29572 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 26, 2010 / Notices 

regulations of the Public Housing 

Operating Fund Program at 24 CFR part 

990, which was developed through 

negotiated rulemaking. Part 990 

provides a new formula for distributing 

operating subsidy to public housing 

agencies (PHAs) and establishes 

requirements for PHAs to convert to 

asset management. 

Subpart H of the part 990 regulations 

(§§ 990.255 to 990.290) establishes the 

requirements regarding asset 

management. Under § 990.260(a), PHAs 

that own and operate 250 or more 

dwelling rental units must operate using 

an asset management model consistent 

with the subpart H regulations. 

However, for calendar year 2008, that 

regulation is superseded by § 225 of 

Title II of Division K of the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2008, Public Law 

110–161 (approved December 26, 2007). 

Under that law, PHAs that own or 

operate 400 or fewer units may elect to 

transition to asset management, but they 

are not required to do so. 

The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 

2008, Public Law 110–161, also 

provided ‘‘ * * * $5,940,000 for 

competitive grants and contracts to third 

parties for the provision of technical 

assistance to public housing agencies 

related to the transition and 

implementation of asset-based 

management in public housing.’’ The 

contract now in effect will provide for 

web-based training, on-site seminars 

and on-site technical assistance to assist 

PHAs in implementing asset 

management. The Training Evaluation 

Form will be used by the Office of 

Public and Indian Housing to determine 

how the training and technical 

assistance can be improved to meet PHA 

needs. 

Agency form number, if applicable: 

Pending. 

Members of affected public: Public 

housing agencies. 

Estimation of the total number of 

hours needed to prepare the information 

collection including number of 

respondents: The estimated number of 

respondents is 29,288 annually with one 

response per respondent. The average 

number for each response is .033 hours, 

for a total reporting burden of 966 

hours. 

Status of the proposed information 

collection: New collection. 

Authority: Section 3506 of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 

U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. 

Dated: May 20, 2010. 

Merrie Nichols-Dixon, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, 

Programs, and Legislative Initiatives. 

[FR Doc. 2010–12705 Filed 5–25–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4210–67–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

[LLWO220000– 

L10200000.PH0000.00000000; OMB Control 

Number 1004–0019] 

Information Collection; Grazing 

Management 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 

Interior. 

ACTION: 30-day Notice and Request for 

Comments. 

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) has submitted an 

information collection request to the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for a 3-year extension of OMB 

Control Number 1004–0019 under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act. The 

respondents are individuals, 

households, farms and businesses 

interested in cooperating with the BLM 

in constructing or maintaining range 

improvement projects to aid in handling 

and caring for domestic livestock 

authorized by BLM to graze on public 

lands. 

DATES: The OMB is required to respond 

to this information collection request 

within 60 days but may respond after 30 

days. Therefore, written comments 

should be received on or before June 25, 

2010 in order to be assured of 

consideration. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

directly to the Desk Officer for the 

Department of the Interior (OMB #1004– 

0019), Office of Management and 

Budget, Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs, fax 202–395–5806, 

or by electronic mail at 

oira_docket@omb.eop.gov. Please mail a 

copy of your comments to: Bureau 

Information Collection Clearance Officer 

(WO–630), Department of the Interior, 

1849 C Street, NW., Mail Stop 401 LS, 

Washington, DC 20240. You may also 

send a copy of your comments by 

electronic mail to 

jean_sonneman@blm.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Richard Mayberry, Bureau of Land 

Management, Rangeland Resources 

Division, at (202) 912–7229. Persons 

who use a telecommunication device for 

the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) on 

1–800–877–8339, 24 hours a day, seven 

days a week, to contact Mr. Mayberry. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Title: Grazing Management (43 CFR 

4120). 

OMB Number: 1004–0019. 

Forms: 4120–6 (Cooperative Range 

Improvement Agreement), and 4120–7 

(Range Improvement Permit). 

Abstract: The Bureau of Land 

Management proposes to extend the 

currently approved collections of 

information, which enables the BLM to 

make decisions regarding proposed 

range improvement projects. 

60–Day Notice: On January 25, 2010, 

the BLM published a 60-day notice (75 

FR 3914) requesting comments on the 

proposed information collection. The 

comment period ended on March 26, 

2010. One comment was received. The 

comment did not address, and was not 

germane to, this information collection; 

rather, it was a general invective about 

the Department of the Interior, the BLM, 

and Washington politicians. Therefore, 

we have no response to the comment. 

Current Action: This proposal is being 

submitted to extend the expiration date 

of May 31, 2010. 

Type of Review: 3-year extension. 

Affected Public: Individuals, 

households, farms and businesses. 

Obligation to Respond: Required to 

obtain or retain benefits. 

Annual Responses: 1,216. 

Annual Burden Hours: 1,799. 

There is no filing fee associated with 

each of these information collections. 

The BLM requests comments on the 

following subjects: 

1. Whether the collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

functioning of the BLM, including 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; 

2. The accuracy of the BLM’s estimate 

of the burden of collecting the 

information, including the validity of 

the methodology and assumptions used; 

3. The quality, utility and clarity of 

the information to be collected; and 

4. How to minimize the information 

collection burden on those who are to 

respond, including the use of 

appropriate automated, electronic, 

mechanical, or other forms of 

information technology. 

Please send comments to the 

addresses listed under ADDRESSES. 

Please refer to OMB control number 

1004–0019 in your correspondence. 

Before including your address, phone 

number, e-mail address, or other 

personal identifying information in your 

comment, you should be aware that 

your entire comment—including your 

personal identifying information—may 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 26, 2010 / Notices 29573 

be made publicly available at any time. 

While you can ask us in your comment 

to withhold your personal identifying 

information from public review, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. 

Jean Sonneman, 

Acting Information Collection Clearance 

Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2010–12707 Filed 5–25–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–84–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

National Park Service 

Concession Contracts; Implementation 

of Alternate Valuation Formula for 

Leasehold Surrender Interest in the 

Signal Mountain Lodge and Leek’s 

Marina Proposed Concession 

Contract, Grand Teton National Park 

AGENCY: National Park Service; Interior. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The National Park Service 

(NPS), by notice in the Federal Register 

dated February 1, 2010, invited public 

comments on a proposed alternative 

formula for the valuation of leasehold 

surrender interest (LSI) pursuant to 

authority contained in Public Law 105– 

391 enacted in 1998 (the 1998 Act) to 

be included in its proposed concession 

contract GRTE003–11 for operation of 

the Signal Mountain Lodge and Leeks 

Marina at Grand Teton National Park 

(new contract). NPS invites further 

public comment in the proposed LSI 

alternative. 

DATES: Public comments will be 

accepted on or before June 25, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments to Ms. Jo 

Pendry, Chief, Commercial Services 

Program, National Park Service, 1201 

Eye Street, NW., 11th Floor, 

Washington, DC 20005, or via e-mail at 

jo_pendry@nps.gov or via fax at 202– 

371–2090. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jo 

Pendry, Chief Commercial Services 

Program, 202–513–7156. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public 

comments received in response to the 

February 1, 2010, Federal Register 

notice regarding the proposed LSI 

alternative expressed concerns, among 

other matters, that the notice did not 

contain a sufficient explanation of the 

relationship of the proposed LSI 

alternative to the objectives of providing 

a fair return to the government and 

fostering competition for the new 

contract. For this reason, NPS considers 

it appropriate to provide a further 

opportunity for public comment on the 

proposed LSI alternative. Although 

NPS, among other matters, is 

considering the possibility of changing 

the currently proposed LSI provisions of 

the new contract with respect to the 

treatment of fixtures for LSI purposes, 

the NPS will not make a final 

administrative decision in regard to the 

proposed LSI alternative until after full 

consideration of all public comments 

received in response to both this and the 

February 1, 2010, Federal Register 

notice. The submission date for 

proposals for the new contract has been 

extended to August 10, 2010, by notice 

in FedBizOpps (FedBizOpps.gov) under 

Solicitation No. GRTE003–11 published 

on April 29, 2010. 

The standard formula for LSI value for 

applicable improvements provided by a 

concessioner under a National Park 

Service concession contract as defined 

in 36 CFR Part 51 (‘‘standard LSI 

formula’’) is as follows: 

(1) The initial construction cost of the 

related capital improvement; 

(2) Adjusted by (increased or 

decreased) the same percentage increase 

or decrease as the percentage increase or 

decrease in the Consumer Price Index 

from the date the Director approves the 

substantial completion of the 

construction of the related capital 

improvement to the date of payment of 

the leasehold surrender interest value; 

(3) Less depreciation of the related 

capital improvement on the basis of its 

condition as of the date of termination 

or expiration of the applicable leasehold 

surrender interest concession contract, 

or, if applicable, the date on which a 

concessioner ceases to utilize a related 

capital improvement (e.g., where the 

related capital improvement is taken out 

of service by the Director pursuant to 

the terms of a concession contract). 

However, Section 405(a)(4) of Public 

Law 105–391 authorizes the inclusion of 

alternative LSI value formulas in 

concession contracts (such as the new 

contract) estimated to have an LSI value 

in excess of $10,000,000. Under this 

authority, the proposed LSI alternative 

is as follows: 

(1) Initial LSI Value. The reduction of 

the initial LSI value under the new 

contract on a monthly straight line 

depreciation basis applying a 40-year 

recovery period regardless of asset class. 

There is no adjustment of the initial LSI 

value as a result of the installation 

(including replacement) of fixtures in 

the related capital improvements during 

the term of the proposed contract; and 

(2) New LSI Value. The reduction of 

the LSI value in any new structures or 

major rehabilitations constructed during 

the term of the new contract to be based 

on straight line depreciation and also 

apply a 40-year recovery period (on a 

monthly basis) with no asset class 

distinctions. The construction cost of 

new capital improvements will include 

the costs of installed fixtures. Any 

installation (or replacement) of fixtures 

after the initial construction would not 

alter the established LSI value in the 

improvements. 

Section 405(a)(4) of the 1998 Act 

requires NPS, in certain circumstances, 

to determine that use of the LSI 

alternative, in comparison to the 

standard LSI formula, is necessary in 

order to provide a fair return to the 

government and to foster competition 

for the new contract by providing a 

reasonable opportunity for profit to the 

new concessioner. 

With regard to a fair return to the 

government, under the standard LSI 

formula the amount of money paid (by 

the government, directly or indirectly) 

for LSI as of the expiration of the new 

contract is inevitably speculative at the 

time of contract solicitation, contract 

award, and during the contract term. 

This is because the future rate of the 

Consumer Price Index (CPI), the amount 

of future physical depreciation that will 

occur, and the cost to cure such future 

physical depreciation, must all be 

estimated in advance of the new 

contract by both NPS and prospective 

concessioners. 

As a consequence, if the NPS were to 

establish the required minimum 

franchise fee for the new contract under 

the terms of the standard LSI formula, 

that minimum fee necessarily would 

incorporate speculative estimates of 

these factors. Likewise, if a prospective 

concessioner offered to meet or exceed 

the minimum franchise fee established 

by NPS under the standard LSI formula, 

its business decision would necessarily 

be made in reliance on speculative 

estimates of future CPI and future 

physical depreciation of LSI 

improvements. 

If the NPS depreciation and CPI 

assumptions made at the time of 

contract solicitation ultimately prove to 

be inaccurate, its minimum franchise 

fee will result in a less than fair return 

to the government. NPS therefore 

believes, subject to review of public 

comments, that the proposed LSI 

alternative, in comparison to the 

standard LSI formula, will better 

provide a fair return to the government 

under the new contract. 

NPS also believes (again, subject to 

review of public comments) that 

eliminating the speculative aspect of LSI 

value will help foster competition for 

the new contract by providing a 

reasonable opportunity to make a profit. 

This is because prospective 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1