[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 250 (Wednesday, December 31, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68249-68254]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-34051]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Timber Sale Contracts; Change in Stumpage Rate Adjustment
Procedure
AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice; adoption of final procedure.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Forest Service gives notice of adoption of a revised
stumpage rate adjustment procedure, by which rates bid on timber can be
adjusted in response in market changes after the contract is awarded.
The procedure will be applied to most timber sale contracts in the
western States. In an August 7, 1996, Federal Register notice (61 FR
41124), the Forest Service proposed eliminating the stumpage rate
adjustment procedure entirely. After considering the public comment,
the Forest Service has decided to continue to use stumpage rate
adjustment in timber sale contracts, but to modify the procedures so
that 100 percent of the difference between current and base lumber
price indices is added to tentative rates during periods of increasing
lumber prices and 100 percent of the difference is subtracted from
tentative rates during periods of declining prices. The effect of this
change is to equalize the risk of lumber
[[Page 68250]]
price fluctuations between purchasers and the Forest Service on future
timber sale contracts and, thereby, satisfy Office of Inspector General
audit recommendations.
DATES: This policy is effective January 30, 1998.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rex Baumback, Timber Management Staff,
(202) 205-0855.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Forest Service sells timber to private purchasers through
competitive bidding. The agency awards the timber sale contract to the
responsible bidder submitting the highest qualified bid.
Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 223 allows for the
adjustment of contract (stumpage) rates during the term of a timber
sale contract. These regulations state that:
Timber may be appraised and sold at a lump-sum value or at a
rate per unit of measure which rate may be adjusted during the
period of the contract and as therein specified in accordance with
formulas or other equivalent specifications for the following
reasons: (a) Variations in lumber or other product value indices
between the price index base specified in the contract and the price
index actually experienced during the cutting of the timber * * *.
Under contract to the Forest Service, the Western Wood Products
Association provides the lumber price indices that the agency uses for
stumpage rate adjustment.
In the western states, except Alaska, most timber sales with
contract terms exceeding 1 year include a provision which allows
contract rates to be adjusted during the term of the contract by the
use of lumber price indices. The purpose of the stumpage rate
adjustment procedure is to allow a timber sale purchaser's stumpage
payments to follow the price trends of the primary forest product
(lumber) manufactured from National Forest System timber. This
procedure was intended to help reduce the risk of loss to a timber
purchaser holding a timber sale contract during periods of declining
lumber prices and to benefit the Government by increasing stumpage
receipts during periods of rising lumber prices.
The Forest Service first adopted a stumpage rate adjustment
procedure in the 1950's to reduce the risk, both to industry and the
Government, of holding long-term timber sale contracts. In the 1950's
and 1960's, timber sale contract periods often exceeded 10 years, and
the procedure was a means to reduce the risk to both parties due to
price fluctuations in the lumber market. During this era, stumpage
rates would vary, either up or down, by 50 percent of the change in
lumber prices.
In 1971, with the introduction of Forest Service Form 2400-6 Timber
Sale Contract, the initial stumpage rage adjustment procedure was
changed to a formula which provided for stumpage prices to increase by
50 percent of the change in lumber prices when lumber prices are rising
and to decrease by 100 percent of the change in lumber prices when
lumber prices are falling. The purpose of this adjustment was to
account for increased costs to timber sale purchasers during the course
of the contract term. In March, 1983, it was expanded to include
western Washington and Oregon.
In September, 1991, the Department of Agriculture Office of
Inspector General, issued a report (Audit Report No. 08099-122-SF dated
9/91--Stumpage Rage Adjustment on Timber Sales) which found that the 50
percent upwards and 100 percent downwards stumpage rate adjustment
procedure lowers the risk of market fluctuations to the purchaser at
the monetary expense of the Government. The audit recommended either
eliminating the stumpage rate adjustment procedure or modifying it so
that adjustments to stumpage are the same percentage for both periods
of rising and falling lumber prices.
On August 7, 1996, the Forest Service published a notice in the
Federal Register proposing to eliminate the stumpage rate adjustment
procedure entirely. However, after considering the public comments
received, the Forest Service has decided to continue to use stumpage
rate adjustment in timber sale contracts, but to modify the procedure
used to change stumpage rates. Under the revised procedure, 100 percent
of the difference between current and base lumber price indices will be
added to tentative rates during periods of increasing lumber prices and
100 percent of the difference will be subtracted from tentative rates
during periods of declining prices. The effect of this change is to
equalize the risk of lumber price fluctuations between purchasers and
the Forest Service on future timber sale contracts, while making timber
sale purchasers responsible for any increased logging and manufacturing
cost increases due to their delay in harvest.
Summary of Comments
The Forest Service received 22 responses. Comments were received
from 15 timber sale purchasers, four timber industry associations, two
companies related to the timber industry, and one individual. Many of
the responses endorsed the comments of specific timber industry
associations.
The following describes the comments received by general topics and
the agency's response to them.
Reasons for Retaining the Stumpage Rate Adjustment Procedure
Comment. Fifteen respondents commented that the 1991 Office of
Inspector General (OIG) report is outdated and contains conclusions
which are in error, because the sample size was small and non-random,
covered a narrow geographic range, and covered a short timeframe. These
respondents noted that the OIG audit findings conflict with the paper
titled ``Analysis of Stumpage Rate Adjustment Policy on Western
National Forests'' (SRA Policy Study) by Ervin G. Schuster and Michael
J. Niccolucci which was published in the Western Journal of Applied
Forestry (vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 53-58, April 1995).
Response. The OIG report was not intended to be a comprehensive
study. As the respondents state, the OIG analysis had certain
limitations. That is why the Forest Service conducted the SRA Policy
Study. The SRA Policy Study includes a larger and random sample, a
greater geographic range, and a longer time period. However, the
findings of the OIG analysis do not conflict with the findings of the
SRA Policy Study. The SRA Policy Study notes that the ``results from
the two studies are essentially identical * * *.'' While the OIG and
SRA Policy Study were useful, neither was determinative in the
selection of the revised policy.
Comment. Five respondents suggested that all proposed changes in
the contract should be proposed at one time, rather than making
piecemeal changes. Stumpage rate adjustment needs to be evaluated with
other changes.
Response. The agency realizes that it would be desirable to
consider all possible contract changes at one time. For this reason,
the comment period for the proposed changes in stumpage rate adjustment
procedure was extended so that it corresponded to the comment period
for proposed market-related contract term addition changes (published
October 21, 1996, at 61 FR 54589).
There will always be a need for periodic revisions of portions of
the timber sale contract to meet changing situations. The revision of
stumpage rate adjustment procedures will make the price paid for timber
by purchasers more responsive to changing lumber prices, while holding
timber sale purchasers responsible for increased
[[Page 68251]]
inflationary costs due to their delay in harvest. There is no reason to
delay implementing this stumpage rate adjustment change indefinitely
while a more comprehensive contract revision is developed.
Comment. Six respondents stated that it is not fair to withdraw
stumpage rate adjustment procedures, unless other financial security
provisions are also withdrawn.
Response. As explained in response to other comments which follow,
the agency has decided to not abolish stumpage rate adjustment
procedures. However, the procedures are being modified to make them
more responsive to changing lumber prices, while holding timber sale
purchasers responsible for increased inflationary costs due to their
delay in harvest. Financial security contract provisions have been
developed incrementally over time. The current change is part of this
incremental process. There is no valid reason to withdraw other
procedures that have proved themselves to be necessary to protect the
public's financial interests.
Comment. Five respondents felt that prior to eliminating stumpage
rate adjustment, it must be shown that the revised market-related
contract term addition policies work, since market-related contract
term addition and stumpage rate adjustment are complementary policies.
Response. As already noted, the agency is modifying stumpage rate
adjustment procedures, rather than abolishing them. Further, the agency
agrees that market-related contract term addition and stumpage rate
adjustment are complimentary policies. However, the complimentary
nature of the two policies does not provide a valid reason to delay
this change.
Comment. Fifteen respondents noted that the Forest Service proposal
to eliminate stumpage rate adjustment appears to be premised on the
fact that contract terms are now shorter than in the 1960's and 1970's.
However, these respondents noted that while contract length is shorter
now, many timber sales receive extensions of time for harvest, and the
lumber market is more volatile now that in the past. Therefore, they
argued that stumpage rate adjustment is still needed to mitigate market
risk for both the timber sale purchaser and the Forest Service.
These respondents provided information to show that volume weighted
contract lengths for non-salvage timber sales have declined from 1981
to 1996 from approximately 4 years to approximately 3 years. The
respondents also submitted data to show that, for green sales sold from
calendar year 1994 though the second calendar year quarter of 1996, 80
percent of the timber sales and 48 percent of the volume was in
contracts shorter than 3 years. Their point was that, while there are a
large number of short contracts, the majority of the volume remains in
longer contracts. Further, the respondent's analysis asserted that
nearly one-half of all timber sales in Regions 1 and 6 received
contract term extensions, in increasing contract length on these sales
by nearly 1\1/2\ years. The respondents also provided data to show that
lumber markets are more volatile than in the past.
Response. There is a significant volume of timber, over 80 percent,
in contracts that exceed 2 years in length, and many of these sales may
receive contract term extensions. When contracts have a long term,
stumpage rate adjustment provides a valuable tool for ensuring the
viability of contacts by reflecting lumber market changes. Stumpage
rate adjustment reduces the price of timber when lumber price changes
for both the timber sale purchaser and the Government. Stumpage rate
adjustment reduces the price of timber when lumber markets decline,
thus preventing possible purchaser default, and provides increased
revenues to the Government when lumber prices increase. Upon
consideration of comments and its own analysis, the agency agrees that
it is important to continue to provide stumpage rate adjustment on
timber sale contracts that are longer than 1 year in length.
Comment. Six respondents stated that because the Forest Service
timber program is sporadic, the agency should retain all policy tools
to deal with declining markets, including stumpage rate adjustment.
Response. The agency does not agree that the timber program is
sporadic. After reducing the volume sold in the early 1990's, the
volume sold has leveled off at approximately 4 billion board feet. The
agency does agree, however, that policy tools to address volatile
timber markets should be retained, including stumpage rate adjustment.
Comment. Nine respondents felt that if the stumpage rate adjustment
procedures were eliminated small companies, without timberlands, would
be penalized more than large companies. They argued that large
companies can mix expensive Forest Service timber with timber from
their own lands, while small companies would not be able to purchase
enough volume at lower prices to mix with their high-priced timber.
These respondents felt that stumpage rate adjustment provides an
equitable procedure for all sizes of companies to reduce the cost of
high-priced Forest Service timber during market declines.
Response. The agency agrees that the stumpage rate adjustment
procedure provides an equitable mechanism to assist purchasers in
responding to declining markets. Therefore, the stumpage rate
adjustment procedure will be retained.
Comment. Eleven respondents stated that elimination of stumpage
rate adjustment would result in additional risk for all companies. They
argued that the additional risk would make it more difficult for small
companies to obtain loans and bonds and that these companies would need
to use cash to meet financial security requirements, reducing the
number of companies that can purchase timber sales, thereby reducing
competition and timber sale bids.
Response. The agency realizes that purchasers could have a higher
risk from lumber price decreases if stumpage rate adjustment were
eliminated and, in turn, small companies might have more difficulty
obtaining loans and bonds. As previously stated, the agency has
concluded that it will not eliminate the stumpage rate adjustment
procedure, but will modify it to fairly distribute the risks to
purchases and the Government.
Comment. One respondent felt that not allowing for market price
changes to be reflected in stumpage rate adjustment will increase the
number of sales with no bids.
Response. The SRA Policy Study indicated that sales without
stumpage rate adjustment receive lower bids. This finding may support
the respondents conclusion that eliminating stumpage rate adjustment in
timber sale contracts will increase the number of sales with no bids.
Recognition of the effects of stumpage rate adjustment on prices and
sales bid provided an additional reason for concluding that a stumpage
rate adjustment procedure should be retained.
Comment. Ten respondents felt that elimination of stumpage rate
adjustment would result in reduced receipts, reduced opportunity to
collect trust funds, and reduced payments to counties.
Response. This comment is consistent with the SRA Policy Study
results and supports the agency's decision to retain a stumpage rate
adjustment procedure.
Comment. Ten respondents commented that elimination of stumpage
rate adjustment will result in more defaulted sales and increase mill
[[Page 68252]]
closures. One respondent also stated that mill closures would add to a
shortage of wood products for consumer use.
Response. Upon further consideration, the agency agrees that,
without the stumpage rate adjustment procedure, more mills are likely
to experience financial difficulty and default their timber sales
during a lumber market downturn, and there is a risk that, in such an
adverse situation, some of these mills might go out of business. A
decline in the number of mills might reduce competition for Forest
Service timber sales. However, mill closures are unlikely to contribute
to a shortage of wood products. Remaining mills should have ample
capacity to process timber from Forest Service sales.
Comment. In contrast to the vast majority of comments, one
respondent commented that stumpage rate adjustment should be eliminated
if it cannot be continued with the current procedures. This
respondent's reasons were that: (1) Stumpage rate adjustment is almost
impossible for the Government and purchaser to manage with lump sum
sales because there are different rates on different payment units, and
there is uncertainty about the volumes harvested each month; (2) Forest
Service timber is now a smaller part of available volume and with a
small volume the complexity of managing the stumpage rate adjustment
process is not justified; and (3) the indices do not represent the
actual lumber markets for many companies. This respondent felt that the
current procedure of increasing timber prices by 50 percent of lumber
price increases compensates for cost inflation and the burden of
dealing with these complexities.
Response. The agency agrees that, with lump-sum timber sales,
stumpage rate adjustment may complicate the purchaser's financial
planning. However, Forest Service units must do similar planning and
have found that these complications are manageable. The stumpage rate
adjustment process uses 10 indices that are directly related to species
that are sold. It is not feasible to have separate indices for each
product that is marketed. Timber sales purchasers can manage
inflationary cost increases by timing their harvest. No change is being
made based on this comment.
Applicability to Existing Contracts
Comment. One respondent stated that converting existing contracts
to flat rates would not be equitable, because the contracts were bid at
higher prices with the assumption that stumpage rate adjustment would
protect the timber sale purchaser from lumber market declines.
Response. Based on the SRA Policy Study, which found that stumpage
rate adjustment timber sales received higher bids, it is possible
purchasers may have bid higher prices assuming they could be protected
during market declines. In any case, the agency has decided not to
eliminate stumpage rate adjustment.
Comment. Eight respondents stated that elimination of stumpage rate
adjustment would cause expensive contract claims.
Response. While it might be true that elimination of stumpage rate
adjustment could result in claims, the contract does provide for
eliminating stumpage rate adjustment when a suitable index is no longer
available. The Government and purchasers anticipate, upon execution of
the contract, that stumpage rate adjustment may be eliminated in
certain circumstances. In any case, the agency has decided not to
eliminate stumpage rate adjustment.
Stumpage Rate Adjustment Procedures
Comment. Fifteen respondents commented that the current requirement
that increases stumpage 50 percent for any lumber price increase and
decreases stumpage 100 percent for any lumber price decrease is not
unfair to the Government, since inflation needs to be accounted for and
since fixed costs increase when production decreases. These respondents
asserted that operational and equipment costs do not track the lumber
markets. They also stated that the Forest Service should not receive
100 percent of the benefit for a market increase when they have a
monopoly on timber supply in this country and can influence the price
through their policies.
Response. The agency recognizes that inflation may occur and that
fixed costs per unit of output change when production is increased or
decreased. However, purchasers have control of when trees will be
harvested and can minimize the adverse effect of inflation by
harvesting the trees promptly. In addition, when markets are good,
production increases and this reduces the fixed cost per unit of
production, offsetting or partially offsetting inflationary cost
increases.
The current and new policies both decrease stumpage prices for 100
percent of any lumber price decrease. Neither operational cost
increases or increases in the fixed cost of production per unit of
measure are reflected in this reduced price.
Finally, the agency does not have a monopoly on timber supply in
this country. The Forest Service supplies only about 10 percent of the
volume consumed and does not intentionally influence price with its
policies.
Comment. One respondent stated that the current system with
adjustments of 50 percent when lumber prices are up and 100 percent
when lumber prices are down is skewed in favor of the Forest Service.
An equitable system would be one which was revenue neutral over time,
when compared with a flat rate system.
Response. The agency does not agree that the current system is
skewed in favor of the Forest Service. In fact, based on the
respondent's criterion, the current system is skewed in favor of the
timber sale purchaser. No change is being made based on this comment.
Comment. One respondent commented that the 100 percent down
provision of the stumpage rate adjustment procedure protects both the
purchaser and the agency from default. Also, that the 50 percent up
feature allows the Forest Service to benefit from lumber price
increases and that this is the Forest Service compensation for the
protection afforded purchasers during down markets.
Response. The agency agrees that the Forest Service receives a
benefit in down markets by avoiding contract defaults, but this benefit
is not equal to the benefit the purchaser now receives in increasing
markets.
Comment. One respondent stated that if the current system must be
changed, both the Forest Service and the purchaser would receive
compensation for the risks they are taking if a 50 percent up and 50
percent down procedure were used.
Response. The agency agrees, but believes that a 100 percent up and
100 percent down procedure would better protect purchasers during down
markets.
Comment. One respondent stated that, if the procedure must change,
that the 100 percent down and 100 percent up alternative is preferable
to 50 percent down and 50 percent up. In either case, the procedure
would have to be reflected in the appraisal process, since bid prices
will be directly affected. Because purchasers would be assuming more
risk than at present. This respondent felt that bid prices would go
down, and that this market change must be reflected in the appraisal.
Response. The agency agrees that the preferable alternative is the
100 percent down and 100 percent up procedure, because purchasers are
fully protected from falling lumber prices and the Government is fairly
compensated for the reduced revenues it receives in
[[Page 68253]]
down markets by obtaining greater revenues in up markets. In addition,
this procedure would reduce the incentive to delay harvest in the hope
that prices will increase.
The agency also agrees that this change will have to be considered
in timber sale appraisals, until such time as timber sales in the
appraisal base period fully reflect this change.
Which Indices To Use
Comment. Nine respondents stated that alternatives to the currently
used Western Wood Products Association indices might not truly reflect
lumber selling prices, because the indices could be more easily
manipulated by non-manufacturers. In addition, ten respondents stated
that alternatives to the Western Wood Products Association indices do
not include a major portion of western lumber production, are not
weighted by volume sold, are not based on actual sales invoices, and
cannot be audited.
Response. The agency has contracted with the Western Wood Products
Association for indices, so this comment is moot.
Regulatory Procedures
Comment. Fifteen respondents stated that the policy needs to be
reviewed for regulatory impact under Executive Order 12866. The policy
will affect individual purchasers, reduce revenue to the Government,
and affect payments to counties.
Response. The policy has been reviewed for regulatory impact under
Executive Order 12866 and determined not to have a significant economic
effect. The SRA Policy Study indicates that eliminating stumpage rate
adjustment would reduce bids by approximately 4 percent (weighted
average of all Regions) and reduce receipts from stumpage by an
additional 5 percent. Approximately 75 percent of the volume in the
western Regions (except Alaska) is sold with stumpage rate adjustment.
In fiscal year 1996, the volume harvested on stumpage rate adjustment
contracts had a value of approximately $275 million. The possible loss
of 9 percent of this revenue ($25 million) is under the $100 million
economic effect.
The policy being adopted, however, has an even smaller economic
effect than the proposal to eliminate stumpage rate adjustment. The SRA
Policy Study indicates that changing to a policy of 100 percent up and
100 percent down adjustments would increase revenue by approximately 7
percent. The SRA Policy Study was not able to estimate the possible
reduction in bids that will occur when this policy is implemented, but
if bids are reduced by 5 percent there will be a small positive effect
on government receipts, perhaps $5 million.
Comment. Ten respondents stated that the proposal needs a
comprehensive analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, because it
fails to describe the potential impacts on small business, which
includes the possibility that the banking and bonding industries may
withdraw from the federal timber sale program, if stumpage rate
adjustment is eliminated. These respondents concluded if this occurred,
small businesses would have a more difficult time purchasing Forest
Service timber sales.
Response. The proposed policy was reviewed under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act. The respondents did identify a possible effect on
small businesses, if stumpage rate adjustment were eliminated. The
increased risk of default in falling markets might mean that the
banking and bonding industries would be less likely to work with small
businesses. As explained in response to a previous comment, this is one
of the reasons that the Forest Service is choosing to not eliminate the
stumpage rate adjustment procedure. The 100 percent up and 100 percent
down procedure that will be implemented will not have a significant
economic impact on either large or small businesses.
Comment. Ten respondents stated that the potential reduction in 25
percent payments, if flat rates are imposed, is an unfunded mandate on
counties because they will have to find another source of revenue.
Response. As explained in an earlier response, eliminating stumpage
rate adjustment might have a total effect of $25 million, and 25
percent of this is well below the $100 million criteria for the
preparation of an unfunded mandates statement. When the policy is
implemented, the effect on revenue to countries should be a slight
increase.
Conclusion
Based on consideration of the comments received, the agency has
decided to provide a stumpage rate adjustment procedure where 100
percent of any decreases in lumber price are reflected as a reduction
in timber prices, subject to the limitation that prices cannot decrease
below base rates. For falling markets, this is the same as the current
procedure. The procedure for rising markets, however, will be changed
so that 100 percent of any lumber price increase will be reflected as
an increase in timber prices, subject to the limitation that timber
prices cannot increase by more than the difference between base rates
and tentative rates. The current procedure for rising markets is to
reflect only 50 percent of any lumber price increase.
The current procedure is inequitable to the public because the
purchaser is protected from any lumber price decrease, while still
getting the benefit of one-half of any lumber price increase. The
current policy, established when inflation was high, recognized that
the costs of logging and manufacturing also increase with time. To
offset this effect, however, the timber sale purchaser can choose to
harvest the timber early in the contract period, minimizing the risk of
inflationary costs.
This revised stumpage rate adjustment procedure retains full
protection for the timber sale purchaser when lumber prices decline. As
compensation for this reduction in risk due to lumber price decreases,
the public gets the benefit of lumber price increases, while the
purchaser has the ability to time harvest to minimize cost increases
due to inflation.
The revised stumpage rate adjustment procedure will be implemented
through an amendment to chapter 2430 of the Forest Service Manual which
will guide agency employees as follows:
FSM 2431.34--Stumpage Rate Adjustment. Except for situations that
are disadvantageous to the Government, Forest Service timber sale
contracts that exceed 1 year in contract length in the western United
States should provide for stumpage rate adjustment. For example, do not
include a stumpage rate adjustment provision for sales that lack a
significant amount of sawtimber, when an index is not available for the
predominant species in the sale, when there is no reasonably accurate
conversion to board feet, or for other similar situations. When
providing for stumpage rate adjustment, use contract provision C/
CT3.2--Escalation Procedure, which provides that 100 percent of the
difference between current and base lumber price indices will be added
to tentative rates during periods of increasing lumber prices and 100
percent of the difference will be subtracted from tentative rates
during periods of declining prices.
Regulatory Impact
This policy has been reviewed under USDA procedures and Executive
Order 12866 on Regulatory Planning and Review. It has been determined
that this is not a significant policy. This policy will not have an
annual effect of $100 million or more on the economy nor adversely
affect productivity, competition, jobs, the environment,
[[Page 68254]]
public health or safety, nor State or local governments. This policy
will not interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency
nor raise new legal or policy issues. Fianlly, this action will not
alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan
programs or the rights and obligations of recipients of such programs.
Accordingly, this policy is not subject to OMB review Executive Order
12866.
Moreover, this policy has been considered in light of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.), and it is hereby
certified that this action will not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities as defined by that act. The
decision to retain a stumpage rate adjustment procedure and to equalize
the risks in declining or increasing markets treats small and large
pruchasers equally.
Pursuant to Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995,
which the President signed into law on March 22, 1995, the Department
has assessed the effects of this policy on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. This action does not compel the
expenditure of $100 million or more by any State, local, or tribal
governments or anyone in the private sector. Therefore, a statement
under section 202 of the Act is not required.
Environmental Impact
This action falls within a category of actions excluded from
documentation in an Environmental Impact Statement or an Environmental
Assessment. Section 31.1b of Forest Service Handbook 1909.15 (57 FR
43180; September 18, 1992) excludes from documentation in an
environmental assessment or impact statement ``rules, regulations, or
policies to establish Service-wide administrative procedures, program
processes, or instructions.'' The agency's assessment is that this
policy falls within this category of actions and that no extraordinary
circumstances exist which would require preparation of an environmental
assessment or environmental impact statement.
Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the Public
The policy does not require any recordkeeping or reporting
requirements or other information collection requirements as defined in
5 CFR part 1320 not already approved for use and, therefore, imposes no
additional paperwork burden on the public. Accordingly, the review
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501, et
seq.) and implementing regulations at 5 CFR part 1320 do not apply.
Dated: November 24, 1997.
Ronald E. Stewart,
Acting Associate Chief.
[FR Doc. 97-34051 Filed 12-30-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
