FR 2025-01206

The recently issued final rule by the National Park Service (NPS) under the Visitor Experience Improvements Authority (VEIA) aims to enhance visitor services in National Park System units. This rule broadens the spectrum of contracting models the NPS can use, focusing on improving facilities like lodging, food services, and recreational activities through management and percentage lease agreements. The rule emphasizes providing flexibility in contracting, intending to attract more businesses to improve visitor experiences while ensuring park resources' preservation.

General Summary

The rule grants the NPS the authority to solicit, award, and manage commercial services contracts using innovative contracting models to provide enhanced visitor services. The final rule delineates the criteria for awarding these contracts, introduces flexibility in solicitation and selection processes, and clarifies the types of commercial services not covered under this authority. These changes result from the National Park Service Centennial Act, which aims to modernize and expand services for park visitors.

Significant Issues and Concerns

Despite the advantages presented by the VEIA, some notable concerns arise. A primary issue is the risk of misuse of Federal funds when transferred to private bank accounts of operators, which may lead to fraud or abuse. Additionally, the rule lacks specific guidance on how capital improvements will be funded under these contracts, potentially leading to inconsistency across various park units. The terminology used between "commercial services contracts" and "concession contracts" could also confuse stakeholders due to potential overlap. Furthermore, the rule does not specify fund allocations for collected revenues, which might result in uneven handling across different parks. The absence of detailed guidelines for the solicitation and negotiation process may create uncertainty for businesses interested in bidding, particularly small or inexperienced companies.

Broad Public Impact

The rule is likely to affect a wide range of stakeholders. By potentially increasing the quality and variety of visitor services available in national parks, the public may benefit from a richer park visiting experience. However, concerns about the possible misuse of funds and lack of clarity in processes might affect public trust in how the NPS manages visitor services and finances.

Impact on Specific Stakeholders

Positive Impacts:

• Businesses: The rule invites broader participation from the private sector, opening new opportunities for businesses to engage with national parks, thereby potentially fostering innovation and competition in visitor service offerings.

• Visitors: With enhanced services, visitors may experience better amenities and possibly more enjoyable park visits. The initiative aligns with modern expectations of facilities, such as access to Wi-Fi and eco-friendly amenities.

Negative Impacts:

• Small and Inexperienced Businesses: These entities might face challenges due to the complex language and lack of detailed procedural guidance in the rule, which could hinder their participation compared to larger, more experienced competitors.

• Existing Concessioners: There might be concerns about how the new contract models will interact with existing contracts, especially if VEIA models appear more financially advantageous, potentially affecting existing relationships and contract renewals.

In conclusion, while the VEIA offers a pathway to modernize and enhance visitor experiences within the national park system, it also introduces challenges that need careful consideration. Addressing these concerns can ensure that improvements not only align with visitor aspirations but also uphold stewardship principles critical to preserving America's national park heritage.

The document outlines financial aspects associated with the implementation of the Visitor Experience Improvements Authority (VEIA) as detailed by the National Park Service (NPS). Several monetary figures and financial processes are mentioned throughout the document, highlighting the financial implications of the new rule.

Summary of Spending and Revenues:

The NPS concession contracts generate approximately $1.8 billion per year in gross receipts. These concession operations yield about $180 million in franchise fees returned to the NPS. These numbers reflect the significant scale of commercial operations within the National Park System and the essential role these revenues play in supporting park services.

Financial Impact of the Rule:

The rule emphasizes that it will not have an annual effect on the economy exceeding $100 million, will not significantly increase costs or prices for a range of stakeholders, and will not adversely affect competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the competitive ability of U.S.-based enterprises. This indicates that while the rule might bring changes to how services are managed and contracted, it is designed to be financially neutral in large economic terms.

Moreover, the rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on various government levels or the private sector that would cost over $100 million per year. This suggests that the financial implications—while notable—are aligned with existing budgetary capacities of the involved parties and do not impose unexpected financial burdens.

Nonhour Burden Costs:

The rule estimates total annual nonhour burden costs at $112,900, inclusive of costs related to solicitations, start-up activities, and recordkeeping requirements. These costs likely represent operational expenses required to transition to new contracting models or to comply with the administrative demands of the rule.

Relation to Identified Issues:

There are several key concerns linked to the financial references:

1. Transfer of Funds to Private Entities: The rules around transferring funds to operators include risks of fraud, waste, and abuse, given the potential for misuse once funds enter private bank accounts. This concern ties back to the lack of specificity in how financial accountability will be ensured when federal funds are involved.

2. Unspecified Capital Improvement Funding: The lack of explicit directions on funding capital improvements under commercial services contracts can lead to inconsistencies. This might affect how funds within the revolving fund are managed and how operators are reimbursed for improvements, potentially impacting the effective use of these funds.

3. Ambiguity in Fund Allocation: The absence of specific allocations for funds collected under commercial services contracts could lead to varied application across different park units, potentially resulting in inequitable distribution of resources or mismanagement.

In summary, while the rule aims to foster improvements in the visitor experience by leveraging commercial services contracts, it presents financial challenges relating to fund management and accountability. The monetary references indicate attempts to balance economic neutrality with operational enhancements, but also highlight areas needing clarity to avoid inefficiencies or financial misuse.