1334 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 1997 / Notices

County Bank & Trust, Bardstown,

Kentucky.

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve

System, January 3, 1997.

Jennifer J. Johnson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 97–478 Filed 1–8–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210–01–F

Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Board of

Governors of the Federal Reserve

System Federal Register Citation of

Previous Announcement: 62 FR 408,

January 3, 1997.

PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED TIME AND DATE OF

THE MEETING: 10:00 a.m., Wednesday,

January 8, 1997.

CHANGES IN THE MEETING: Change in the

time of the open meeting to 11:00 a.m.,

Wednesday, January 8, 1997.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Mr. Joseph R. Coyne, Assistant to the

Board; (202) 452–3204.

Dated: January 6, 1997.

William W. Wiles,

Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 97–647 Filed 1–7–97; 2:44 pm]

BILLING CODE 6210–01–P

GENERAL SERVICES

ADMINISTRATION

Public Buildings Service; Record of

Decision; Proposed Expansion Pacific

Highway Port of Entry, Blaine,

Whatcom County, Washington

I. Introduction

The United States General Services

Administration (GSA) announces its

decision, in accordance with the

National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA) and the regulations issued by

the Council on Environmental Quality,

to expand to existing Pacific Highway

Port of Entry (POE) in Blaine, Whatcom

County, Washington. This Record of

Decision (ROD) documents my decision

regarding this proposal.

The existing facility is located on the

west side of State Route 543 in Blaine,

and serves as a major Port of Entry

between the United States and the

province of British Columbia, Canada.

This ROD describes the alternatives

considered and the rationale for

selecting the environmentally preferred

alternative.

The principal function of the

proposed facility will be to

accommodate the expansion

requirements of the U.S. Customs

Service, the Immigration and

Naturalization Service, the U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Animal and

Health Inspection Service, Food and

Drug Administration, Food and Safety

Inspection Service, U.S. General

Services Administration/Public

Buildings Service, and the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service. The proposed

expansion would replace the present

facility, which is overcrowded and

functionally obsolete.

II. Decision

Based upon review of the written

materials associated with the

environmental process, including the

transcripts of the Scoping and Public

Hearings and the comments received

from those who reviewed the Draft,

Final, and Supplemental Environmental

Impact Statements, I have decided to

proceed with the expansion of the POE.

The site will expand from

approximately 7 acres to 16 acres, part

of which is already owned by the U.S.

Government (approximately 9 acres

would be acquired prior to

construction). This ROD is in keeping

with the statutory mission of General

Services Administration to design,

build, or lease, appraise, repair, operate,

protect, and maintain federal properties.

My decision is based upon the following

factors:

The Pacific Highway POE is the

largest commercial truck crossing port

in Washington state, and is the U.S.

Customs headquarters for Western

Whatcom County, Washington and

ports. Serving a major arterial highway,

the POE also processes a significant

amount of auto traffic as well as a

majority of the state’s bus traffic.

Inspection agencies at the POE are

responsible for monitoring vehicular

and pedestrian traffic entering the U.S.

This entails the use of surveillance

equipment, inspection and detainment

facilities for vehicles and cargo, and

detention facilities for people.

The present facility in Blaine can no

longer efficiently nor effectively

accommodate the volume of traffic

encountered at this location, which has

increased steadily in recent years. From

1978 to 1992, auto crossings have

increased approximately 172 percent

and truck crossings have increased

approximately 252 percent. Between

1986 and 1991, the POE processed more

than 6.7 million cars, trucks and buses.

The flow of all traffic north and south

bound has been severely affected.

Furthermore, it is anticipated the

growth in border traffic volume would

continue, resulting from the 1989 Free

Trade Agreement and the North

America Free Trade Agreement

(NAFTA), between the U.S. and Canada.

Because of the POE’s location on a

major north-south trucking route, traffic

volumes that are processed directly

reflect the level of trade between the

two countries. Therefore, the continued

increase in trade is anticipated to result

in a concomitant increase in border

traffic especially truck traffic, in the

near future. In FY 1994, truck traffic

increased 10.4 percent according to U.S.

Customs. The inability of the POE to

process current traffic volumes is not

only related to the lack of capacity of

individual processing units, but also

because of an outdated site layout and

inadequate site size, both of which are

inadequate to ensure a safe and

expedient flow of traffic.

In addition to the increase in traffic

volume, the nature of transportation has

changed a substantial degree during the

past 20 years since the facility was

constructed. New transportation

technology that requires specific

dimensions and handling systems, as

well as automated cargo processing

systems have rendered the existing

facilities obsolete. The present 20-year

facility is inadequately equipped to

handle increasingly large loads of cargo

and livestock at one time both in terms

of space and processing equipment.

Finally, structural and utility

constraints of existing buildings do not

allow for full utilization of modern

office technology.

III. Alternatives Considered

The GSA has examined a range of

alternatives that could feasibly attain

the objectives of the proposed project.

These alternatives are described in the

Final EIS and Final Supplemental EIS

and are summarized as follows:

A. Site Configuration

As reflected in the Draft and Final

Environmental Impact Statements and

the Draft and Final Supplemental

Environmental Impact Statements, the

GSA has conducted an intensive effort

over a two-year period to study the best

way to expand the POE facility. Because

of the unique requirements of POE’s,

alternative sites on State route 543 have

not been considered. POE’s must, by

law, be located at treaty designated

locations set by the International

Boundary Commission. Federal

inspection facilities are by policy,

situated at these points in order to

perform their legal mission

requirements. Therefore, expansion of

the existing site was considered the only

feasible alternative. A number of

potential site configurations were

investigated, two of which were deemed

more desirable for expansion of the

POE: Alternative 3B and Alternative 5.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 1997 / Notices 1335

B. Take No Action

This alternative assumes the existing

facility would be maintained in its

current condition. Existing processing

capacities would become increasingly

more inadequate as the volume of

border traffic, particularly trucks,

continues to increase. Increased traffic

and processing delays would result in

queuing conditions at the POE and

possible also on State Route 543 north

of the POE and into Canada. The

absence of adequate facilities at Pacific

Highway and associated delays may

ultimately force truck traffic to utilize

smaller border crossings not located

along a major state highway. The

inefficiencies and disadvantages

associated with inadequate facilities

would be worsened if the Take No

Action Alternative were selected.

IV. Environmentally Preferred

Alternative

As required by the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), a

lead agency must identify its preferred

alternative. The environmentally

preferred alternative is the alternative

which best promotes the national

environmental policies incorporated in

NEPA. In general, this would be the

alternative resulting in the least damage

to the human environment and which

best protects natural and cultural

resources.

While Design Alternative 3B and 5 are

similar, Design Alternative 5, is

identified as GSA’s environmentally

preferred alternative. Design Alternative

5 would impact the least amount of

wetlands by shifting the development

focus on the western side of the site

farther south than Design Alternative

3B. Design Alternative 5 would also

include additional northbound truck

parking to the east of State Route 543 for

use by our client agencies.

V. Environmental Impacts and

Mitigation Measures

In terms of environmental harm, this

alternative would have only minor

impacts to: topography; soils;

hydrology; visual resources; fiscal

considerations; land use and zoning;

transportation; and noise. However,

moderate impacts would occur to

biological resources (wetlands). No

significant impacts were identified.

All practicable means to alleviate,

minimize and/or compensate

environmental harm will be considered

in the development of the project.

Although several mitigation measures

were recommended in the Draft EIS,

only those that can be implemented

under the authority of GSA were

adopted. For example, additional land is

to be purchased to minimize the loss of

wetlands. GSA shall monitor the

implementation of those adopted

mitigation measures necessary to assure

measures specified in the Draft and the

Record of Decision are carried out.

VI. Conclusion

Environmental and other relevant

concerns presented by interested

agencies and private citizens have been

addressed sufficiently in the Final

Environmental Impact Statement and

Final Supplemental Environmental

Impact Statement and are hereby

acknowledged and incorporated into

this ROD by reference. The General

Services Administration believes there

are no outstanding environmental issues

to be resolved with respect to the

proposed project and which are within

the mission capabilities of this agency.

After consulting with the GSA staff,

reviewing both the Final EIS and the

Final Supplemental EIS and all of its

related materials, it is my decision the

GSA will proceed with Design

Alternative 5 as the environmentally

preferred alternative for the expansion

of the Pacific Highway Port of Entry in

Blaine, Whatcom County, Washington.

Dated: December 23, 1996.

L. Jay Pearson,

Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–525 Filed 1–8–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6820–23–M

Office of Acquisition Policy; Change in

Solicitation Procedures Under the

Small Business Competitiveness

Demonstration Program

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: Title VII of the Business

Opportunity Development Reform Act

of 1988 (Public Law 100–656)

established the Small Business

Competitiveness Demonstration

Program and designated nine (9)

agencies, including GSA, to conduct the

program over a four (4) year period from

January 1, 1989 to December 31, 1992.

The Small Business Opportunity

Enhancement Act of 1992 (Public Law

102–366) extended the demonstration

program until September 1996 and

made certain changes in the procedures

for operation of the demonstration

program. The program has been

extended for an additional one-year

period by the Omnibus Consolidated

Appropriations Act (Public Law 104–

208). The law designated four (4)

industry groups for testing whether the

competitive capabilities of the specified

industry groups will enable them to

successfully compete on an unrestricted

basis. The four (4) industry groups are:

construction (except dredging);

architectural and engineering (A&E)

services (including surveying and

mapping); refuse systems and related

services (limited to trash/garbage

collection); and non-nuclear ship repair.

Under the program, when a

participating agency misses its small

business participation goal, restricted

competition is reinstituted only for

those contracting activities that failed to

attain the goal. The small business goal

is 40 percent of the total contract dollars

awarded for construction, trash/garbage

collection services, and non-nuclear

ship repair and 35 percent of the total

contract dollars awarded for architectengineer services. This notice

announces modifications to GSA’s

solicitation practices under the

demonstration program based on a

review of the agency’s performance

during the period from October 1, 1995

to September 30, 1996. Modifications to

solicitation practices are outlined in the

Supplementary Information section

below and apply to solicitations issued

on or after January 1, 1997.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 1, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom

Wisnowski, Office of GSA Acquisition

Policy, (202) 501–1224.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Procurements of construction or trash/

garbage collection with an estimated

value of $25,000 or less will be reserved

for emerging small business concerns in

accordance with the procedures

outlined in the interim policy directive

issued by the Office of Federal

Procedure Policy (58 FR 13513, March

11, 1993).

Procurements of construction or

trash/garbage collection with an

estimated value that exceeds $25,000 by

GSA contracting activities will be made

in accordance with the following

procedures:

Construction Services in Groups 15, 16,

and 17

Procurements for all construction

services (except solicitations issued by

GSA contracting activities in Regions 2,

7, and 8 in SIC Group 15, the National

Capital Region in individual SIC code

1794, and Regions 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 9

in individual SIC code 1796) shall be

conducted on an unrestricted basis.

Procurements for construction

services in SIC Group 15 issued by GSA

contracting activities in Regions 2, 7,

and 8, and individual SIC code 1794 in

the National Capital Region, and in

individual SIC code 1796 in Regions 2,

3, 5, 6, 7, and 9, shall be set aside for