest System lands. The term 

‘guide’ includes the holder’s employees 

and agents’’ (36 CFR 251.51). The Forest 

Service charges a land use fee for 

special use authorizations, including 

outfitting and guiding permits. 

Applicable Law 

The Independent Offices 

Appropriations Act of 1952 (IOAA) 

authorizes each Federal agency to 

collect a fee ‘‘for a service or thing of 

value provided by the agency’’ (31 

U.S.C. 9701(b)). The IOAA requires that 

each fee charged to fair and be based on 

factors such as the costs to the 

Government, the value of the service or 

thing to the recipient, the public policy 

or interest served, and other relevant 

facts (31 U.S.C. 9701(b)). 

Pursuant to the IOAA, the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) issued 

a circular which ‘‘establish[es] 

guidelines for Federal agencies to assess 

fees for Governmental services and for 

the sale or use of Government property 

or resources’’ (OMB Circular No. A–25, 

58 FR 38142 (September 23, 1959, as 

amended July 15, (1993)). Paragraph 

6a(2)(b) of OMB circular No. A–25 

instructs agencies that when the Federal 

government is not acting in the capacity 

of a sovereign, but rather is acting in a 

proprietary capacity, as it is here in 

authorizing the use of Federal land for 

commercial purposes, user charges or 

fees are to be ‘‘based on market prices.’’

OMB Circular No. A–25 further 

provides that under such conditions, 

user charges need not be limited to the 

recovery of full costs, but may yield net 

revenues (OMB Circular No. A–25, 

¶ 6a(2) (a) and (b)). The Circular directs 

that ‘‘[i]n the absence of substantial 

competitive demand, market price will 

be determined by taking into account 

the prevailing prices for goods, 

resources, or services that are the same 

or substantially similar to those 

provided by the Government, and then 

adjusting the supply made available 

and/or price of the good, resource, or 

service so that there will be neither a 

shortage nor a surplus’’ (OMB Circular 

No. A–25, ¶ 6d(2)(b)). 

Consistent with the IOAA and OMB 

Circular No. A–25, Forest Service 

regulations at 36 CFR 251.57(a) provide 

that special use permit fees ‘‘will be 

based upon the fair market value of the 

rights and privileges authorized by 

appraisal or other sound business 

management principles.’’

Development of the Alaska Region’s 

Interim Flat Fee Policy 

In general, the gross revenues of a 

business conducted on NFS lands are an 

accurate reflection of the value of the 

business’s use of those lands. However, 

in Alaska many outfitters and guides 

base a significant percentage of their 

client charges on activities that occur off 

NFS lands. Thus, flat land use fees that 

are based on an average of the revenues 

generated by outfitters and guides 

conducting activities on NFS lands 

more accurately reflect the value of the 

use of NFS lands for outfitting and 

guiding in the Alaska Region. 

Consistent with this assessment, in 

1997, the Alaska Region issued for 

public comment a proposed flat fee 

schedule for outfitting and guiding in 

the Alaska Region. This fee schedule 

was recommended for consideration in 

the development of an outfitting and 

guiding fee system by a working group 

from Federal and State agencies 

assisting the Alaska Land Use Council 

(ALUC). See Final Fee 

Recommendations of the Alaska Land 

Use Council Outfitter and Guide 

Working Group (May 15, 1985). 

Based on comments received on the 

proposed fee schedule, the Alaska 

Region revised some fee categories and 

added others to accommodate all 

outfitting and guiding activities 

authorized on NFS lands in Alaska. The 

Alaska Region incorporated some of 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 179 / Friday, September 15, 2006 / Notices 54455 

respondents’ suggestions, such as using 

actual tour prices reported by permit 

holders, rather than advertised prices, to 

determine land use fees and using the 

number of service days by trip to weight 

the fee calculations. In addition, the 

Alaska Region responded to 

respondents’ concerns that land use fees 

by determined according to the types of 

uses, recreational setting, and facilities 

involved. 

At the time the flat fee schedule was 

issued for public comment, an outfitter 

and guide conducting boat-based tours 

with stops on NFS lands in Alaska 

challenged the Forest Service’s national 

outfitting and guiding land use fee 

policy, which was still in effect in the 

Alaska Region and which bases land use 

fees on 3 percent of an outfitter’s or 

guide’s adjusted gross revenue. 

Concerned that different fees were being 

charged for the same type of commercial 

use of NFS lands, the magistrate judge 

recommended that the federal district 

court require the Forest Service to 

devise a land use fee system that would 

be fair to the plaintiff, as well as based 

on the market value of the use of NFS 

lands. The district court adopted the 

recommendation of the magistrate judge 

and ruled that there was ‘‘insufficient 

evidence in the record to support a 

conclusion that the fees charged 

plaintiff were both fair and based upon 

the value of the use of Forest Service 

lands available to the plaintiff.’’ The 

Tongass Conservancy v. Glickman, No. 

J97–029–CV (D. Alaska October 5, 

1998), slip op September 19, 1998. 

Accordingly, the court ordered the 

Forest Service to undertake further 

actions consistent with the court’s 

ruling and applicable law. 

In response, on July 21, 1999, the 

Alaska Region published in the Federal 

Register for public notice and comment 

a proposed interim flat fee policy for all 

outfitting and guiding in the Alaska 

Region (Alaska Region interim flat fee 

policy or ARIFFP) (64 FR 39114, July 

21, 1999). The ARIFFP developed flat 

fees for 24 outfitting and guiding 

activities that fall into five categories: 

(1) Guiding for big game hunting; (2) 

guiding for activities other than big 

game hunting; (3) road-based and 

remote-setting activities; (4) outfitting; 

and (5) visitor centers. 

The Alaska Region based the 

proposed ARIFFP on the proposed flat 

fee schedule issued for public comment 

in 1997. As with the fees in the 

proposed schedule, the Alaska Region 

developed the fees in the proposed 

ARIFFP by determining the average 

price charged each client per day for 

each category of outfitting and guiding 

activities in the Alaska Region. Under 

the ARIFFP, the same flat fee is charged 

for similar commercial uses of NFS 

lands. To avoid basing flat fees on 

revenues that result from services 

provided off NFS lands, the Alaska 

Region eliminated from the pool used to 

develop the flat fees certain high-cost 

operators, such as those who provide 

overnight accommodations on tour 

boats in the category of remote-setting 

nature tours. Descriptions of derivation 

of the flat fees for each category of 

outfitting and guiding activities under 

the ARIFFP follow. 

Big Game Hunting 

Fees for guiding big game hunting are 

charged by the hunt. The flat fees for 

day use were calculated to reflect a 40 

percent discount for use off NFS lands. 

Hunt types were categorized based on 

the species hunted and whether the 

hunt involves an overnight stay on NFS 

lands. Fee data for 1998 were used to 

calculate an average charge per client 

per service day (a day or any part of a 

day on NFS lands for which an outfitter 

or guide provides goods or services, 

including transportation, to a client) for 

each type of hunt. The average was 

calculated by dividing the total amount 

of client charges for each type of hunt 

by the total number of service days. An 

average hunt length (in days) was also 

calculated for each type of hunt. A fee 

per service day was derived for each 

category of hunt by matching the 

indicated average per client per service 

day with the ALUC schedule and 

adjusting for the percentage of time 

spent off NFS lands. A flat fee (rounded 

to the nearest $5) for each category was 

then calculated by multiplying the fee 

per client per service day by the average 

hunt length. A fee for camping is 

reflected in the flat fees for guiding big 

game hunting involving overnight 

camping on NFS lands. Therefore, no 

additional fee for camping is charged for 

guiding big game hunting. 

Activities Other Than Big Game Hunting 

Fees for guiding activities other than 

big game hunting are charged per client 

per service day. To determine the flat 

fee for guiding activities other than big 

game hunting, the Alaska Region 

determined the average price charged 

each client per day for each type of 

activity in that category. The average 

price for each type of activity was 

determined by dividing the total amount 

of client charges for all operators in the 

category by the total number of service 

days of all the operators. The average 

price for each type of activity was 

matched to a fee per client per service 

day from the ALUC fee schedule and 

adjusted by the percentage of time spent 

off NSF lands for that activity, pursuant 

to Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 

2709.11, section 37.21e. The resulting 

fees were rounded to the nearest $0.25. 

Fees for guiding activities other than big 

game hunting are charged only for those 

days when clients are on NFS lands. 

Where multiple activities are involved, 

flat fees are charged for the highest 

valued use authorized. For example, if 

an outfitted and guided trip involving 

an activity other than big game hunting 

includes overnight camping on NFS 

lands, the camping flat fee of $4.00 is 

charged for each client per service day 

spent on NFS lands. A single overnight 

say, therefore, is calculated as two 

service days at the camping rate of $4.00 

per client per service day, for a fee of 

$8.00 per client. The camping fee 

includes other lower valued activities, 

such as hiking. 

Road-Based and Remote-Setting 

Activities 

Road-based and remote-setting 

activities were developed as separate fee 

categories to reflect the different values 

that outfitters and guides and their 

clients place on activities in these 

settings. The value of outfitting and 

guiding activities, such as hiking and 

viewing wildlife, is distinctly different 

in road-based environment than in a 

remote setting. In a road-based 

environment, clients typically 

experience a more developed setting. 

Clients are likely to encounter other 

recreationists and a modified landscape 

(i.e., a timber harvest or other landscape 

modifications) and generally are 

exposed to a more human-manipulated 

environment. The road-based nature 

tours flat fee was developed by 

averaging the reported service days 

multiplied by the client day charges of 

each of 12 permit holders who conduct 

road-based nature tours. 

In a remote area, in contrast, clients 

typically experience the characteristics 

of a pristine setting and are likely to 

encounter few other forest visitors. 

These activities typically occur in a 

primitive environment, where human 

modifications are highly unlikely or 

absent, with the possible exception of 

low-impact developments such as a trail 

to facilitate foot travel. These activities 

have outstanding opportunities for 

solitude and recreating in more natural 

settings. These features are what draw 

many tourists to Alaska. The remotesetting nature tours flat fee was 

developed by averaging the reported 

service days multiplied by the client 

day charges of each of 21 nature tour 

permit holders who operate in remote 

settings. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
54456 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 179 / Friday, September 15, 2006 / Notices 

Outfitting 

The flat fee per vehicle per day for 

outfitting was established by applying 

the ALUC fee schedule to the average 

daily rental charge for boats reported by 

outfitters providing boats for unguided 

trips on NFS lands. 

Visitor Centers 

The Alaska Region adopted short-stop 

flat fees that had been developed for 

Forest Service visitor center in Alaska 

using a methodology similar to that 

used in calculating the other flat fees in 

the ARIFFP. 

Copies of the proposed ARIFFP were 

sent with a request for comment to all 

holders of Forest Service outfitting and 

guiding permits in Alaska and other 

potentially interested parties. The 

Alaska Region received 34 comments on 

the proposed ARIFFP. The Alaska 

Region addressed the comments in the 

final interim policy. The notice for the 

final ARIFFP was published in the 

Federal Register, and went into effect 

on February 14, 2000 (65 FR 1846, 

January 12, 2000). 

Concern About Market Value 

While a flat fee based on a percentage 

of gross revenue is fair for outfitters and 

guides, since outfitters and guides 

providing similar services are paying 

the same flat fee, the Forest Service has 

been and continues to be concerned that 

the ARIFFP may not yield a fair return 

to the Federal government for the use of 

its resources. The primary intent of 

Congress in enacting the IOAA was to 

ensure that the Government not 

undercharge for the use of its property 

or services; ‘‘overcharging was not 

considered’’ (Yosemite Park & Curry Co. 

v. United States, 686 F.2. 925, 929 (Ct. 

Cl. 1982)). 

In 1996, the Government 

Accountability Office (GAO) analyzed 

the Forest Service’s current fee policy 

for recreation special use permits to 

determine if the fees charged for the 

permits reflect market value (GAO 

Report, ‘‘Fees for Recreation Special-Use 

Permits Do Not Reflect Fair Market 

Value’’ (Sept. 1996)). GAO concluded 

that adjusted gross revenue was an 

appropriate measure of the fair market 

value of the use authorized by Forest 

Service permits, but criticize the Forest 

Service for charging less than market 

prices by using a lower percentage of 

gross revenue in comparison to other 

State and Federal agencies (e.g., the 

State of Idaho charges 5 percent of gross 

revenue, and the State of Colorado 

charges 7 percent). 

In the Federal Register notice for the 

final ARIFFP, the Alaska Region stated 

that it would conduct an ongoing review 

of the ARIFFP; that the Alaska Region 

would develop a long-term flat fee 

policy for outfitting and guiding in the 

Region based on that review; that the 

Alaska Region would make adjustments 

to the ARIFFP as appropriate, based on 

appraisals or other methods for 

determining fair market value; and that 

the Forest Service might conclude that 

higher land use fees are needed to 

ensure a fair return to the Federal 

government for the use of its resources 

(65 FR 1846, January 12, 2000). 

Development of the Alaska Region 

Long-Term Flat Fee Policy 

On June 23, 2000, the Alaska Region 

issued a request for proposals (RFP) for 

an outfitter and guide use valuation for 

the Alaska Region. According to the 

RFP, the primary objective of the use 

valuation is identification of a fee 

schedule that can be used to develop a 

long-term flat fee policy for outfitting 

and guiding in the Alaska Region. To 

achieve this objective, the RFP provides 

for two phases of work: (1) Analysis of 

potential methodologies, including the 

ARIFFP, for determining the market 

value of the use of NFS lands in the 

Alaska Region for outfitting and guiding 

that is not associated with commercial 

public service sites, such as a resort or 

lodge; the analysis will address fairness 

to outfitters and guides, as well as to the 

Federal government for the use of its 

resources; and (2) development of 

alternative fee systems based on viable 

potential methodologies (RFP at 11). 

The RFP further states that it is the 

Alaska Region’s intent to develop an 

outfitting and guiding fee system that 

will result in stable fees that do not vary 

widely over time; will not require 

competitive award of permits except in 

circumstances of limited new outfitting 

and guiding opportunities where 

demand to provide services exceeds 

supply; is fair in that it would charge 

similar fees for similar uses of NFS 

lands; and will be simple to administer 

and will not result in an undue 

reporting or record-keeping burden on 

permit holders (RFP at 11). 

The Alaska Region awarded the 

contract for the outfitter and guide use 

valuation to Black-Smith & Richards, 

Inc. (BSR), an appraisal firm in 

Anchorage, Alaska. BSR prepared three 

reports, one for Phase I (Phase I Report) 

and a preliminary and final report for 

Phase II (Preliminary and Final Phase II 

Reports). The Final Phase II Report 

incorporates the Phase I Report and 

Preliminary Phase II Report (Final 

Report at 2, 11). Both the Phase I and 

Final Phase II Reports contain 

certifications stating that BSR has no 

present or prospective interest in Forest 

Service special use authorizations; that 

BSR has no personal interest or bias 

with respect to the parties involved in 

the outfitting and guiding use valuation; 

that BSR’s employment was not 

conditioned on, nor its compensation 

contingent upon, the reporting of a 

predetermined objective or direction 

that favors the cause of the Forest 

Service or any other party, the amount 

of the value estimate, the attainment of 

a stipulated result, or the occurrence of 

a subsequent event; and that BSR’s 

analyses, opinions, and conclusions 

were developed, and the reports 

prepared, in conformity with the 

Uniform Standards of Professional 

Appraisal Practice and the Uniform 

Appraisal Standards for Federal Land 

Acquisitions (Phase I Report at 4; Final 

Phase II Report at 5). 

Phase I: Analysis of Potential 

Methodologies 

BSR’s Phase I Report analyzes 

potential methodologies for determining 

the market value of the use of NFS lands 

in the Alaska Region for outfitting and 

guiding, including a review of the Forest 

Service’s national outfitting and guiding 

fee policy and the ARIFFP. In analyzing 

Options A and B, the two principal 

methods for determining outfitting and 

guiding fees under the national policy, 

the Phase I Report concludes that 

Options A and B are pricing methods, 

rather than measures of value. Under 

both Options A and B, gross revenues 

are processed into client-day fees using 

a percentage multiplier. 

Using virtually the same fee schedule 

as the ALUC, Option A processes 3 

percent of adjusted gross revenues into 

a per client day fee. The number of 

client days (the number of service days 

for a trip multiplied by the number of 

clients on the trip) is multiplied by the 

client day fee corresponding to a price 

bracket in the fee schedule representing 

the average day charge (adjusted gross 

revenue divided by the total number of 

client days). The client day fees are 

derived from 3 percent of the median 

daily client charge for each price bracket 

(Phase I Report at 42–43; Final Phase II 

Report at 12). 

Under Option B, the land use fee is 3 

percent of an outfitter/guide’s annual 

adjusted gross revenue, minus any 

applicable adjustment for use off NFS 

lands (Phase I Report at 42–43; Final 

Phase II Report at 13). 

Options A and B produce results that 

are reasonably similar. Either option is 

easily applied to both existing and new 

activities. However, the ability of these 

methods to develop prices that are fair 

to the Federal government depends on 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 179 / Friday, September 15, 2006 / Notices 54457 

the appropriateness of the percentage 

rate component. Although the 1966 

GAO report indicated that the Forest 

Service’s rate (3 percent) is below those 

charged by some state agencies (5 to 15 

percent) for similar uses of land, the rate 

has not been adjusted. In addition, a 

universal percentage applied to adjusted 

gross revenue does not establish similar 

market prices for similar activities, nor 

does it differentiate among categories of 

use, as required by The Tongass 

Conservancy ruling (Phase I Report at 

43–44; Final Phase II Report at 13). 

According to the Phase I report, the 

ARIFFP is a modification of Option A 

under the Forest Service’s national 

outfitting and guiding fee policy. For 

most activities, the ARIFFP yields 

outfitting and guiding fees that are not 

significantly different from those 

calculated under Option A or B of the 

Forest Service’s national policy. The 

additional steps in the ARIFFP assign 

unique prices (flat fees) to specific 

categories of activities so that outfitters 

and guides pay similar fees for similar 

activities. In terms of the criteria 

established by The Tongass 

Conservancy ruling, the Phase I Report 

concludes that the ARIFFP is thus 

arguably fair to the permit holders 

(Phase I Report at 48–50). 

However, the Phase I Report states 

that the ARIFFP client day fees are often 

less than what unguided users pay for 

the same activity. This comparison 

suggests that the 3 percent multiplier, 

and/or the discount for use off NFS 

lands, result in fees that are not fair to 

the Forest Service. The Phase I Report 

also notes that because the ARIFFP is an 

interim policy, periodic recalculation of 

ARIFFP fees has not been scheduled. 

The Phase I Report concludes that 

without modifications that address 

these deficiencies, the ARIFFP cannot 

establish or maintain prices that are fair 

to the Forest Service (Phase I Report at 

48–50). 

In Phase I, BSR screened several 

additional pricing methods for their 

potential to meet the RFP’s objectives 

(BSR Phase I Report at 52–63). BSR 

analyzed three of these methods with 

the greatest potential to meet the RFP’s 

objectives: (1) The modified ARIFFP; (2) 

the bottom-up pricing method; and (3) 

the flat fee plus percentage method. 

The ARIFFP derives flat fees by 

processing a percentage of outfitting and 

guiding gross revenues into per client 

day or per hunt charges. The process 

includes adjustment for time spent off 

NFS lands. The modified ARIFFP 

calculates fees based on a percentage 

multiplier that reflects market value and 

provides for periodic recalculation of 

fees. Determination of an optimum rate 

is aided by a comparison of the flat fees 

with unguided fees for similar activities. 

BSR refers to the modified ARIFFP as a 

top-down pricing method because it 

starts with an outfitter’s or guide’s gross 

revenue, in contrast to the bottom-up 

pricing method, which starts with the 

value of unguided use (Phase I Report 

at 68–70). 

The bottom-up pricing method prices 

outfitter and guide use in terms of the 

value of comparable unguided use 

evidenced in the market place. The 

bottom-up pricing method develops flat 

fees based on these comparable 

unguided use values and applies them 

to outfitter and guide client volumes to 

determine annual outfitting and guiding 

land use fees. The landowner receives 

from outfitters and guides what 

unguided users are willing to pay for an 

equivalent unit of use (per day or per 

hunt) for the same or a similar activity. 

Flat fees per client day or per hunt are 

derived from market comparisons of 

unguided fees for similar activities. The 

market comparison entails generation of 

price data by survey and a correlation to 

the outfitting and guiding activities 

recognized by the Alaska Region. The 

only permit holder data required are 

annual reports of client volumes. There 

is no percentage component (Phase I 

Report at 71–72; Final Phase II Report 

at 20–21). 

Under the flat fee plus percentage 

method, outfitting and guiding land use 

fees consist of two components: Flat 

fees that are developed by the bottomup pricing method and a percentage of 

client charges or gross revenues. Per 

client day and per hunt fees are derived 

from a market comparison of unguided 

fees for similar activities. The flat fee is 

merely a cost of production: A unit of 

use that is acquired from the landowner 

and resold to a client. The percentage 

component represents an increment of 

price attributable to the privilege of 

conducting business on the owner’s 

land. The flat fees are differentiated by 

type of activity, while the percentage 

component is applied universally. The 

sum of the flat fees and the percentage 

charges would be different for each 

operator in a category (Phase I Report at 

73–75). 

Phase II: Development of a Fee System 

Based on the Most Viable Methodology 

The Preliminary Phase II Report 

analyzes the three methodologies with 

the most potential to meet the objectives 

of the RFP. The modified ARIFFP, the 

bottom-up pricing method, and the flat 

fee plus percentage method. The three 

methodologies were applied to 2001 

outfitting and guiding permit holder 

data for six Alaska Region outfitting and 

guiding activities: Road-based nature 

tours; remote-setting nature tours; 

helicopter land tours; visitor centers; 

day use brown bear hunting; and 

overnight mountain goat hunting. 

Based on the conclusions in the 

Preliminary Phase II Report, BSR and 

the Forest Service jointly decided that 

BSR should further study the modified 

ARIFFP and bottom-up pricing method, 

but not the flat fee plus percentage 

method (Final Phase II Report at 9). In 

the Preliminary Phase II Report, BSR 

concluded that the ability of the flat fee 

plus percentage method to yield fees 

that are similar for similar activities is 

subject to interpretation. The flat fees 

are differentiated by type of activity, 

while a percentage component is 

applied universally. The sum of the flat 

fees and the percentage charges would 

be different for each operator in a 

category. In addition, the amount of 

analysis, related data requirements, and 

subjectivity are maximized (Final Phase 

II Report at 73, 76). 

The Final Phase II Report develops 

flat fee systems using the bottom-up 

pricing method and the modified 

ARIFFP (Final Phase II Report at 20–71). 

The analysis relies primarily on the 

market data gathered for the Preliminary 

Phase II Report and the 2002 permit 

holder data provided by the Alaska 

Region (Final Phase II Report at 11). 

Table 1 from the Final Phase II Report 

compares flat fees derived under the 

ARIFFP using 1998 permit holder data; 

under the ARIFFP using 1998 permit 

holder data that have been indexadjusted; under the ARIFFP using 2002 

permit holder data; under the bottom-up 

pricing method; and under the modified 

ARIFFP (Final Phase II Report at 67). 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
54458 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 179 / Friday, September 15, 2006 / Notices 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICESEN15SE06.000</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 179 / Friday, September 15, 2006 / Notices 54459 

In the Final Phase II Report, BSR 

recognized that while both the modified 

ARIFFP and the bottom-up pricing 

method could be used to develop an 

outfitting and guiding permit fee system 

for the Alaska Region in compliance 

with The Tongass Conservancy ruling, 

the bottom-up method was less likely to 

meet the objectives of the RFP. 

Implementation of the bottom-up 

pricing method requires a small number 

of related activity categories. The data 

are too limited to develop unique values 

in the bottom-up pricing method for the 

diverse activities recognized in the 

Alaska Region. Also, in the bottom-up 

pricing method, client charges are not a 

component of the fee development 

process, so sensitivity to change in 

Alaska Region market condition is 

limited to fluctuations in client volumes 

and comparable fees charged elsewhere. 

In addition, this method relies heavily 

on data from outside the Alaska Region. 

While the data can be meaningful, they 

are too limited to isolate percentage or 

dollar considerations for the positive 

and negative attributes of the Alaska 

Region. There is no reliable means of 

adjusting for these differences (Final 

Phase II Report at 59–60). 

In contrast, the modified ARRIFFP is 

fair to outfitters and guides, in that it 

assigns flat fees to specific categories of 

activities so that outfitters guides pay 

similar fees for similar activities. 

Further, since the modified ARIFFP is 

sensitive to both client volumes and 

local client charges, the method is 

particularly responsive to the unique 

conditions of the various Alaska Region 

submarkets represented by each of the 

six categories of outfitting and guiding 

activities in the Region: 

By recognizing local operator data, the 

method is sensitive to the economics of 

Alaska Region submarkets, yet support is 

derived from the broader market. Data 

requirements are comparatively minor and 

subjective correlations are minimized. Permit 

holder reporting requirements are generally 

not objectionable. Finally, it is the only 

apparent method that can develop unique 

prices for the wide variety of outfitting and 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICESEN15SE06.001</GPH> EN15SE06.002</GPH>
54460 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 179 / Friday, September 15, 2006 / Notices 

[guiding] activities recognized by the Alaska 

Region (Phase I Report at 78). 

Equally important, the modified 

ARIFFP is fair to the Federal 

government because this method 

calculates fees based on a percentage 

rate that reflects market value and 

because this method provides for 

periodic recalculation of fees based on 

surveys of similar outfitting and guiding 

activities on Federal, State, and private 

lands. Thus, BSR concluded that the 

modified ARIFFP has the best potential 

to meet the objectives of the RFP (Final 

Phase II Report at 68–69, 75–76). 

Identification of a Market-Based 

Percentage Rate 

The 1996 GAO report concluded that 

the 3 percent rate under the national 

outfitting and guiding fee policy (which 

is also the basis of the ARIFFP) was 

below market. Data from both public 

agencies and the private sector support 

this finding (Preliminary Phase II Report 

at 18, Final Phase II Report at 61–62). 

Thus, the ARIFFP results in fees that are 

below what the market will support. the 

modified ARIFFP includes an additional 

analytical step to determine a marketbased percentage rate (Phase I Report at 

73 and 76). 

In the modified ARIFFP, an 

appropriate multiplier was developed 

from a range of rates identified from 

data collected from a survey of public 

and private landowners. The data reflect 

a broad range of gross revenue 

multipliers from 3 to 12.5 percent (Final 

Phase II Report at 65), as shown in Table 

2. The 3 percent rate is below market 

value, while the upper-end rates reflect 

high demand or exclusivity of the use. 

The rate reported with the greatest 

frequency is 5 percent. However, a 

simple selection of 5 percent based on 

frequency does not adequately address 

the objective of creating a fee policy that 

is fair to the outfitting and guiding 

industry as well as to the Government 

(Final Phase II Report at 63). 

Based on these findings, BSR 

concluded that an appropriate rate for 

outfitting and guiding in the Alaska 

Region would fall within a narrower 

range of 4 to 8 percent (Preliminary 

Phase II Report at 18, Final Phase II 

Report at 65). BSR further concluded 

that an appropriate rate would produce 

flat fees that are closely supported by 

the indicated values for individual units 

of use (net of outfitting and guiding 

services) produced by the bottom-up 

pricing method (Preliminary Phase II 

Report at 18; Final Phase II Report at 

63–64). Thus, flat fees produced by the 

bottom-up pricing method will 

corroborate the flat fees produced by the 

modified ARIFFP using an appropriate 

multiplier. 

Table 2 displays the flat fees using the 

2002 data and compares the varied 

percentage rates. 

In Table 2, the first column of fees is 

shaded and displays the flat fees 

generated by applying the ARIFFP (with 

a 3 percent rate) to the 2002 permit 

holder. The next ten columns display 

flat fees generated by applying the 

percentage rates suggested by the market 

data (4 to 12.5 percent) to the 2002 

permit holder data. The last column 

displays the values for individual units 

of use developed by the bottom-up 

pricing method. The values in the 

middle columns that are shown in bold 

and lightly shaded approximate the 

values developed by the bottom-up 

pricing method in the last column (Final 

Phase II Report at 65). 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICESEN15SE06.003</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 179 / Friday, September 15, 2006 / Notices 54461 

Table 2 shows that for 8 of the 10 

activities, the 3 percent rate applied in 

the ARIFFP yields fees that are less than 

the indicated values for individual 

(unguided) units of use generated by the 

bottom-up pricing method for a 

comparable activity. Thus, Table 2 

confirms that the 3 percent rate is below 

market value for the Alaska Region. 

Rates above 8 percent are suggested by 

only two of the activities, based on 

exclusivity of the use or high demand. 

The comparisons for most of the 

activities (6 out of 10) support a 

narrower range of multipliers from 4 to 

8 percent (Final Phase II Report at 65). 

The indicated mean and median 

reflected by the majority of the 

comparisons is 5.5 percent. Thus, the 

analysis establishes a rate of 5.5 percent 

as an appropriate multiplier for the 

modified ARIFFP (Final Phase II Report 

at 66). Future updates that reapply the 

fee calculation process to updated 

permit holder data may result in a 

different percentage rate. 

Implementation of the Alaska Region 

Long-Term Flat Fee Policy 

The proposed Alaska Region longterm flat fee policy is based on the 

analysis, findings, and conclusions in 

BSR’s Phase I and Preliminary and Final 

Phase II Reports, which were approved 

by the Alaska Regional Appraiser. Based 

on these reports, the Alaska Region is 

proposing to adopt the modified 

ARIFFP for outfitting and guiding land 

use fees in the Alaska Region, with a 

market rate of 5.5 percent. The Alaska 

Region is proposing to implement the 

5.5 percent rate beginning in January, 

2008. The activity rates will be adjusted 

annually by the percentage of change in 

the Implicit Price Deflator-Gross 

National Product (IPD–GNP) from the 

second quarter of the previous year to 

the second quarter of the current year. 

According to the Final Phase II 

Report, the modified ARIFFP cannot be 

applied to new activities without a leadin period that is sufficient to generate 

the necessary data. However, in the 

interim, the fee for the most similar 

activity may be applied (Final Phase II 

Report at 19, 73). Based on those 

findings, the proposed Alaska Region 

long-term flat fee schedule for outfitting 

and guiding has six activities that were 

added after the Final Phase II Report 

was issued in 2003: Black bear camping, 

moose hunts day use; elk hunts day use; 

elk hunts camping; Dall sheep hunts 

day use; and Dall sheep hunts camping. 

Fees for the black bear, moose and elk 

hunts are the same. Fees for Dall sheep 

hunts are the same as those for 

mountain goat hunts. Fees for the added 

activities would remain linked to 

existing activities until data can be 

collected to establish a set fee. 

The proposed flat fee for each 

category of outfitting and guiding 

activity in the Alaska Region is shown 

in the shaded column in Table 3. Those 

fees are based on the modified ARIFFP 

and index adjusted to 2006. The 

proposed fees are based on 2002 

revenue data from permit holders. The 

last column is the fees that are charged 

under the current fee schedule that is 

based on 1998 revenue data from permit 

holders. The second column with the 

modified ARIFFP Fee using 2002 data is 

the same as the last column shown in 

Table 1 and is taking from the BSR 

study. 

Publication of this proposed flat fee 

policy in the Federal Register 

constitutes formal notice per the 

Regional Forester’s letter dated 

November 24, 1997, regarding a fee 

increase for Forest Service outfitting and 

guiding permits in the Alaska Region. 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICESEN15SE06.004</GPH>
54462 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 179 / Friday, September 15, 2006 / Notices 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICESEN15SE06.005</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 179 / Friday, September 15, 2006 / Notices 54463 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–C 

Regulatory Certifications 

Environmental Impact 

This proposed policy would establish 

administrative fee categories and 

procedures for calculating permit fees 

for outfitters and guides operating in the 

Alaska Region of the Forest Service. 

Section 31.12 (formerly section 31.1b) of 

FSH 1909.15 (57 FR 43180, September 

18, 1992) excludes from documentation 

in an environmental assessment or 

environmental impact statement ‘‘rules, 

regulations or policies to establish 

Service-wide administrative procedures, 

program processes or instructions.’’ The 

Alaska Region’s preliminary assessment 

is that this proposed policy falls within 

this category of actions and that no 

extraordinary circumstances exist, 

which would require preparation of an 

environmental assessment or 

environmental impact statement. A final 

determination will be made on adoption 

of the final policy. 

Regulatory Impact 

This proposed policy has been 

reviewed under USDA procedures and 

Executive Order 12866 on regulatory 

planning and review. It has been 

determined that this is not a significant 

policy. The proposed policy would not 

have an annual effect of $100 million or 

more on the economy, nor would it 

adversely affect productivity, 

composition, jobs, the environment, 

public health or safety, or State or local 

government. This proposed policy 

would not interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency, nor 

would it raise new legal or policy 

issues. Finally, this proposed action 

would not alter the budgetary impacts of 

entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan 

programs, or the rights and obligations 

of recipients of such programs. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICESEN15SE06.006</GPH>
54464 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 179 / Friday, September 15, 2006 / Notices 

Accordingly, this proposed policy is not 

subject to OMB review under Executive 

Order 12866. 

Moreover, this proposed policy has 

been considered in light of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.). It has been determined that this 

proposed policy would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities as 

defined by the Act because the proposed 

action would not impose recordkeeping 

requirements on them; it would not 

affect their competitive position in 

relation to large entities, and it would 

not affect their cash flow, liquidity, or 

ability to remain in the market. 

No Takings Implications 

This proposed policy has been 

analyzed in accordance with the 

principles and criteria contained in 

Executive Order 12630. It has been 

determined that the proposed policy 

would not pose the risk of a taking of 

private property. 

Civil Justice Reform 

This proposed policy has been 

reviewed under Executive Order 12988 

on civil justice reform. If this proposed 

policy were adopted, (1) All State and 

local laws and regulations that are in 

conflict with this proposed policy or 

which would impede its full 

implementation would be preempted; 

(2) no retroactive effect would be given 

to this proposed policy; and (3) it would 

not require administrative proceedings 

before parties may file suit in court 

challenging its provisions. 

Unfunded Mandates 

Pursuant to Title II of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 

1531–1538) which the President signed 

into law on March 22, 1995, the Alaska 

Region has assessed the effects of the 

proposed policy on State, local, and 

tribal governments and the private 

sector. This proposed policy would not 

compel the expenditure of $100 million 

or more by any State, local or tribal 

government or anyone in the private 

sector. Therefore, a statement under 

Section 202 of the act is not required. 

Federalism and Consultation and 

Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

The Alaska Region has considered 

this proposed policy directive under the 

requirements of Executive Order 13132 

on federalism and has determined that 

the proposed policy would conform 

with the federalism principles set out in 

this Executive Order; would not impose 

any compliance costs on the States; and 

would not have substantial direct effects 

on the States, the relationship between 

the Federal government and the States, 

or the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. Therefore, the 

Alaska Region has determined that no 

further assessment of federalism 

implications is necessary. 

Moreover, this proposed policy would 

not have Tribal implications as defined 

by Executive Order 13175, 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

the Indian Tribal Governments,’’ and 

therefore advance consultation with 

Tribes is not required. 

Energy Effects 

This proposed policy has been 

reviewed under Executive Order 13211 

of May 18, 2001, ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.’’ It 

has been determined that this proposed 

policy would not constitute a significant 

energy action as defined in the 

Executive Order. 

Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the 

Public 

This proposed policy does not contain 

any recordkeeping or reporting 

requirements or other information 

collection requirements as defined in 5 

CFR part 1320 that are not already 

required by law or not already approved 

for use. The information collection 

being requested as a result of this action 

has been approved by OMB. 

Accordingly, the review provisions of 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and 

implementing regulations at 5 CFR part 

1320 do not apply. 

Dated: September 5, 2006. 

Dennis E. Bschor, 

Regional Forester, Alaska Region. 

[FR Doc. 06–7621 Filed 9–14–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M 

COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM 

PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR 

SEVERELY DISABLED 

Procurement List; Additions and 

Deletions 

AGENCY: Committee for Purchase From 

People Who Are Blind or Severely 

Disabled. 

ACTION: Additions to and Deletions from 

Procurement List. 

SUMMARY: This action adds to the 

Procurement List products and service 

to be furnished by nonprofit agencies 

employing persons who are blind or 

have other severe disabilities, and 

deletes from the Procurement List 

services previously furnished by such 

agencies. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 15, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: Committee for Purchase 

From People Who Are Blind or Severely 

Disabled, Jefferson Plaza 2, Suite 10800, 

1421 Jefferson Davis Highway, 

Arlington, Virginia 22202–3259. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sheryl D. Kennerly, Telephone: (703) 

603–7740, Fax: (703) 603–0655, or email SKennerly@jwod.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Additions 

On July 21, 2006, the Committee for 

Purchase From People Who Are Blind 

or Severely Disabled published notice 

(71 FR 41415–41417) of proposed 

additions to the Procurement List. 

After consideration of the material 

presented to it concerning capability of 

qualified nonprofit agencies to provide 

the products and service and impact of 

the additions on the current or most 

recent contractors, the Committee has 

determined that the products and 

service listed below are suitable for 

procurement by the Federal Government 

under 41 U.S.C. 46–48c and 41 CFR 51–

2.4. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification 

I certify that the following action will 

not have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The major factors considered for this 

certification were: 

1. The action will not result in any 

additional reporting, recordkeeping or 

other compliance requirements for small 

entities other than the small 

organizations that will furnish the 

products and service to the Government. 

2. The action will result in 

authorizing small entities to furnish the 

products and service to the Government. 

3. There are no known regulatory 

alternatives which would accomplish 

the objectives of the Javits-WagnerO’Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46–48c) in 

connection with the products and 

service proposed for addition to the 

Procurement List. 

End of Certification 

Accordingly, the following products 

and service are added to the 

Procurement List: 

Products 

Product/NSN: SKILCRAFT Toothpicks—200 

ct. 

NSN: M.R. 452. 

NPA: Winston-Salem Industries for the 

Blind, Winston-Salem, North Carolina. 

Contracting Activity: AAFES, Dallas, Texas. 

Product/NSN: Spice Blend, All Purpose 

Seasoning w/o Salt. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES