[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