43006 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 1997 / Notices

Unit, Gateway National Recreation Area,

New York, for a period of ten (10) years.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 10, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Interested parties should

contact National Park Service, Senior

Concession Program Manager,

Concession Management Program, New

England System Support Office, 15 State

Street, Boston, MA 02109–3572, to

obtain a copy of the prospectus

describing the requirements of the

proposed contract.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

contract has been determined to be

categorically excluded from the

procedural provisions of the National

Environmental Policy Act and no

environmental document will be

prepared.

The existing concessioner has

performed its obligations to the

satisfaction of the Secretary under an

existing contract which expired by

limitation of time, and therefore

pursuant to the provisions of Section 5

of the Act of October 9, 1965 (79 Stat.

969; 16 U.S.C. § 20), is entitled to be

given preference in the renewal of the

contract and in the negotiation of a new

contract, providing that the existing

concessioner submits a responsive offer

(a timely offer which meets the terms

and conditions of the Prospectus). This

means that the contract will be awarded

to the party submitting the best offer,

provided that if the best offer was not

submitted by the existing concessioner,

then the existing concessioner will be

afforded the opportunity to match the

best offer. If the existing concessioner

agrees to match the best offer, then the

contract will be awarded to the existing

concessioner.

If the existing concessioner does not

submit a responsive offer, the right of

preference in renewal shall be

considered to have been waived, and

the contract will then be awarded to the

party that has submitted the best

responsive offer.

The Secretary will consider and

evaluate all proposals received as a

result of this notice. Any proposal,

including that of the existing

concessioner, must be received by the

Senior Concession Program Manager,

Concession Management Program, not

later than the sixtieth (60th) day

following publication of this notice to

be considered and evaluated.

Dated: July 28, 1997.

Chrysandra L. Walter,

Acting Field Director, Northeast Field Area.

[FR Doc. 97–21128 Filed 8–8–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–70–M

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service

Response to Public Comments on

NPS–48

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.

ACTION: Response to public comments

on NPS–48.

SUMMARY: On February 20, 1997, the

National Park Service (NPS) published

for additional public comment its staff

manual (NPS–48) dealing with the

administration of concession contracts

and permits. On March 27, 1997, NPS

extended the due date for receipt of

comments through April 8, 1997. On

May 29, 1997, NPS requested public

comment on certain proposed

amendments and clarifications to NPS–

48. This notice responds to the

comments received in response to these

notices and, after due consideration of

public comment, makes certain

amendments and clarifications to NPS–

48.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 10, 1997,

except as otherwise noted.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert Yearout, Program Manager,

Concessions Program, National Park

Service, P.O. Box 37127, Washington,

D.C. 20013–7127.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NPS–48

was developed by NPS during the

1980’s as an agency staff manual for the

management of NPS concession contract

matters. As such, notice of it generally

was not initially published in the

Federal Register. (Certain portions of

NPS–48 as a matter of policy were

adopted by NPS after a notice and

comment period.) Inasmuch as NPS is

considering making major changes to

NPS–48 and its legal status has been a

subject of two recent federal court

decisions, NPS determined to solicit

and consider additional public

comments on it. However, NPS notes

that NPS–48 is an agency staff manual

and as such is not required to be

published in the Federal Register

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552 nor

promulgated as a rule after public notice

and comment pursuant to 5 U.S.C.

§ 553. In addition, NPS notes that the

rulemaking requirements of 5 U.S.C.

§ 553, even if otherwise applicable to an

agency staff manual such as NPS–48, are

expressly not applicable to matters

relating to agency management or

personnel or to public property, loans,

grants, benefits or contracts. NPS–48, as

a matter concerning the administration

of public property and contracts, falls

within this exemption to the extent it

may be considered a rule or regulation

within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 553.

NPS received nine comments on

NPS–48 in response to the February 20,

1997, request for comments and two

comments in response to the May 29,

1997, request for comments. With

respect to the first category, seven of the

nine comments were submitted by

existing NPS concessioners, one was

submitted by an organization

representing NPS concessioners, and

one was submitted by a certified public

accounting firm on behalf of a

concessioner. No comments from the

general public were received. With

respect to the second category,

comments were received only from the

organization representing concessioners

and an attorney representing a

concessioner.

Several of the comments received

from these notices concerned matters

which were not within the scope of the

requests for comments. These comments

are not discussed in this notice.

Analysis of Comments in Response to

the February 20, 1997, Public Notice

1. Conformance With Revised

Regulations

One commenter pointed out that the

concession contracting regulations (36

CFR, Part 51) included in NPS–48 are

not the most recent version of these

regulations, which were amended

effective October 5, 1992. NPS agrees

that the copy of the regulations

contained in NPS–48 is outdated, and

hereby deletes the old regulations and

incorporates the revised regulations in

NPS–48. NPS further notes that in the

event of any conflict between these

revised regulations and any guidance

contained in NPS–48, the revised

regulations will prevail.

2. Private Enterprise Outside of Park

Policy

One commenter expressed concern

that NPS and others could interpret too

narrowly its policy of not developing

concession facilities within the park if

adequate facilities exist ‘‘or can feasibly

be developed by private enterprise’’

outside park boundaries. NPS considers

that NPS–48 provides adequate

guidance in this regard.

3. Concessioner Participation in

Planning

One commenter felt that concessioner

input into NPS planning efforts should

be expanded. Present procedures limit

concessioner input to ‘‘assistance in

basic data collection and review as a

member of the public.’’ This commenter

suggests that concessioners should be
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 1997 / Notices 43007

granted ‘‘interested party status’’ in this

regard. NPS recognizes that

concessioners can make important

contributions to park planning efforts.

However, the very nature of the

contractual relationship between NPS

and its concessioners is such that NPS

must exercise caution to avoid

perceived conflicts of interest in park

planning decisions. NPS is sensitive to

concerns raised by members of the

public during the planning process, and

does not agree that categorization as ‘‘a

member of the public’’ in any way

demeans the concessioner’s input into

the planning process.

4. Term of Contracts

Two commenters agreed that the term

of concession contracts should continue

to be based on the investment required.

However, they suggested that NPS also

should consider a requirement for

substantial depreciation or amortization

as justification for a longer contract

term. One commenter felt that the

length of a contract term should not be

judged solely by investment, because

longer term contracts enhance

continuity and consistency of service to

park visitors.

NPS believes that the goals of

continuity and consistency of service

are adequate by NPS–48 guidelines and

applicable law and regulations. NPS

does not agree that longer term contracts

are necessary to achieve these goals.

NPS believes that the term of concession

contracts should continue to be based

primarily on the investment required.

5. Contract Extensions

One commenter stated that longerterm extensions for expired concession

contracts should be considered in lieu

of year-to-year extensions, because 1-

year extensions may not adequately

protect the concessioner’s investment in

needed major repairs or improvements.

Two other commenters objected to the

NPS use of interim letters of

authorization in lieu of formal contract

extensions or timely contract renewals.

Although NPS–48 provides for contract

extensions with terms of up to 2 years,

NPS, as a matter of practice, has been

authorizing continuation of concession

services with 1-year interim letters of

authorization over the past several

years. NPS does not consider that

changes to NPS–48 are warranted in this

regard.

6. Facility Design and Construction

One commenter felt that NPS review

of design and construction projects has

become too detailed, sometimes

extending to the selection of furniture,

carpeting, draperies, and color

selections. NPS considers that, although

there may have been specific instances

where NPS has become unduly involved

in such matters, the general guidance of

NPS–48 in this connection is

appropriate.

7. Cooperating Associations

Three commenters felt that

cooperating associations which were

established for interpretive and

educational purposes have been

permitted to move into sales areas

directly competitive with concessioners

who have clear contract rights. NPS will

continue to review any situation where

a concessioner feels this has occurred

on a case-by-case basis. However, the

guidance in NPS–48 in this connection

is considered appropriate.

8. Rate Approval

Three commenters felt that the

current rate approval processes followed

by NPS are cumbersome, outdated, and

too detailed. NPS believes that the

present methodology is adequate.

However, NPS is also considering the

possibility of generally revising its rate

approval program. If such a proposal is

made, it will be published for public

comment in the Federal Register.

9. Concessioner Review Program

One commenter felt that the current

program is too detailed and timeconsuming. Two other commenters

expressed concern about the

requirements of the review program and

felt that these requirements should be

implemented by NPS personnel who

understand the concessioner’s

operation. NPS considers that the

present guidance of NPS–48 provides an

appropriate program in this regard.

However, NPS is also considering a

major revision to its review program

guidelines. If such a proposal is made,

it will be published for public comment

in the Federal Register.

Another commenter pointed out that

a conflict exists between NPS–48 and

the revised regulations (36 CFR § 51.5)

concerning the disposition of

unsatisfactory and marginal ratings.

NPS–48 states that if a concessioner

receives an annual overall rating of

‘‘unsatisfactory’’ in any year of the

contract term or ‘‘marginal’’ for any 2

consecutive years, then the concessioner

is not entitled to a right of preference in

the renewal of its contract. The

regulations at 36 CFR § 51.5(a) limit the

loss of a concessioner’s right of

preference in contract renewal to the

last year (for ‘‘unsatisfactory’’ ratings) or

the last 2 years (for ‘‘marginal’’ ratings)

prior to issuance of a prospectus. NPS

requested public comment on this issue

on May 29, 1997, and after having

considered all comments received,

agrees that the regulations and

guidelines are in conflict on this point,

and hereby clarifies NPS–48 to include

the language of the regulation at 36 CFR

§ 51.5(a).

10. Franchise Fee Renegotiation

Three commenters suggested the

elimination of the five-year franchise fee

reconsideration, or the use of a different

approach to fee increases during the

term of the contract. NPS is required, by

law (16 U.S.C. 20(d)), to reconsider the

franchise fees at least every 5 years

during the term of a contract.

Accordingly, the requirement cannot be

eliminated. NPS also notes that the

substance of the NPS franchise fee

reconsideration process was established

through adoption of the NPS standard

language concession contract after

solicitation and consideration of public

comments.

11. Handcrafts, Gifts and Merchandise

One commenter reacted favorably to

the overall direction taken by NPS in

the development of thematic

merchandising in parks, but cautioned

that NPS should also allow for the

selection of some merchandise

customarily sold in similar themeoriented retail outlets outside the park.

It is important to note that the thematic

approach referred to is being taken by

NPS on a case-by-case basis as contracts

are renewed, and is not specifically

required by NPS–48. NPS is presently

considering the possibility of making

revisions to the handcraft, gift and

merchandising guidance of NPS–48,

which it expects to publish for comment

within the next year. In the interim,

NPS considers it appropriate to

continue the current guidance of NPS–

48.

12. Deposits for Advance Reservations

One commenter pointed out that one

provision in NPS–48 requires that rates

in effect at the time of a deposit should

apply to all or a portion of the visitor

stay, even though there may have been

a price increase (Chapter 29, D.2.b.), and

that this conflicts with another

provision in NPS–48 which allows

concessioners to charge the increased

rates so long as individuals making

advance reservations are notified that

rates are subject to change and are not

guaranteed by the deposit (Chapter 29,

D.1.c.(1)). NPS, after proposing an

amendment to NPS–48 in this regard on

May 29, 1997, and having considered all

public comments received, agrees that

these provisions are in conflict and

hereby adopts a provision allowing
43008 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 1997 / Notices

concessioners to charge increased rates

if individuals making reservations are

notified that rates are subject to change

and not guaranteed by the deposit.

Chapter 29 of NPS–48 is hereby

amended by deleting subsection D.2.b.

13. Advertising and Informational

Literature

One commenter felt that general, and

not detailed guidelines, should be

issued with regard to NPS review of

concessioner advertising and

informational literature. NPS considers

that the current guidance of NPS–48 in

this regard provides adequate flexibility

with respect to necessary review of

advertising and informational literature.

14. NPS Concession Employee Training

One commenter commended NPS for

including selected concessioners, their

employees and others to assist in

providing training to NPS concession

employees.

15. Applicability of Related NPS

Guidelines

One commenter stated that references

to other NPS guidelines should be

deleted from NPS–48, as these other

guidelines have not been subject to a

public review process. NPS believes that

the references contained in NPS–48 to

other NPS staff manuals are necessary to

portray the concession program in its

proper context within the overall NPS

organization and are, therefore,

appropriate.

16. Exemption of Handcraft Sales from

Franchise Fee Calculation

Three commenters requested that the

exemption of handcraft sales from

franchise fee calculations be reinstated.

NPS published for comment a notice of

its intention to eliminate this exemption

in the Federal Register on January 17,

1995, and again on July 20, 1995. 23

comments were received in response to

those notices. The NPS analysis of those

comments and final decision to

eliminate the exemption were published

in the Federal Register on April 26,

1996. NPS finds no new arguments in

the 2 comments received that would

persuade it to change its position on this

matter.

17. Standard Language Concession

Contract

Two commenters objected to revisions

made by NPS in its standard concession

contract language in 1993. Specific

objections included changes in

possessory interest compensation and

compensation for equipment, requiring

the concessioner to acknowledge the

reasonable opportunity to realize a

profit on its operations, requiring the

concessioner to acknowledge

maintenance and operating plans which

can be unilaterally changed by NPS, and

ability of NPS to modify contract terms

as a condition to the approval of a sale

or transfer.

NPS published for comment a notice

proposing changes to the standard

concession contract language on

September 3, 1992. 61 comments were

received in response to that notice. The

NPS analysis of those comments and

final standard contract language were

published in the Federal Register on

January 7, 1993. NPS finds no new

arguments in the comments received

that would persuade it to change its

position on these matters.

Response to Comments Received

Pursuant to the May 29, 1997, Request

for Comments

1. Franchise Fee Waivers

NPS, on May 29, 1997, proposed

clarifying NPS–48 with respect to

waiver of franchise fees. In this regard,

Chapter 24, section 5.i. of NPS–48

authorizes waiver of NPS concession

contract franchise fees in certain

circumstances. However, NPS–48 fails

to expressly note that as a matter of law

such waivers are permissible only

where the concession contract or permit

in question contains an express

provision authorizing such a waiver or

in other special circumstances as

discussed below. Decision of the

Comptroller General, April 11, 1944 (B–

40226). In addition, NPS proposed to

clarify NPS–48 to state more explicitly

that the waiver provisions of NPS–48

apply only to waiver of franchise fees

(where an express contract provision so

authorizes), not to any other financial

obligations of a concessioner set forth in

an NPS concession contract or permit.

Two comments were received on this

proposal. One was from an attorney

representing an NPS concessioner. He

took the position, among others, that the

1944 Comptroller General opinion cited

by NPS is no longer valid law (also

noting that the opinion is unpublished)

an that it is inconsistent with the

Concessions Policies Act of 1965 (16

U.S.C. § 20 et. seq.) (the ‘‘Act’’).

NPS first notes that the conclusions of

this unpublished Comptroller General

opinion were subsequently affirmed by

the Comptroller General in 34 Comp.

Gen. 207 (1954).

In any event, it is a matter of settled

law that in the absence of a statute

specifically so providing, no officer of

the federal government has authority to

give away or surrender (without

adequate consideration) a right vested in

or acquired by the government under a

contract. 14 Comp. Gen. 897, 900; 15

Comp. Gen. 25; 20 Comp. Gen. 703; 22

Comp. Gen. 260. This basis for this rule

is set forth as follows in Columbus Ry.

Power & L. Co. v. Columbus, 249 U.S.

399, 412 (1919):

It certainly was not intended to

question the principle, frequently

declared in decisions of this court, that

if a party charges himself with an

obligation to be performed, he must

abide by it unless performance is

rendered impossible by an act of God,

the law, or other third party. Unforeseen

difficulties will not excuse performance.

Where the parties have made no

provision for a dispensation, the terms

of the contract must prevail. (Citations

omitted).

This legal doctrine has been applied

to NPS concession contracts by the

Comptroller General on a number of

other occasions in addition to B–40226

cited above. 23 Comp. Gen. 811 (1944);

40 Comp. Gen. 234, 239 (1960); and 58

Comp. Gen. 7 (1978). This latter

decision, issued long after the passage of

the Act, reiterates that it is a ‘‘well

established rule that, without a

compensating benefit to the United

States, Government agents and officers

have no authority to dispose of the

money or property of the United States,

to modify existing contracts, or to

surrender or waive vested rights,’’ 58 id.

7, citing Christine v. United States, 237

U.S. 234 (1915) and Pacific Hardware v.

United States, 49 Ct. Cl. 327, 335, 337

(1914).

The commenter also notes a series of

decisions and other supporting

materials which indicate that

impossibility or impracticability may

operate to discharge a contractual duty

under a contract as a matter of law. For

example, the commenter states, this

doctrine may excuse performance by a

contractor in circumstances occasioned

by acts of God, acts of third parties, ‘‘or

in cases of war, embargo, or the like.’’

In light of this comment, NPS has

further clarified NPS–48 with respect to

waiver of franchise fees by modifying

the first sentence of its proposed

clarification of NPS–48 regarding waiver

of franchise fees to state as follows:

Franchise fee waivers as a matter of

law are only permissible under this

section or otherwise where the

concession contract contains an express

provision which authorizes such a

waiver or where payment of franchise

fees by a concessioner is otherwise

excused by operation of law.

In this connection, NPS concession

contracts entered into prior to 1979

generally contain a franchise fee waiver

provision. NPS concession contracts
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 1997 / Notices 43009

entered into thereafter generally do not.

NPS acknowledges that in the past it

may have waived franchise fees in

circumstances where no express waiver

provision was contained in the contract.

Such waivers, however, may have been

appropriate because payment of the

franchise fee was excused by operation

of law as discussed above. Any other

waivers which may have been granted

in the absence of an express contract

franchise fee waiver provision were

unauthorized for the reasons stated

above.

The commenter also argues that the

Act mandates that franchise fee waivers

be granted to NPS concessioners. NPS

does not consider that this is the case.

The Act makes no reference to any

authority or requirement regarding

waivers of concession franchise fees.

The commenter argues that 16 U.S.C.

§ 20b(b) requires that NPS waive

franchise fees if necessary in order for

the concessioner to have a reasonable

opportunity for profit. However, 16

U.S.C. § 20b(b) states as follows in its

entirety:

The Secretary shall exercise his authority

hereunder in a manner consistent with a

reasonable opportunity for the concessioner

to realize a profit on his operation as a whole

commensurate with the capital invested and

the obligations assumed. (Emphasis added.)

The Act makes no mention of any

NPS authority to waive franchise fees

nor does it expressly authorize NPS to

include a franchise waiver provision in

concession contracts. This is in pointed

contrast to the Act’s express

requirements regarding franchise fee

reconsideration provisions. The Act

expressly discusses NPS authority

regarding the alteration of franchise fees

during the term of a concession

contract. It requires that NPS include in

concession contracts provisions for

reconsideration of franchise fees at least

every five years unless the contract is

for a shorter period of time. Waiver of

franchise fees is not mentioned. (Such

reconsideration provisions are

contained in all NPS concession

contracts with a term of more than five

years.)

An organization which represents

concessioners also commented on the

NPS–48 franchise fee waiver

clarification. This organization

suggested that NPS should include in

NPS concession contracts a provision

which would allow waiver of franchise

fees and other concessioner payments to

the government. NPS does not consider

this to be necessary or appropriate in

light of the franchise fee reconsideration

provisions contained in NPS concession

contracts as required by the Act. The

commenter also suggested that the Act

should be interpreted to allow waiver of

franchise fees in circumstances which

precluded the concessioner, ‘‘through

no fault of his, from having a reasonable

opportunity to realize a profit, such as

acts of God or government closures.’’

NPS considers that the further

clarification to NPS–48 discussed above

accommodates this concern to the

extent appropriate.

Neither of the commenters expressly

objected to the clarification to NPS–48

regarding the fact that its franchise fee

waiver provisions only apply to waiver

of franchise fees and not to waiver of

any other financial obligations

established by a concession contract.

However, the comment from the

attorney representing a particular

concessioner implied that an obligation

of a concessioner to deposit a

percentage of the concessioner’s gross

receipts in an account to be used by the

concessioner to make concessioner

improvements constitutes a franchise

fee obligation. This is not the case. All

NPS concession contracts clearly

distinguish between payment of

franchise fees and other financial

obligations a contract may impose,

including deposits into capital

improvement accounts. The provisions

of NPS–48 concerning waiver of

franchise fees apply only to waiver of

franchise fees owed the United States by

a concessioner and denominated as

such by the terms of the concession

contract in question. To the extent that

NPS in the past may have waived the

payment of other financial obligations

by a concessioner, such waivers were

unauthorized unless made pursuant to a

specific contract waiver provision

regarding such financial obligations or

were otherwise required by operation of

law.

2. Food Service Sanitation Program

In its May 29, 1997, ‘‘Federal

Register’’ notice, NPS proposed to

amend Chapter 21, Standard 1, of NPS–

48 with respect to its Food Code

guidelines to conform them to the

revised ‘‘Food Code’’ issued by the U.S.

Public Health Service. One commenter

objected to this proposal and expressed

concerns about the new rating system

for the Food Service Sanitation

Inspection Report, its use in the

Concessioner’s Operational Performance

Rating, and the proposed implications

on the concessioner’s right of preference

in the renewal of its contract. This

commenter feels that there would be too

much subjectivity involved in

determining a ‘‘critical item’’ and

believes that if a Sanitation Inspector

decides that an imminent health hazard

exists, the concessioner’s right of

preference in the renewal of its contract

would be jeopardized. NPS disagrees.

Both ‘‘critical items’’ and ‘‘imminent

health hazards’’ are defined in the U.S.

Public Health Service Food Code. They

are not determinations that are made

subjectively by inspectors in the field.

NPS notes that a concessioner’s right of

preference in renewal would only be

affected if the concessioner is found

‘‘unsatisfactory’’ in the last year or

‘‘marginal’’ in the last two years of its

contract.

This commenter suggests that if NPS

is firm on this system, then a workable

and fair appeal procedure needs to be

outlined and included in the

amendments. NPS believes that an

adequate appeal procedure exists.

Concessioners have the same appeal

rights that currently exist in the

Concessioner Review Program.

Concessioners may appeal their annual

overall rating to the Regional Director.

As indicated below, Annex 1

(‘‘Compliance and Enforcement’’) of the

Food Code is not being adopted by NPS.

The commenter further suggests that

the numerical rating assigned should

stand on its own, and feels that the

system established for converting the

rating could result in a rating with

which the superintendent may not

agree. NPS recognizes that the system

established for converting the rating is

imperfect. However, numeric ratings

must be converted since the

concessioner’s Annual Overall Rating

for operational performance (including

public health and safety reports) is

established as ‘‘satisfactory,’’

‘‘marginal’’ or ‘‘unsatisfactory.’’ Other

conversion or rating systems were

considered, but all had certain

drawbacks that adversely affected either

the small or large operator. NPS believes

that the system devised provides

sufficient flexibility, and is fair and

objective. Further, NPS does not feel

that this proposal will require a

superintendent to give a concessioner a

rating that he or she deems less than

appropriate. The superintendent, with

justification, may adjust the Operational

Performance Rating on the NPS

Concessioner Annual Overall Rating.

This process is no different than the one

that currently exists.

Amendments and Clarifications to

NPS–48

For the reasons discussed above,

NPS–48 is hereby amended and

clarified as follows:

1. Chapter 5, Subsection B.2., of NPS–

48 is amended by deleting the former

text of 36 CFR part 51, and replacing it
43010 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 1997 / Notices

with the text of 36 CFR, part 51, as

revised on October 5, 1992.

2. Chapter 19 of NPS–48 is amended

by deleting the first sentence of

subsection G and replacing it with the

following two sentences:

When a concessioner’s Annual Overall

Rating is Unsatisfactory for a year, or

Marginal for two consecutive years, it

constitutes grounds for termination of the

contract/permit. Further, if a concessioner

receives an annual overall rating of

Unsatisfactory during the last year prior to

issuance of a prospectus, or an annual overall

rating of Marginal during the 2 years prior to

issuance of a prospectus, then the

concessioner is not entitled to a right of

preference in the renewal of its contract or

permit.

3. Chapter 24 of NPS–48 is clarified,

effective immediately as a matter of law,

by adding the following two sentences

to the end of the first paragraph of

section 5.i.:

Franchise fee waivers are only permissible

under this section or otherwise where the

concession contract or permit in question

contains an express provision which

authorizes such a waiver or when payment

of franchise fees is otherwise excused by

operation of law. In addition, even in

circumstances where a concession contract or

permit contains such an express franchise fee

waiver provision, such waiver authority

applies only to payment of franchise fees; it

does not apply to any other financial or other

obligations a concessioner may have under

the terms of a concession contract or permit

unless the contract or permit in question

expressly so states.

3. Chapter 29 of NPS–48 is amended

by deleting subsection D.2.b.

4. Chapter 21, Standard 1, of NPS–48

is amended, effective immediately, by

deleting existing Standard 1 and

replacing it with a new Standard 1

conforming with the revised ‘‘Food

Code’’ (exclusive of Annex 1 thereto)

issued by the United States Public

Health Service in 1993. Copies of the

revised Standard 1 are available upon

request.

All other portions of NPS–48 remain

in effect.

Dated: July 24, 1997.

Dale Wilking,

Associate Director, Park Operations and

Education.

[FR Doc. 97–21080 Filed 8–8–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–70–M

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service

Booker T. Washington National

Monument General Management Plan

Public Meeting and Intent to Publish an

Environmental Impact Statement

AGENCY: National Park Service. Interior.

ACTION: Notice of meeting/open house

and notice of intent to publish

environmental impact statement.

SUMMARY: This notice announces an

upcoming scoping meeting and open

house for the Booker T. Washington

National Monument General

Management Plan and the intent to

publish an environmental impact

statement in association with the

general management plan.

Public Meeting Dates and Times:

Monday, August 18, 1997 from 7:00–

9:00 p.m.

Address: Trinity Ecumenical Parish,

40 Lake Mount Drive, Moneta, VA

24121.

Public Meeting Dates and Times:

Wednesday, October 8, 1997 from 7:00–

9:00 p.m.

Address: Rocky Mount, VA 24151.

Location To Be Announced.

Open House Dates and Times:

Tuesday, August 19, 1997 from 9:00

a.m.–1:00 p.m.

Thursday, October 9, 1997 from 9:00

a.m.–1:00 p.m.

Address: Booker T. Washington NM

Visitor Center, 12130 Booker T.

Washington Highway, Hardy, VA 24101.

The purpose of the meeting and open

house is to describe the general

management planning effort beginning

for Booker T. Washington National

Monument and to solicit public

concerns about the future management

of the park. The agenda for the open

house consists of an overview of the

project and an open discussion of

citizen concerns.

We encourage all who have an

interest in the park’s future to attend or

contact the park Superintendent by

letter or telephone. Minutes of the

meeting will be available for public

review four weeks after the meeting at

the Visitor Center.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Superintendent, Booker T. Washington

National Monument, 12130 Booker T.

Washington Highway, Hardy, VA 24101,

(540) 721–2094.

Dated: July 23, 1997.

Fred Herling,

Outdoor Recreation Planner, Chesapeake/

Allegheny System Support Office,

Stewardship & Partnerships Team.

[FR Doc. 97–21130 Filed 8–8–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–70–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service

Golden Gate National Recreation Area

and Point Reyes National Seashore

Advisory Commission; Notice of

Meeting Cancellation

Notice is hereby given in accordance

with the Federal Advisory Committee

Act that the meeting of the Golden Gate

National Recreation Area and Point

Reyes National Seashore Advisory

Commission previously scheduled for

Wednesday, August 13, 1997 in San

Francisco will be cancelled.

The Advisory Commission was

established by Public Law 92–589 to

provide for the free exchange of ideas

between the National Park Service and

the public and to facilitate the

solicitation of advice or other counsel

from members of the public on

problems pertinent to the National Park

Service systems in Marin, San Francisco

and San Mateo Counties.

Members of the Commission are as

follows:

Mr. Richard Bartke, Chairman

Ms. Naomi T. Gray

Mr. Michael Alexander

Ms. Lennie Roberts

Ms. Sonia Bolan ̆ os

Mr. Redmond Kernan

Mr. Merritt Robinson

Mr. John J. Spring

Mr. Joseph Williams

Ms. Amy Meyer, Vice Chair

Dr. Howard Cogswell

Mr. Jerry Friedman

Ms. Yvonne Lee

Mr. Trent Orr

Ms. Jacqueline Young

Mr. R.H. Sciaroni

Dr. Edgar Wayburn

Mr. Mel Lane

Dated: July 31, 1997.

Len McKenzie,

General Superintendent, Golden Gate

National Recreation Area.

[FR Doc. 97–21129 Filed 8–8–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–70–P