Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 22, 1995 / Notices 9855

successfully improved and enhanced

substance abuse treatment services for

individuals receiving care through the

publicly funded treatment system in

Philadelphia.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTRACT:

Randolph Muck, Acting Chief, Systems

Improvement Branch CSAT/SAMHSA,

Rockwall II, Room 618, 5600 Fishers

Lane, Rockville, MD. 20857. Telephone:

(301) 443–8802.

Dated: February 16, 1995.

Richard Kopanda,

Acting Executive Officer, SAMHSA.

[FR Doc. 95–4322 Filed 2–21–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4162–20–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

Finding of No Significant Impact for an

Incidental Take Permit for the

Proposed Canyon Ridge, Phase A,

Section 3 Development, Austin, Travis

County, TX

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service (Service) has prepared an

Environmental Assessment/Habitat

Conservation Plan for issuance of a

section 10(a)(1)(B) permit amendment

for the incidental take of the Federally

endangered golden-cheeked warbler

(Dendroica chrysoparia) during the

construction and operation of a

residential development in northwest

Travis County, Texas.

Proposed Action

The proposed action is the issuance of

a permit amendment under Section

10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species

Act to authorize the incidental take of

the golden-cheeked warbler during

construction and operation of the

Canyon Ridge development on the 24-

acre site.

The Applicant plans to construct

single-family and multi-family

residences in northwest Travis County,

Texas. The proposed development will

comply with all local, State, and Federal

environmental regulations addressing

environmental impacts associated with

this type of development. Details of the

mitigation are provided in the Canyon

Ridge, Phase A, Section 3

Environmental Assessment/Habitat

Conservation Plan. Guarantees for

implementation are provided in the

Implementing Agreement. These

conservation plan actions ensure that

the criteria established for issuance of

an incidental take permit amendment

will be fully satisfied.

Alternatives Considered

1. No action,

2. Proposed action,

3. Alternate site location,

4. Alternate site design,

5. Wait for issuance of a regional

Section 10(a)(1)(B) permit.

Based upon information contained in

the Environmental Assessment/Habitat

Conservation Plan, the Service has

determined that this action is not a

major Federal action which would

significantly affect the quality of the

human environment within the meaning

of Section 102(2)(c) of the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

Accordingly, the preparation of an

Environmental Impact Statement on the

proposed action is not warranted.

It is my decision to issue the section

10(a)(1)(B) permit amendment for the

construction and operation of the

Canyon Ridge, Phase A, Section 3

development in northwest Travis

County, Texas.

John G. Rogers,

Regional Director, Region 2, Albuquerque,

New Mexico.

[FR Doc. 95–4299 Filed 2–21–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–M

National Park Service

Notice of Publication of Final Sample

Prospectus and Related Guidelines

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.

SUMMARY: The National Park Service

published notice to rescind Chapter 6, 7,

8 and 11 of NPS–48 (‘‘The Concessions

Guidelines’’) Thursday, March 17, 1994

requesting comments at that time on the

replacement document ‘‘Sample

Prospectus and Related Guidelines.’’

The document includes among other

matters, a sample prospectus for

solicitation of offers for National Park

Service concessions contracts and

permits, related evaluation guidelines

and application information and

criteria.

As an internal staff manual, notice of

the Sample Prospectus and Related

Guidelines is not required to be

published in the Federal Register nor

was public comment required yet to

assure that the view of all interested

parties were considered, the National

Park Service sought public comment on

its Sample Prospectus and Related

Guidelines document and considered all

comments received and amend the

document if it is so warranted. The 60-

day comment period has expired, and

the public interest would not be served

in further delay of the effective date of

this document.

General Comments

Only two entities responded to the

publication of the notice with

comments.

One commenter suggested that we

withdraw this proposal until the Senate

and House Finalize new legislation on

Concession Management in the Parks.

The public would not be served to

consider this alternative as there exists

a large backlog of NPS concession

contract renewals which are necessary

to complete to allow the commencement

of major renovation and construction

programs in areas of the nation park

system, including improvements

necessary to protect the health and

safety of park visitors and NPS and

concessioner employees. In addition,

many concessioners are now operating

under the terms of expired contracts and

are accordingly, in need of contract

renewal actions as soon as possible to

permit business planning, actions and

investments which require the existence

of a new contract for implementation. It

is also noted that the Sample Prospectus

and Related Guidelines document is

intended to provide guidance to NPS

personnel concerning possible means to

implement new policies and procedures

adopted in the new NPS concession

contracting regulations and new

standard language concession contract,

both of which were adopted after

extensive public comment periods and

consideration by NPS of all comments

received.

This commenter discussed some

issues that relate to NPS concession

contracting regulations which were

amended by NPS in furtherance of the

objective of the Secretary’s concession

reform initiative. These issues,

Possessory Interest, Compensation,

Government Improvement and Capital

Improvement accounts * * *are not

further discussed here as they were the

subject of extensive public comment in

the adoption of the amended regulations

and standard contract language. The

amended regulations were published in

final in the Federal Register on

September 3, 1992 (57 FR 40496) and

the Final revision of the Standard

Contract Language was published in the

Federal Register on January 7, 1993 (58

FR 43140).

This commenter cautioned that in the

preparation of the Prospectus there are

two items listed for the Appendix which

related to existing possessory interest

and suggest that care be taken to be sure

that the incumbent be aware of the

value established by the present law.

They propose that values supplied by
9856 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 22, 1995 / Notices

the incumbent concessioner would

reflect a more accurate assessment of the

compensation required, rather than the

use of an outside consultant or NPS

estimate of this value. NPS

acknowledges that the incumbent is

entitled to compensation as outlined in

a previous contract but that the terms of

that contract allow for negotiation

between parties, and should they be

unable to reach a compromise, an

arbitration process for the final

determination of that compensable

value as purchased by a new offeror.

The commenter expresses concern on

the arbitration process utilized to

resolve these disputes and states that an

incumbent concessioner should not be

expected to relinquish his or her rights

to legal adjudication of the issue

through the courts should it become

necessary. NPS does not recognize this

as a valid issue in this process as the

procedure to settle these issues will not

vary from established practice with the

enforcement of the final regulations or

standard contract language utilized

herein.

The commenter acknowledged that

the Concessions Management section of

the prospectus had some excellent

statements but that the ‘‘partnership’’

between NPS and the concessioner

needs to be emphasized. They later note

that this is emphasized in the contract

language. NPS in designing the package

took careful steps to avoid repetition in

placing information in the prospectus

and the contract as they are part of a

complete presentation. The proposed

contract is included in the package to

illustrate the importance of all contract

requirements.

Recent changes in the Utilities

program as it relates to capital

investments were commended.

Concern was expressed regarding the

requirement that all concessioners

comply with federal, state and local

laws. NPS has made this a requirement

of all contracts since the labor

legislation was enacted. They described

the problems recently encountered with

the Department of Labor in a case in

Nevada involving operations that fall

under the Fair Labor Standards Act and

the Contract Wage and Hours Standards

Act. The Department of Labor has been

asked to address this problem but as of

yet, they have not issued a decision.

This is a non-issue as it relates to this

process.

Financial programs and practices

were discussed as they relate to the law

governing the concessions management

program. They state that the NPS

statement regarding Fair Return for the

Operator appears misunderstood and

misapplied. On Page 13 of the

prospectus, it states that ‘‘it is the

responsibility of the offeror to assure

itself that the terms of its offer provide

it a reasonable opportunity for profit’’.

The commenter states that while they

understand that the concessioner

ultimately determines by his business

practices whether he will realize a

profit, the whole intent of the statement

in the law is that NPS should realize

that its policies could prevent that profit

from being realized if they were onerous

and confiscatory. NPS makes this

statement in the Prospectus to caution

the offeror that the terms of an offer

being presented must be realistic and

achievable allowing a reasonable

opportunity for profit. Other devises in

the contract such as amendments,

franchise fee reviews and arbitrations

allow for adjustments necessitated

through economic changes, policy

review and revision.

A comment was made on the section

entitled ‘‘The Park Area and Its

Mission’’ regarding the planning

documents and maintenance and

operating plans for the park that are

applicable. They note that plans are

only as good as the commitment of

those involved to carry out its terms and

that no plans can be successful relating

to the concession and operations and

visitor services unless they involve the

concessioner for meaningful input at the

time of formulation. It is the standard

practice of NPS to involve consultants

versed in the type of operation proposed

during the planning process. As the

practice of awarding the contract for the

operation of these facilities is a

competitive process, completed at a

future date, the actual concessioner

cannot be involved in this pre-planning

as the contract has not been executed.

It is important that the planning,

maintenance and operation documents

be included in the prospectus so that an

offeror can make an informed offer,

taking the long and short term

requirements into consideration.

The commenter discussed the need

for flexibility in the term of the contract;

Government Improvement and Capital

Improvement accounts; Compensation

and Possessory interest. These were

issues for comment during the review of

the Standard Contract Language and

Final Rule for Concession Operations.

These comments do not apply to this

process.

The proposed application was

questioned as it related to the

alternatives presented for concessioner

entitlement to present contract language

on the Preference of renewal. NPS

included the alternatives as a guide for

future use of this sample. The issue of

contract language change was addressed

during the review period of that subject

and does not apply to this process.

The commenter states that the

proposed Application seems

inconsistent with the statement that the

financial contributions are secondary

selection factors, when in fact,

additional weight in the scoring process

is clearly outlined here for more

generous contributions to both the

Government and Capital Improvement

Accounts and the amount paid in

Franchise Fees. They question that if the

factors are secondary, why should they

be given additional weight? NPS in

considering an offer, requires that all the

primary factors are met before the

secondary factors are considered. In this

way, should all offerors satisfy the

requirements of the primary factors,

there can be a means of determining a

better offer by utilizing the secondary

factors.

A second commenter expressed

concern in regards to removing the

possibility of incorporating a

numerically-weighted system into the

proposed evaluation process. NPS feels

that a numerically-weighted system

would not allow the flexibility required

to deal with the diverse operations it

manages. Due to the diversity of the

operations, specifically stated criteria

are designed for each application that

address the unique needs of the park

and visitor. A numerically-weighted

system must be standardized to be

effective, and the diversity of the

operations for which concessioners are

solicited could not be handled in this

manner. The narrative system presents

in clear and concise language the exact

reasons that the panel would choose one

offeror over another. There is no

guarantee with a numerically-weighted

system to insure that the offer being

presented is the best overall offer.

Should there become a need to present

the reasons for selection at a later time,

the justification for a decision based on

a numerically-weighted system is not

easily presented.

The Sample Prospectus and Related

Guidelines document is intended to be

only a sample document. It is not meant

to be a document which must be used

as written in every instance. It is to be

modified as appropriate to fit the needs

of individual situations. Further, this

document is expected to be modified

and refined over time as experience

indicates that changes are needed and to

meet the changing needs of the

concession contracting program.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 22, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert Yearout, Chief, Concessions

Division, National Park Service,
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 22, 1995 / Notices 9857

Washington, D.C. 20013–7127.

Telephone: (202) 343–3784.

Dated: February 3, 1995.

Maureen Finnerty,

Associate Director, Operations.

[FR Doc. 95–3676 Filed 2–21–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–70–M

Jacob Riis Park, Gateway National

Recreation Area, NY; Concession

Contract Negotiations

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.

ACTION: Public notice.

SUMMARY: Public notice is hereby given

that the National Park Service proposes

to award a concession contract

authorizing continued operation of

visitor parking facilities and services for

the public at Jacob Riis Park, Gateway

National Recreation Area, New York for

a period of five (5) years from January

1, 1995, through December 31, 1999.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 24, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Interested parties should

contact the Regional Director, National

Park Service, North Atlantic Region,

Attention: Division of Concessions

Program Management, 15 State Street,

Boston, MA 02109–3572, telephone

(617) 223–5209, to obtain a copy of the

prospectus describing the requirements

of the proposed contract.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

contract renewal 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 permit which expired by

limitation of time on September 30,

1990. However, notwithstanding the

provisions of Section 5 of the Act of

October 9, 1965 (79 Stat. 969; 16 U.S.C.

§ 20), the concessioner has relinquished

and waived its right of preference in the

renewal or extension of this permit. The

contract will be awarded to the party

submitting 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

Regional Director not later than the

sixtieth (60th) day following publication

of this notice to be considered and

evaluated.

Chrysandra L. Walter,

Deputy Regional Director.

[FR Doc. 95–4318 Filed 2–21–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–70–M

Indian Memorial Advisory Committee

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of Meeting of Subcommittee on Design Competition

Package.

SUMMARY: This notice announces an

upcoming meeting of the Indian

Memorial Advisory Sub-Committee

producing the Design Competition

Package. Notice of this meeting is

required under the Federal Advisory

Committee Act (Public Law 92–463).

Meeting Date and Time: Thursday, March

2, 1995, 1:30–5:00 p.m.; and Friday, March

3, 1995, 8:00–12:00 a.m., and 1:30–5:00 p.m.

Address: American Institute of Architects

(AIA), Denver Chapter Office, 1526 15th

Street, Denver, Colorado 80202: (303) 446–

2266.

The Agenda of This Meeting Will Be:

Continue work begun by the Indian Memorial

Advisory Committee and the National Park

Service Support Team to produce a package

that establishes the structure, rules, processes

that will guide an upcoming national design

competition for the creation of a memorial to

the Indian participants in the 1876 conflict

at Little Bighorn Battlefield National

Monument, located at Crow Agency,

Montana. This meeting will incorporate help

from a select group of four architects under

the sponsorship of the AIA. The architects

will provide professional insight into

formulating and managing design

competitions and will help steer the final

decisions of the sub-committee. The

components of the meeting will consist of a

review of project progress to date and

discussion/decisions about; competition

staging; advertising and promotional

strategies; applicant registration, rules, and

fees; design competition language; design

criteria; base data needs and format;

evaluation criteria; jury composition and

scoring/selection alternatives; stipends for

finalists; awards and commendations

(amounts and categories); competition and

design development schedule; and

transforming the final design into a finished

product.

Supplementary Information: The Advisory

Committee was established under Title II of

the Act of December 10, 1991, for the

purpose of advising the Secretary on the site

selection for a memorial in honor and

recognition of the Indians who fought to

preserve their land and culture at the Battle

of Little Bighorn, on the conduct of a national

design competition for the memorial, and

‘‘. . . to ensure that the memorial designed

and constructed as provided in section 203

shall be appropriate to the monument, its

resources and landscape, sensitive to the

history being portrayed and artistically

commendable.’’

For Further Information Contact: Ms.

Barbara A. Booher, Indian Affairs

Coordinator and Indian Advisory Committee

Liaison, National Park Service, Rocky

Mountain Regional Office, 12795 W.

Alameda Parkway, P.O. Box 25287, Denver,

Colorado 80225–0287, (303) 969–2511.

Dated: February 9, 1995.

Gerard Baker,

Superintendent, Little Bighorn Battlefield

National Monument Designated Federal

Official, National Park Service.

[FR Doc. 95–4317 Filed 2–21–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–70–M

National Register of Historic Places;

Notification of Pending Nominations

Nominations for the following

properties being considered for listing

in the National Register were received

by the National Park Service before

February 11, 1995. Pursuant to section

60.13 of 36 CFR Part 60 written

comments concerning the significance

of these properties under the National

Register criteria for evaluation may be

forwarded to the National Register,

National Park Service, P.O. Box 37127,

Washington, DC 20013–7127. Written

comments should be submitted by

March 9, 1995.

Carold D. Shull,

Chief of Registration, National Register.

GEORGIA

Bibb County

Macon Historic District (Boundary Increase),

Roughly, Adams St. and Linden Ave. S. W

and N of Tattnall Sq. and Broadway and

Third Sts. between Poplar and Pine Sts.,

Macon. 95000233

Macon Historic District (Boundary Decrease),

Roughly bounded by College Pl., Calhoun

and Elm and the CG RR tracks and Monroe,

Jefferson, College and Hardeman. Macon,

95000234

MAINE

Cumberland County

Fitch’s General Store and House, Long Hill

Rd., E side, at jct. with ME 114, East

Sebago, 95000215

Oxford County

Philbrook, Samuel D., House, 162 Main St.,

Bethel, 95000216

Piscataquis County

Slate House, 123 Church St., Brownville,

95000217

Waldo County

Pendleton, James G., House, 81 W. Main St.,

Searsport, 95000218

NEW JERSEY

Passaic County

Paterson City Hall, 155 Market St., Paterson,

95000232

NEW YORK

Greene County

Van Vechten, John, House, Susquehanna

Tpk. (Co. Rd. 23B), Leeds, 95000212

Orange County