Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 171 / Friday, September 3, 2010 / Notices 54179 

• Other Restrictions: Closed to fossil 

collection. 

The following ACECs were proposed 

in alternatives other than the Preferred 

Alternative: 

• Middle Snake ACEC for relevant 

and important botanical and fish values. 

• Sagebrush Sea ACEC for relevant 

and important botanical, cultural, fish, 

and wildlife values. 

• Salmon Falls ACEC for relevant and 

important botanical, fish, and scenic 

values 

In addition, ACECs in the preferred 

alternative may also appear in other 

alternatives with different acreages and 

management prescriptions. 

Please note that public comments and 

information submitted including names, 

street addresses, and e-mail addresses of 

persons who submit comments will be 

available for public review and 

disclosure at the above address during 

regular business hours (8 a.m. to 4 p.m.), 

Monday through Friday, except 

holidays. 

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 

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. 

Following the public comment 

period, public comments will be used to 

prepare the Proposed Jarbidge RMP and 

Final EIS. The BLM will respond to 

each substantive comment by making 

appropriate revisions to the document 

or by explaining why a comment did 

not warrant a change. A Notice of the 

Availability of the Proposed RMP/Final 

EIS will be posted in the Federal 

Register. 

Authority: 40 CFR 1506.6 and 1506.10; 43 

CFR 1610.2. 

Peter J. Ditton, 

Acting Idaho State Director, Bureau of Land 

Management. 

[FR Doc. 2010–21956 Filed 9–2–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–GG–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

National Park Service Concession 

Contracts; Implementation of 

Alternative Valuation Formula for 

Leasehold Surrender Interest Under 

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) 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). LSI, established in 1998 by 

the terms of Public Law 105–391 (1998 

Act), is the compensable interest in 

applicable real property improvements 

on park area lands made by a 

concessioner pursuant to the terms of a 

NPS concession contract. Additional 

public comment was sought by a May 

26, 2010, Federal Register notice. NPS, 

after consideration of the public 

comments received in response to both 

notices, has adopted a final LSI 

alternative for the new contract. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jo 

Pendry, Chief Commercial Services 

Program, 1201 Eye Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20005. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under 

Section 405(a)(3) of the 1998 Act, the 

standard formula for LSI value (standard 

LSI formula) for applicable capital 

improvements provided by a 

concessioner under a NPS concession 

contract is summarized as the initial 

construction cost of the related capital 

improvement, adjusted by the 

percentage increase or decrease in the 

Consumer Price Index (CPI) from the 

date of the approval of the substantial 

completion of the construction of the 

related capital improvement to the date 

of payment, less physical depreciation 

of the related capital improvement. 

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

1998 Act, starting in 2009, authorizes 

the inclusion of alternative LSI value 

formulas in NPS concession contracts 

estimated to have an LSI value in excess 

of $10,000,000 (such as the new 

contract). 

Under this authority, NPS, in the 

February 1, 2010, Federal Register 

notice, proposed an alternative LSI 

formula that in general called for the 

straight-line depreciation of LSI value 

on a 40-year basis. However, the 

alternative also provided that the 

installation (or replacement) of fixtures 

would not result in increased LSI value. 

Two public comments were received in 

response to this notice. 

By notice in the Federal Register 

dated May 26, 2010, NPS sought 

additional public comment on the 

proposal. Two comments were received 

in response to this notice. 

NPS, in consideration of the public 

comments made in response to both 

public notices, has re-examined the 

financial and other circumstances of the 

new contract and the proposed LSI 

alternative. This re-examination led to 

consideration and adoption of a final 

LSI alternative. The final LSI alternative 

continues the 40-year depreciation of 

the LSI value of eligible capital 

improvements but eliminates the 

exclusion of additional LSI value for 

new fixtures called for by the proposed 

LSI alternative. This change addresses a 

primary concern expressed by 

commenters, the elimination of LSI 

value in new fixtures. Under the final 

LSI alternative, the LSI value of all 

eligible capital improvements, including 

new fixtures, will be depreciated on a 

straight-line basis over a 40-year period. 

In addition, the monthly depreciation 

schedule called for by the proposed LSI 

alternative has been changed to an 

annual basis in the interest of 

simplicity. The final LSI alternative for 

the new contract is generally described 

as follows: 

(a) The reduction of the initial LSI 

value under the new contract on an 

annual straight-line depreciation basis 

applying a 40-year recovery period 

regardless of asset class. 

(b) The reduction of the leasehold 

surrender interest value in capital 

improvements (as defined in the new 

contract) constructed or installed during 

the term of the new contract based on 

straight line depreciation and also 

applying a 40-year recovery period (on 

an annual basis) with no asset class 

distinctions. 

Determinations 

NPS has determined, after review of 

the particular financial and other 

circumstances of the new contract and 

consideration of public comments, that 

use of the final 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. NPS also 

considers that the final LSI alternative is 

consistent with the objectives of the 

1998 Act, particularly, as discussed 

below, with respect to the fair return it 

will provide to the Government and the 

new concessioner and the enhanced 

competition for the new contract that it 

will foster. These determinations are 

required by the 1998 Act with respect to 

alternative LSI formulas that are not 

based on the depreciation rules of the 

Federal income tax laws and regulations 

that were in effect in 1998. Although 

this final LSI alternative is based on the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
54180 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 171 / Friday, September 3, 2010 / Notices 

Federal income tax laws and regulations 

that were in effect immediately before 

the enactment of the 1998 Act, NPS 

nonetheless made these determinations 

regarding the final LSI alternative as a 

good means to assess the relative merits 

of alternative methodologies. 

Fair Return to the Government. With 

regard to a fair return to the 

Government, NPS has determined that 

the final LSI alternative is necessary to 

provide a fair return to the Government 

(as well as helping to provide a fair 

return to the new concessioner) under 

the terms of the new contract. NPS 

considers that the ‘‘fair return’’ to the 

Government reflects in part the 

requirement of the 1998 Act that NPS 

include in concession contracts a 

franchise fee payable to the Government 

that is based upon consideration of the 

probable value to the concessioner of 

the privileges granted by the contract. 

However, under the standard LSI 

formula, the amount of money that 

would be 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 CPI rate, the amount 

of future physical depreciation that will 

occur over the term of the new contract, 

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 

reflect a speculative estimate of the 

amount of and cost to cure the physical 

depreciation that will occur during the 

contract term as well as speculative 

estimates of the annual CPI rate over the 

term of the new contract. Likewise, 

when a prospective concessioner offers 

to meet or exceed the minimum 

franchise fee established by NPS under 

the standard LSI formula, this business 

decision is necessarily made in reliance 

on speculative estimates of future CPI 

and future physical depreciation of LSI 

improvements. 

For a simplified example, assuming 

an initial LSI value of $10 million at 

contract commencement, NPS may 

estimate that the related capital 

improvements will depreciate 

physically 30 percent over the term of 

the contract whereas a prospective 

concessioner may estimate that the same 

capital improvements will depreciate 

only 10 percent during the term of the 

contract. If the NPS estimate proves to 

be correct, the LSI value at contract 

expiration will be reduced by 

30 percent, to $7 million (before CPI 

adjustment). If the concessioner’s 

estimate proves to be right, the 

depreciation reduction will only be $1 

million (before CPI adjustment). Such a 

difference in LSI value ($7 million v. 

$9 million) will have a severe impact on 

the respective returns to the 

Government and the concessioner. 

The likelihood of a significant 

difference in physical deprecation 

estimates is very high. In a number of 

negotiated settlements of possessory 

interest values (a possessory interest is 

a compensable interest in real property 

improvements similar to LSI) between 

NPS and incumbent concessioners (in 

which the existing physical 

depreciation of the related capital 

improvements were estimated by both 

parties), the NPS estimate of existing 

physical depreciation exceeded that of 

the concessioner by very significant 

percentages. In this regard, the parties to 

these negotiations were estimating the 

amount of existing depreciation, a far 

less problematic task than estimating 

the amount of future depreciation of 

capital improvements that is required 

for the standard LSI formula. 

The speculative nature of estimating 

LSI value under the standard LSI 

formula is also driven by its 

requirement that ending LSI value is 

subject to CPI adjustment. Future CPI, of 

course, may only be estimated. Further, 

the standard LSI formula requires the 

CPI adjustment to be made on the basis 

of the All Urban Consumers CPI. 

However, there is no assurance that the 

cost to cure depreciation at the 

expiration of the new contract will 

reflect the All Urban Consumers CPI. 

The inflation that may occur in the 

construction industry over the term of 

the new contract may be expected to 

differ significantly (higher or lower) 

from the All Urban Consumers CPI. 

In these circumstances, the NPS 

estimate of ending LSI value made at the 

time of contract solicitation, if proven 

after contract expiration to have been 

overstated, would have resulted in a less 

than fair return to the Government (as 

a result of an unduly low minimum 

franchise fee that was based on 

depreciation and CPI assumptions 

which proved to be inaccurate). 

For these reasons, NPS considers that 

the final LSI alternative is necessary to 

include in the new contract in order to 

provide a fair return to the Government 

under the new contract. 

Fostering Competition. Elimination of 

the speculative nature of LSI value by 

using the final LSI alternative is also 

considered necessary to foster 

competition for the new contract by 

providing a reasonable opportunity for 

the concessioner to make a profit under 

the new contract. This is because 

prospective concessioners will know 

with a high degree of certainty (subject 

only to estimates of the value of any 

new capital improvements constructed 

or installed during the term of the 

contract) how much money they will be 

paid for LSI upon the expiration of the 

new contract. The final LSI alternative 

greatly reduces the speculation 

regarding CPI and physical depreciation 

required for proposed contracts by the 

standard LSI formula. The resulting 

lower risk and greater certainty in the 

business opportunity provides a 

reasonable opportunity for profit under 

the terms of the new contract. It should 

also encourage the private sector to 

apply for the new contract, thereby 

fostering competition. 

NPS points out that the final LSI 

alternative for the new contract is 

projected to provide approximately the 

same rate of financial return for the new 

concessioner as would be provided 

under the standard LSI formula. This is 

because, in developing the minimum 

franchise fee for the new contract, NPS 

estimated that the proposed contract 

would provide the new concessioner 

with a reasonable opportunity to make 

a net profit in relation to capital 

invested and the obligations of the 

contract. This estimate took into 

consideration, among other matters, 

applicable industry rate of return 

expectations, the purchase price of the 

existing LSI improvements, and the 

expected LSI value that will be payable 

to the concessioner after contract 

expiration. If the standard LSI formula 

were utilized, the projected LSI value 

payment to the new concessioner would 

necessarily be considerably higher in 

order to avoid a windfall to the 

concessioner, resulting in a higher 

minimum franchise fee for the new 

contract. 

The lower LSI value payment upon 

contract expiration provided by the final 

LSI alternative (as opposed to the 

significantly higher value provided by 

the standard LSI formula) results in a 

lower minimum franchise fee during the 

term of the new contract in order to 

achieve the same approximate projected 

rate of return to the concessioner over 

the term of the new contract. Thus, the 

final LSI alternative results in increased 

cash flows to the concessioner during 

the entire term of the contract rather 

than a higher payment of LSI at the 

expiration of the contract under the 

standard LSI formula. It is likely that 

many prospective concessioners would 

consider the higher cash flows provided 

by the LSI alternative throughout the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 171 / Friday, September 3, 2010 / Notices 54181 

contract term to be to their business 

advantage. 

Fostering competition for concession 

contracts is a serious concern to NPS. 

Since the passage of the 1998 Act on 

November 22, 1998, four concession 

contract opportunities involving LSI in 

excess of $10 million have been 

solicited. NPS did not receive proposals 

under these solicitations from any entity 

that was not a current NPS 

concessioner. In fact, the last time NPS 

received a proposal from a non-current 

NPS concessioner for a concession 

contract with an LSI or possessory 

interest value (a right of compensation 

similar to LSI) in excess of $10 million 

was in 1992 (the Yosemite contract). 

Tellingly, the Yosemite contract 

provided for straight-line amortization 

of its required possessory interest 

investment in a manner very much like 

the final LSI alternative for the new 

contract. 

NPS considers that a major reason for 

this record is the generally required 

utilization of the standard LSI formula. 

The standard formula is unlike usual 

private sector transactions of a similar 

nature (in addition to containing the 

speculative depreciation and CPI 

elements discussed above). Private firms 

that are not familiar with the NPS 

concession program have indicated that 

the complexities and uncertainty 

associated with the standard LSI 

formula have deterred them from 

submitting offers for concession 

opportunities. The NPS believes use of 

the final LSI alternative in the new 

contract will foster competition for it by 

providing interested offerors with a 

reasonable opportunity for profit that, 

with respect to LSI, is assured, 

understandable and more comparable to 

practices in the private sector. 

The final LSI alternative will also 

enhance competition for the concession 

contract that will succeed the new 

contract. This is because the LSI value 

at the end of the new contract will be 

significantly lower than it would be 

under the standard LSI formula, thereby 

lowering the amount of LSI purchase 

money needed by a prospective new 

concessioner. This lower entry cost 

should encourage the submission of 

competitive proposals from prospective 

concessioners. 

Public Comments in Response to the 

February 1, 2010, Federal Register 

Notice. The two public comments that 

were received in response to the 

February 1, 2010, Federal Register 

notice overlapped each other to a large 

extent. The comments are summarized 

and responded to as follows: 

1. Comment: The proposed LSI 

alternative formula constitutes a 

‘‘taking.’’ The comment specifically 

bases this position on the fact that the 

alternative does not provide for a CPI 

increase in LSI value. 

Response: The proposed (or final) LSI 

alternative would not constitute a taking 

of property because of its lack of a CPI 

adjustment (or otherwise). The new 

contract will provide for compensation 

(LSI) for capital improvements to be 

determined by mutual agreement (or 

binding arbitration if agreement cannot 

be reached). NPS also notes that the 

amortization of value in real property 

improvements provided by the final LSI 

alternative is a customary provision of 

private sector commercial leases 

(which generally do not call for CPI 

adjustments). In addition, a number of 

NPS concession contracts involving 

possessory interest provided for 

straight-line amortization of possessory 

interest value without providing a CPI 

adjustment to the base value. Straightline depreciation of compensable 

interests in real property improvements 

is not a new concept in NPS concession 

contracts. 

2. Comment: NPS has not provided 

evidence that use of the proposed LSI 

alternative is necessary to provide a fair 

return to the Government and to foster 

competition for the new contract as 

required by the 1998 Act. 

Response: NPS determined that use of 

the proposed LSI alternative was 

necessary to provide a fair return to the 

Government and to foster competition 

for the new contract as discussed in the 

February 1, 2010, and May 26, 2010, 

Federal Register notices. See the 

discussion above of the final LSI 

alternative for further information 

regarding these determinations. 

3. Comment: Elimination of LSI for 

new and replaced fixtures under the 

proposed LSI alternative will have a 

chilling effect on the concessioner’s 

willingness to make investments in 

fixtures. 

Response: This issue is resolved by 

the final LSI alternative. In any event, 

NPS notes that the new contract 

requires the concessioner to maintain 

concession facilities to the satisfaction 

of NPS. More importantly, NPS 

anticipates that the evaluation process 

for proposals for the new contract will 

result in the selection of a new 

concessioner with a proven track record 

of meeting its contractual obligations, 

including the obligation to maintain 

concession facilities properly. 

4. Comment: Lower franchise fee 

revenue to NPS resulting from the 

proposed LSI alternative will make less 

money available for improvement of 

visitor infrastructure. 

Response: Use of the final LSI 

alternative results in a lower franchise 

fee for the proposed contract as 

discussed above. However, it also 

provides for a lower LSI value payment 

at the end of the contract. NPS considers 

that the lower ending LSI value 

payment provides financial and other 

benefits to the Government, including 

enhancement of its overall ability to 

make improvements to visitor 

infrastructure. In particular, the reduced 

LSI liability under the final LSI 

alternative provides greater flexibility to 

NPS in developing the terms of 

subsequent concession contracts, as the 

initial capital investment required of the 

new concessioner will be significantly 

lower. This lower required capital 

investment will make more 

concessioner funds available to 

undertake needed concessioner 

improvements and/or to provide higher 

franchise fees to NPS which would be 

available to make needed visitor 

improvements. 

5. Comment: The proposed LSI 

alternative fails to address the legal 

authority to continue LSI depreciation 

once LSI value falls below $10 million. 

Response: The 1998 Act authorizes 

use of an alternative LSI value formula 

with respect to proposed concession 

contracts that are estimated to have a 

leasehold surrender interest of more 

than $10 million. The proposed new 

contract has a leasehold surrender 

interest of more than $11 million. The 

1998 Act does not provide that an 

alternative LSI formula must be 

discontinued if its application results in 

an LSI value of less than $10 million 

during the term of the contract. 

6. Comment: Use of an alternative LSI 

formula is unfair to the incumbent 

concessioner because of circumstances 

relating to its 2005 negotiation of 

possessory interest value, and, in 

particular, the length of time between 

the date of the possessory interest value 

agreement and the issuance of the 

prospectus for the new contract. 

Response: NPS has fully considered 

this comment. However, although NPS 

appreciates why the circumstances of 

this matter, including the timeline of the 

prospectus development process, are of 

concern to the commenter, NPS 

considers that the actions of NPS 

regarding the negotiation and agreement 

of possessory interest value, the 

development of the new prospectus, and 

the use of an alternative LSI formula, 

were all in the public interest and 

consistent with applicable law and 

policy. 

7. Comment: The imposition of an 

alternative LSI formula to a specific 

class of concessions [contracts with LSI 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
54182 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 171 / Friday, September 3, 2010 / Notices 

value in excess of $10 million] will chill 

efforts to determine possessory interest 

and LSI values by mutual agreement of 

NPS and incumbent concessioners 

without costly, time consuming and 

otherwise undesirable arbitration. 

Response: Incumbent NPS 

concessioners are under no obligation to 

agree to a determination of the value of 

possessory interest during the term of 

their contracts. Many, however, have 

chosen to do so in furtherance of their 

own business interests. NPS does not 

consider that the possible use of an LSI 

alterative in a subsequent contract will 

deter most, if any, incumbent 

concessioners from negotiating 

possessory interest during the existing 

contract term. However, if a particular 

concessioner chooses not to negotiate 

possessory interest value prior to 

contract expiration, applicable terms of 

the existing contract would require the 

negotiation of possessory interest value 

between the new concessioner and the 

prior concessioner after award of the 

new contract. Arbitration between the 

new concessioner and the prior 

concessioner is a last resort that rarely 

occurs. Such an arbitration has occurred 

only once in the 12 years since the 

passage of the 1998 Act. 

8. Comment: The issuance of the 

prospectus by NPS prior to undertaking 

an informed scrutiny of the relevant 

circumstances based upon public 

comment is inconsistent with the 1998 

Act. 

Response: The February 1, 2010, 

Federal Register notice stated that, in 

the interest of time, NPS may issue a 

prospectus for the new contract that 

incorporates the proposed LSI 

alternative prior to receipt of comments 

on the notice. The notice also stated 

that, if consideration of public 

comments in response to the notice 

causes NPS to alter the proposed LSI 

alternative, it will amend the prospectus 

accordingly prior to the date for 

submission of proposals. This procedure 

is consistent with the requirements of 

the 1998 Act. After careful 

consideration of the public comments 

received in response to both the 

February 1, 2010, and May 26, 2010, 

Federal Register notices, NPS in fact 

has made appropriate modifications to 

the proposed LSI alternative and is 

amending the prospectus for the new 

contract accordingly. 

9. Comment: The NPS must address 

LSI for all concession contracts in a 

consistent manner. 

Response: The comment argues that if 

LSI value is speculative under the 

standard LSI formula, this must also be 

true with respect to contracts with less 

than $10 million of LSI value. 

Accordingly, the comment states that 

NPS should address LSI for all contracts 

in the same manner, regardless of LSI 

value. However, the magnitude of the 

LSI value is relevant to the impact of the 

speculative nature of LSI value under 

the standard LSI formula, as evidenced 

by the special authority provided by 

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

authority is not applicable to contracts 

with LSI value of less than $10 million. 

10. Comment: The proposed 

elimination of adjustments to the initial 

LSI value as a result of the installation 

of fixtures or replacement of fixtures 

during the contract term is unlawful. 

Response: The comment states that 

the elimination of LSI value in new 

fixtures under the proposed LSI 

alternative is in violation of 36 CFR Part 

51, which requires LSI value to be 

provided in fixtures installed during the 

term of a contract. This concern is made 

moot by the final LSI alternative. In any 

event, however, NPS considers that the 

LSI alternative as proposed was lawful 

in all respects under applicable 

provisions of the 1998 Act and 36 CFR 

Part 51. 

11. Comment: The proposed LSI 

alternative does not clearly address 

whether it includes a CPI adjustment. 

Response. The proposed LSI 

alternative did not provide for a CPI 

adjustment to LSI value; neither does 

the final LSI alternative. 

12. Comment: Withdraw the notice 

and amend the prospectus to utilize the 

standard LSI formula. If it does not 

choose to do so, NPS should initiate a 

public discussion of the issue and 

initiate formal notice and comment 

process (through a rule-making) to seek 

public comment on the general 

application of an alternative LSI 

formula. 

Response: NPS has fully considered 

the public comments reviewed in 

response to the February 1, 2010, and 

May 26, 2010, Federal Register notices 

and is proceeding to implement the 

final LSI alternative after scrutiny of the 

financial and other circumstances 

involved in the new contract, taking 

into account the public comments. 

Further public comment in response to 

a Federal Register notice is not 

considered to be necessary or in the 

public interest. 

NPS notes that the final LSI 

alternative (as with the proposed LSI 

alternative) is applicable only to the 

new contract. NPS has made no 

decision to apply the final LSI 

alternative (or any other LSI alternative) 

to future concession contracts. If the 

same or other alternative LSI formulas 

are considered for utilization in 

subsequent concession contracts 

pursuant to the 1998 Act, opportunities 

for public comment will be provided as 

required. A rule-making is not required 

or in the public interest. 

Public Comments in Response to the 

May 26, 2010, Federal Register Notice. 

Two public comments were received in 

response to the May 26, 2010, public 

notice. They are summarized and 

responded to as follows. 

1. Comment: A commenter reiterated 

its objections to use of an alternative LSI 

formula as being unfair to the 

incumbent concessioner as expressed in 

response to the initial Federal Register 

notice. In addition, it suggested that, if 

NPS still intends to include an LSI 

alternative formula in the new 

concession contract, the reduction in 

LSI value under the formula should end 

at such point during the term of the new 

contract as the reduced LSI value falls 

below $10 million. The comment 

suggests that this approach would 

achieve the NPS objective of providing 

certainty as to the amount of LSI a 

prospective new concessioner would be 

entitled to under the terms of the new 

contract and would help eliminate the 

concern, as previously expressed by the 

commenter, that use of the proposed 

alternative LSI formula would 

discourage incumbent concessioners 

from agreeing to the determination of 

possessory interest and LSI values. 

Response: NPS has given due 

consideration to this suggestion. 

However, NPS does not consider that its 

adoption would be in the public interest 

or consistent with the purposes of the 

1998 Act for two primary reasons. These 

reasons outweigh any benefits that may 

result from the higher ending LSI value 

as suggested by the commenter. 

First, a lower LSI ending value 

provides greater flexibility to NPS in 

developing the terms of subsequent 

concession contracts, as the initial 

capital investment required of the new 

concessioner will be significantly lower. 

This lower required capital investment 

will make more concessioner funds 

available to undertake needed 

concessioner operational and capital 

investment priorities, including 

necessary actions for protection of park 

area resources and the general 

environment. NPS notes in this regard 

that an objective of the 1998 Act is to 

provide accommodations, facilities and 

services that are consistent to the 

highest degree practicable with the 

preservation and conservation of the 

resources and values of the applicable 

park area. 

Secondly, the final LSI alternative 

should result in increased competition 

for the future concession contract that 

will be awarded upon expiration of the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 171 / Friday, September 3, 2010 / Notices 54183 

new contract. Prospective new 

concessioners for this contract will be 

required to pay the previous 

concessioner its ending LSI value. 

Accordingly, the significantly lower 

ending LSI value under the final LSI 

alternative, in contrast to the 

significantly higher ending LSI value as 

proposed by the commenter, lowers the 

entry cost to prospective new 

concessioners and thereby encourages 

the submission of competitive proposals 

in future solicitations. 

2. Comment: A concerned citizen 

commented to the effect that the new 

contract should not be trusted and that 

Government contracts should be shut 

down because they always prove 

detrimental to the public. 

Response: NPS considers the new 

contract to be in the public interest and 

in furtherance of the NPS mission to 

preserve and protect areas of the 

national park system while making 

them available for public enjoyment. 

Public Availability of Further 

Information 

Complete details and further 

explanation of the final LSI alternative 

are publically available at http:// 

www.nps.gov/commercialservices/. NPS 

will amend the prospectus by public 

notice in FedBizOpp.gov in order to 

implement the final LSI alternative. 

This Federal Register notice regarding 

the LSI alternative, although not 

required, was issued in order to provide 

the public a complete understanding of 

the NPS alternative LSI authority 

(exercised for the first time in this 

transaction). 

Daniel N. Wenk, 

Deputy Director, Operations. 

[FR Doc. 2010–22127 Filed 9–2–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4312–53–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

[LLIDI01000–10–L12200000.AL0000] 

Notice of Temporary Closure for Lands 

West of North Menan Butte, Idaho 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management; 

Idaho Falls District, Upper Snake Field 

Office, Idaho. 

ACTION: Temporary closure. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that a 

temporary closure will apply to 

approximately 1,800 acres of public 

lands administered by the Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM) Upper Snake 

Field Office, Idaho. This same area has 

been closed to target shooting and fullsize vehicles for the past 3 years to 

prevent illegal dumping and littering, 

including hazardous materials. This 

closure will be in effect for 24 months, 

to allow completion of a resource 

management plan (RMP), which will 

provide permanent management 

direction for the area. During the 

temporary closure, the 1,800 acres will 

continue to be open to human entry by 

foot and by horse. Off-road vehicles are 

allowed entry but will be required to 

stay on developed roads and trails. Any 

person who fails to comply with a 

closure or restriction order issued under 

this authority may be subject to the 

penalties described in 43 CFR 

8360.0–7. 

DATES: This temporary closure will be 

effective on the date this notice is 

published in the Federal Register and 

will remain in effect for 24 months from 

the date of publication or until 

rescinded or modified by the authorized 

officer or designated Federal officer. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The 

Upper Snake Field Office, 1405 

Hollipark Drive, Idaho Falls, Idaho 

83401 or call (208) 524–7500. By mail: 

Field Manager, Upper Snake Field 

Office, Bureau of Land Management, 

1405 Hollipark Drive, Idaho Falls, Idaho 

83401. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Annually, 

the BLM buries or removes between 20 

and 50 dumped dead animals and 

approximately 10 tons of solid waste 

from public lands near North Menan 

Butte, a National Natural Landmark and 

an Area of Critical Environmental 

Concern. The waste originates when the 

public brings propane tanks, hot water 

heaters, computers, televisions, 

washers, dryers, car batteries, paint 

cans, and other waste objects and leaves 

them on the public lands. Target 

shooters shoot at this waste, leaving 

shell casings littering the landscape. 

This area is now a health and safety 

hazard due to the dumping, shooting, 

and the potential for disease 

transmission from uncovered dead 

animal carcasses. This waste has also 

included hazardous materials in recent 

years. During the temporary closure, the 

1,800 acres will continue to be open to 

human entry by foot and by horse. Offroad vehicles are allowed entry but will 

be required to stay on developed roads 

and trails. 

The following public lands are 

included in the closure: 

Boise Meridian, Idaho 

T. 6 N., R. 38 E., 

Section 27 (all) in Madison County, 

Sections 28 (parts) in Jefferson County, and 

T. 5 N., R. 38 E., 

Sections 4 (all) and 5 (parts) in Jefferson 

County. 

Sections 28 (parts) in Jefferson County, and 

T. 5 N., R. 38 E., 

Sections 4 (all) and 5 (parts) in Jefferson 

County. 

Signs will be placed on the highway 

and at the site explaining the road and 

target shooting closures. Fences and 

road barriers will be maintained that 

allow for continued access by offhighway vehicles, motorcycles, 

equestrian use, and foot traffic in the 

southern portion. The closure order and 

related map will also be posted at the 

Upper Snake River Field Office, 1405 

Hollipark Drive, Idaho Falls, Idaho 

83401, and can also be viewed online at: 

http://www.blm.gov/id/st/en/fo/ 

upper_snake.html. This closure is 

established and administered by the 

BLM under the authority of 43 CFR 

8360, and complies with 43 CFR 8364.1 

(Closures and Restrictions). 

Exemptions: Persons who are exempt 

from this restriction include any 

Federal, State or local officer or 

employee acting within the scope of 

their duties; members of any organized 

rescue or fire-fighting force in the 

performance of an official duty; and any 

person holding written authorization 

from the BLM. 

Penalties: Under Section 303(a) of the 

Federal Land Policy and Management 

Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1733(a)) and 43 

CFR 8360.0–7, any person who fails to 

comply with this closure may be tried 

before a United States Magistrate and 

fined up to $1,000 or imprisoned for no 

more than 12 months. Violators may 

also be subject to the enhanced fines 

provided for in 18 U.S.C. 3571. 

Wendy Reynolds, 

Field Manager, Upper Snake Field Office, 

Bureau of Land Management. 

[FR Doc. 2010–22079 Filed 9–2–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–GG–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms 

and Explosives 

[OMB Number 1140—NEW] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Proposed Collection; 

Comments Requested 

ACTION: 60-Day Notice of Information 

Collection Under Review: ATF Adjunct 

Instructor Data Form. 

The Department of Justice (DOJ), 

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms 

and Explosives (ATF), will be 

submitting the following information 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES