51388 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 3, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

1On February 1, 2008, Acting Chairman Nancy 

Nord and Commissioner Thomas Moore voted 2–0 

to direct the Office of the General Counsel to 

prepare a notice terminating the rulemaking other 

than with respect to the Boston Billow Nursing 

Pillow and substantially similar nursing pillows. 

2On February 1, 2008, Acting Chairman Nancy 

Nord and Commissioner Thomas Moore voted 2–0 

to direct the Office of the General Counsel to 

prepare a notice of proposed rulemaking proposing 

an exemption for the Boston Billow Nursing Pillow 

and substantially similar nursing pillows. Acting 

Chairman Nord also voted to request ASTM to 

develop a product warning label for the product 

class. 

in certain sleeping environments. 

Physiological abnormalities and delays 

in the development of vital systems can 

further hamper an infant’s ability to 

react to a hazardous condition. Infants 

who are not placed on their backs are 

especially at risk for suffocation on any 

type of soft pillow, regardless of the 

type of filling. 

In 1992, the American Academy of 

Pediatrics, in an effort to reduce the risk 

of SIDS, recommended that babies 

always be placed on their backs when 

put to sleep. As a result of this 

campaign, Sudden Infant Death 

Syndrome (SIDS) deaths between 1992 

and 2004 in the United States decreased 

from 5,000 per year to 2,246 per year 

(based on vital statistics data of the 

United States). Although there has been 

a steady decrease in SIDS deaths, staff 

found there has not been a similar 

decrease in infant deaths associated 

with pillows and cushions. Even though 

the recommendation to place infants to 

sleep on their backs is being promoted, 

staff believes that the data indicates that 

there are still a significant number of 

people who continue to place infants to 

sleep in the prone position. For this 

reason, staff recommends increased 

information dissemination targeted at 

the population of caregivers whose 

infants are not placed to sleep in the 

supine position. Increased compliance 

with the recommendation for supine 

sleep, as well as continued vigilance in 

ensuring a safe sleeping environment 

would have benefits in reducing the risk 

of infant suffocation deaths caused by 

adult pillows, sofa cushions, and other 

pillows as well as further reducing 

incidents involving SIDS. 

D. Conclusion 

In light of the ongoing risks posed by 

infant cushions/pillows when used in 

the sleep environment, the Commission 

finds no justification for repealing the 

ban on infant cushions/pillows at this 

time. Moreover, after review of the 

comments, incident reports and other 

available information, the Commission 

determines there is insufficient data or 

product information on infant cushions/ 

pillows or pillow-like products 

intended for infants, other than with 

respect to the Boston Billow Nursing 

Pillow and substantially similar nursing 

pillows, to proceed with further 

rulemaking on those products at this 

time. Thus, the Commission is 

terminating the rulemaking on infant 

cushions/pillows or pillow-like 

products, other than with respect to the 

Boston Billow Nursing Pillow and 

substantially similar nursing pillows 

effective upon publication in the 

Federal Register for good cause shown 

in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).1

A proposed exemption from the ban for 

the Boston Billow Nursing Pillow and 

substantially similar nursing pillows 

appears elsewhere in this Federal 

Register.2

Dated: August 27, 2008. 

Todd A. Stevenson, 

Secretary, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

[FR Doc. E8–20282 Filed 9–2–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Forest Service 

36 CFR Part 223 

RIN 0596–AC79 

Sale and Disposal of National Forest 

Service System Timber; Timber Sale 

Contracts; Market-Related Contract 

Term Additions 

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

public comment. 

SUMMARY: The Forest Service proposes 

amending its regulations to expand the 

maximum amount of additional time 

certain contracts may receive when 

there is a continuous and prolonged 

drastic reduction in wood product 

prices for 21⁄2 years or longer. 

Additionally, the proposed rule 

modifies the procedure for selecting the 

producer price index to be used in 

establishing market-related contract 

term additions and emergency rate 

redeterminations. Finally, this proposed 

rule makes a change to the amount of 

additional market-related contract term 

addition time that may be added to 

timber sale contracts when the normal 

operating season specified in a contract 

is less than three months. 

DATES: Comments must be received in 

writing on or before October 3, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments 

concerning this notice should be 

addressed to USDA Forest Service, 

Director of Forest Management, 1400 

Independence Avenue, SW., Mail Stop 

1103, Washington, DC 20250–1103. 

Comments may also be sent via e-mail 

to mrcta@fs.fed.us, or via facsimile to 

Lathrop Smith at (202) 205–1045. 

All comments, including names and 

addresses when provided, are placed in 

the record and are available for public 

inspection and copying. The public may 

inspect comments received at the office 

of the Director of Forest Management, 

Third Floor, Southwest Wing, Yates 

Building, 201 14th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC. Visitors are 

encouraged to call ahead to (202) 205– 

1496 to facilitate entry to the building. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Lathrop Smith, Forest Management 

staff, at (202) 205–0858, or Richard 

Fitzgerald, Forest Management staff, at 

(202) 205–1753. 

Individuals who use 

telecommunication devices for the deaf 

(TDD) may call the Federal Information 

Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339 

between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern 

Standard Time, Monday through Friday. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Prior to 1980, purchasers of National 

Forest timber defaulted very few timber 

sale contracts. Cyclic fluctuations in 

forest products markets occurred but 

were of comparatively short duration 

and limited impact. Forest Service 

timber sale contract terms were often as 

long as the cycles making it possible to 

overlap the market price cycles. Prior to 

1980, it also was believed that the longterm projection for forest products 

prices indicated a continuing trend of 

price increases. Under those 

circumstances a purchaser could 

usually schedule a sale’s harvest for a 

time when the markets were good or 

were at least good enough that the 

purchaser would not lose more money 

operating a sale than would be lost in 

a default. 

Beginning in 1980, the forest products 

market began a serious and dramatic 

decline, leaving a large number of 

purchasers with timber sales bid at 

prices far higher than the market was 

bringing. Faced with the likelihood of 

massive defaults and attendant adverse 

economic impacts on industry and 

dependent communities, the 

government began taking steps to 

respond to the adverse economic 

impacts. In 1980, 1981, and 1982, the 

Chief of the Forest Service granted 

timber sale contract term extensions 

based on findings of substantial 

overriding public interest (48 FR 38862). 

The intent of these extensions was to 

provide purchasers additional contract 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 3, 2008 / Proposed Rules 51389 

1Forest Service paper Policy Alternatives for 

Market-Related Contract Term Additions, June 27, 

1996. 

time until the markets improved. 

Unfortunately, the adverse market 

conditions continued. 

On October 16, 1984, the President 

signed into law the Federal Timber 

Contract Payment Modification Act (16 

U.S.C. 618) (Buy-Out Act). The Buy-Out 

Act allowed purchasers of Federal 

timber to return certain sales to the 

government upon payment of a ‘‘buyout charge’’ and, thus, avoid default. 

Both the Congress and the 

Administration viewed this legislation 

as an extraordinary measure to respond 

to a one-time crisis and recognized the 

need to develop mechanisms to avoid 

such a crisis in the future. 

On November 6, 1987, the Forest 

Service published a proposed rule (52 

FR 43020) to establish procedures for 

extending contract termination dates in 

response to adverse conditions in the 

timber market. This proposed MarketRelated Contract Term Addition rule 

was published as part of a larger 

proposal that included rules for 

implementing downpayment and 

periodic payment procedures as 

required by the Federal Timber Contract 

Modification Act. The intent of these 

rules was to encourage orderly harvest 

of national forest timber sales, ensure 

the government’s financial security, and 

avoid the need for future buyouts in 

periods of severe market decline. 

Market declines sufficient to trigger a 

market-related contract term addition 

generally coincide with downturns in 

housing starts in conjunction with 

national economic slowdowns. In the 

early 1980s, such economic distress 

broadly affected community stability 

and the ability of industry to supply 

construction lumber and other products 

for public use and threatened the 

maintenance of plant capacity necessary 

to meet the Nation’s needs for wood 

products from domestic sources.1

Accordingly, in order to ensure the 

retention of a viable established 

industry capable of supplying the wood 

fiber needs of the public for housing and 

other products, the Chief of the Forest 

Service issued a final rule on December 

7, 1990, finding that the substantial 

overriding public interest justifies 

market-related contract term additions 

whenever there is a drastic reduction in 

wood product prices (55 FR 50643). 

The Chief’s finding was based on the 

fact that market-related contract term 

additions: (1) Help purchasers avoid 

severe financial hardship; (2) ensure 

that the Federal government receives 

payments due from purchasers by 

reducing the likelihood of default; and 

(3) help ensure that receipts to States 

and counties from timber sales are not 

adversely affected by contract defaults. 

Additionally, market-related contract 

term additions help promote stability in 

the wood products industry. This in 

turn helps ensure community stability, 

competition, employment, investment, 

productivity, innovation and the 

industry infrastructure needed by the 

Forest Service to accomplish land 

management objectives most 

economically done with timber sales. 

In accordance with the December 7, 

1990, final rule, the Forest Service 

monitors and uses producer price 

indices for wood products as prepared 

by the Bureau of Labor Statistics to 

determine when a drastic reduction in 

wood product prices has occurred. The 

Forest Service currently uses the 

Softwood Lumber Index (WPU0811), the 

Hardwood Lumber index (WPU0812) 

and the Wood Chips index 

(PCU3211133211135). Each index 

monitors different segments of the wood 

products industry. Each contract over 

one year in length is assigned the index 

that represents more than one-half of the 

advertised volume. When a drastic 

reduction in the assigned index has 

occurred for two consecutive quarters 

during the contract period, the Forest 

Service notifies purchasers and, upon a 

purchaser’s written request, adds one 

year to the contract term. For each 

additional consecutive quarter a drastic 

reduction occurs, the Forest Service, 

upon a purchaser’s written request, adds 

an additional 3 month period to the 

normal operating season of the contract. 

Under the current rule, no more than 

twice the original contract length or 3 

years, whichever is less, may be added 

to a contract’s term by market-related 

contract term addition. Pursuant to the 

National Forest Management Act of 

1976 (16 U.S.C. 472a(c)), total contract 

length cannot exceed 10 years as the 

result of market-related contract term 

addition. Further, market-related 

contract time may not be granted for 

those portions of the contract that (1) 

have a required completion date, (2) the 

Forest Service determines that the 

timber is in need of urgent removal, or 

(3) timber deterioration or resource 

damage will result from delay. 

Since the market-related contract term 

addition rule was adopted, a drastic 

reduction in softwood lumber prices 

occurred for five quarters in 1994–1995, 

three quarters in 1998, six quarters in 

2000–2001, and for 11 quarters 

beginning in September 2005, through 

March 2008. The hardwood index has 

also shown a drastic reduction in the 

first two quarters of 2008. As a result, 

many purchasers requested and 

received additional contract time for 

qualifying timber sales. 

The drastic decline in softwood 

lumber prices in the early 1980s began 

following a peak in the softwood lumber 

index in the third quarter of 1978 and 

bottomed out four years later in the 

third quarter of 1982. During that 

decline the index, adjusted to a constant 

dollar basis, lost 56 points or 36 percent 

of its value. By comparison, the current 

decline of the softwood lumber index is 

already greater in magnitude. The 

current decline began following a peak 

in August 2004, and by March 2008, the 

index, adjusted to a constant dollar 

basis, had lost 76 points or 48.5 percent 

of its value. It is unknown when the 

current decline will end. 

The intent of the market-related 

contract term addition regulations are to 

avert massive defaults and attendant 

adverse economic impacts on industry 

and dependent communities by 

providing purchasers additional 

contract time until markets improve. 

Since adoption of the regulations in 

1990, the three-year limit on marketrelated contract term additions has met 

that objective in the three previous 

periods when a drastic reduction in 

wood prices occurred. But, when a 

drastic decline in wood prices continues 

for over three years as it currently has 

and the market-related contract term 

additions run out before markets 

improve, purchasers holding high 

priced sales bid when the markets were 

stronger are likely to face severe 

economic hardship without some form 

of relief. 

As of May 1, 2008, there were 1,030 

non-salvage sales awarded prior to April 

1, 2007, that were over one year in 

original contract length and with 

volume remaining to remove. 

Approximately twenty-three percent, or 

239 of those sales, have received 

additional contract time totaling three 

years or more, and over half of those 

sales were awarded prior to the 

softwood index peaking in August 2004. 

The additional time granted in excess of 

the maximum market-related contract 

term addition time was for reasons 

unrelated to market conditions such as 

adverse weather conditions that 

prevented operations. 

To respond to the poor market 

conditions and associated adverse 

economic impacts on industry and 

dependent communities, Section 8401 

of the Food, Conservation, and Energy 

Act of 2008, Public Law 110–246, 122 

Stat. 1651 (June 18, 2008), authorized 

the Forest Service to add up to four 

years of market-related contract term 

addition to contracts awarded prior to 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
51390 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 3, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

January 1, 2007. While section 8401 

provides immediate relief to contracts 

that had or were about to reach the 

three-year limit, the committee notes for 

section 8401 state ‘‘the Managers 

encourage the Forest Service to revise 

the existing regulations within 90 days 

of enactment of this Act to reflect 

provisions of this section for future 

market problems.’’ 

In light of the managers’ statement, 

and to address prolonged adverse 

market conditions in the future, the 

Forest Service proposes amending the 

market-related contract term addition 

regulations at 36 CFR 223.52 to allow 

certain contracts to receive more than 

three years of additional time when 

there is a prolonged drastic reduction in 

wood product prices. To be eligible for 

market-related contract term addition 

time in excess of three years, contracts 

must meet the conditions for marketrelated contract term addition in 

§ 223.52, and the index specified in the 

contract must trigger for eleven 

consecutive quarters following the 

award date in the contract. The criteria 

of eleven consecutive quarters was 

selected because under the formula for 

granting market-related contract term 

additions, all sales will have reached 

the three year limit, prior to, but no later 

than, the tenth consecutive quarter 

(§ 223.52(c)(3)). Beginning with the 

eleventh consecutive qualifying quarter, 

and for each subsequent consecutive 

qualifying quarter, the contract may 

receive an additional three months of 

normal operating season time. Contracts 

where all biddable species were at base 

rates during any quarter between the 

original contract termination date and 

any adjusted termination date will not 

be eligible for more than three years of 

market-related contract term addition. 

The rationale for this criterion is that 

sales at base rates have stumpage prices 

as low as permitted, so additional time 

for market conditions to improve is not 

needed. 

Under this proposed rule, the 

maximum amount of market-related 

contract term addition time a contract 

awarded after December 31, 2006, may 

receive will be controlled by the 10-year 

limit on total contract length established 

under the National Forest Management 

Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 472a(c)). But, 

pursuant to the 2008 Farm Bill, sales 

awarded prior to January 1, 2007, may 

only have the termination date adjusted 

by up to four calendar years as the result 

of market-related contract term addition. 

An additional proposed amendment 

to the market-related contract term 

addition regulations at 36 CFR 223.52 

will authorize contracting officers to 

select an index at the time certain 

contracts are awarded that is different 

from the one identified in the sample 

contract. Each timber sale contract over 

one year in length includes one of three 

producer price indices (softwood 

lumber, hardwood lumber or wood 

chips) updated monthly by the Bureau 

of Labor Statistics. The index selected 

for each sale is based on the species and 

product characteristics that represent 

more than one-half of the advertised 

volume. The index is used to determine 

when the contract is eligible for a 

market-related contract term addition 

and/or an emergency rate 

redetermination. This proposed rule 

change would authorize contracting 

officers to select an alternative producer 

price index at the time a contract is 

awarded when the appropriate Forest 

Supervisor has determined, prior to 

advertising the contract, that the species 

and potential product characteristics are 

such that more than one index could 

represent more than one-half of the 

advertised volume. Upon a purchaser’s 

written request, the contracting officer 

could select an alternative index to the 

one identified in the sample contract if 

the contracting officer determines that 

the alternative index better represents 

the highest percentage of the products 

the successful bidder intends to produce 

or have produced from the sale. 

On sales providing this alternative 

index option, all bidders will have an 

equal opportunity to substitute a more 

representative index, which should 

reduce the risk of potential bid protests 

over this change. Providing bidders with 

a process for changing the index on 

sales where more than one index may be 

applicable may also result in higher 

bids. For these sales, the prospectus will 

state that the contracting officer may, 

upon the purchaser’s written request, 

select an alternative index from 

paragraph (b), and may modify the 

contract by mutual agreement, at time of 

contract award, to include an alternative 

index that the contracting officer has 

determined represents the highest 

percentage of products the purchaser 

intends to produce or have produced 

from the sale. The purchaser will be 

required to make a written request for 

an index change that includes 

documentation showing how the 

purchaser anticipates the timber will be 

processed. If the purchaser is a nonmanufacturer, the written request 

should show the percentage of sale 

volume the purchaser intends to deliver 

to different manufactures, such as 75 

percent to an oriented strand board 

processor (OSB) and 25 percent to a 

pulp mill. 

This change to the regulation is 

needed because different uses of 

technology for processing forest 

products continue to evolve. Thus 

selecting the appropriate index prior to 

knowing who the purchaser will be and 

what products will be produced may 

not be possible when a sale is offered. 

For example, a sale that is 

predominantly aspen may be sold in a 

market area that has a pulp mill, an OSB 

mill, and a sawmill capable of 

processing aspen lumber. Since the pulp 

mill is the closest mill to the sale, it is 

used as the appraisal under the current 

regulation. Consequently, the Forest 

Service assigns the wood chips index to 

the sale when it is advertised. If the 

pulp mill owner buys the sale, the wood 

chips index is the correct index for the 

product that will be produced and a 

change of index would not be 

appropriate. However, if the OSB mill 

owner buys the sale, the softwood 

lumber index would be more 

appropriate since OSB is a building 

material that tends to follow softwood 

lumber prices. Further, if the sawmill 

owner buys the sale, the hardwood 

lumber index may be most appropriate, 

unless the principal aspen product is 

pannelling, in which case the softwood 

lumber index may be most appropriate. 

In addition, if a non-manufacturer buys 

the sale with the intention of 

merchandizing the wood to all three 

mills, the most appropriate index would 

be based on which mill is expected to 

process the highest percentage of the 

sale volume. In this example, if the 

purchaser intended to sell 40 percent of 

the sale volume to the OSB mill, 30 

percent to the pulp mill and 30 percent 

to the hardwood lumber mill, the 

appropriate index would be softwood 

lumber as it is the index representing 

the single greatest percentage of volume. 

While this estimate is based on market 

conditions at the time the contract is 

awarded, the purchaser can change the 

mix of products produced during the 

life of the sale. However, the purchaser 

will not be permitted to change the 

index after award unless that index is 

discontinued and/or the Forest Service 

adopts and offers replacement indices. 

Another example occurred in 2006 

and 2007 on certain sales using the 

wood chips index. In November 2006 

(71 FR 66160) and again in November 

2007 (72 FR 64991), specified timber 

sales were granted one year extensions 

based on a determination of substantial 

overriding public interest. Excluded 

from these extensions were sales on the 

softwood lumber index because those 

sales were already receiving marketrelated contract term additions. Most of 

the substantial overriding public 

interest extensions granted went to sales 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 3, 2008 / Proposed Rules 51391 

in the lake states region (predominately 

Minnesota) that were on the wood chips 

index despite the fact that most of the 

wood was actually being manufactured 

into oriented strand board. Although 

oriented strand board prices were 

plummeting along with softwood 

lumber prices, these sales were not 

eligible for market-related contract term 

additions because the wood chips index 

remained high. If the index on those 

sales had been changed from wood 

chips to softwood lumber when those 

contracts were awarded, the substantial 

overriding public interest extensions 

would not have been needed. To avert 

that situation in the future, and to 

implement the Managers’ direction for 

the 2008 Farm Bill, a process for 

changing the index at the time of award 

when more than one index may be 

appropriate is needed. 

Expanding existing rights to marketrelated contract term addition to include 

a procedure for changing the index at 

the time of contract award is in the 

public interest. In most market areas, 

the species product combinations are 

easy to identify prior to offering a sale, 

and there will be little need or 

justification to change the index at the 

time of contract award. However, in 

situations such as the examples 

described above where more than one 

index may apply, a procedure for 

changing the index when the contract is 

awarded to reflect the principal product 

the purchaser intends to produce is 

needed. The objective is to allow the 

parties to enter into contracts under 

terms that reflect market conditions at 

the time of award; it is not to guarantee 

profitable market conditions or a certain 

level of profit throughout the life of the 

contract. The intended effect is to avert 

the need for substantial overriding 

public interest extensions, 

determinations, as well as legislation 

like the 2008 Farm Bill, which provides 

relief to contracts with indices that 

became mismatched with, or did not 

reflect, the products the purchaser 

produced. 

Currently, 36 CFR 223.52(a)(2) 

provides that the Forest Supervisor shall 

select from the available indices in 

§ 223.52(b) the index to be used in each 

contract based on the species and 

product characteristics, by volume, 

included in a contract. The existing rule 

also provides that the index selected 

shall represent more than one-half of the 

advertised volume. The existing rule is 

silent as to when Forest Supervisors 

must choose an appropriate index but 

the practice has been to identify the 

index when a contract is advertised. 

Buying a sale that uses an index that 

does not represent the principal product 

a purchaser intends to produce 

increases the purchaser’s risk that a 

drastic reduction in the prices of the 

wood products it is producing will not 

result in a market-related contract term 

addition. Providing a procedure to 

change the index once the purchaser 

and the principal product it intends to 

produce are identified will have the 

effect of reducing the purchaser’s risk, 

which may also increase bids. 

Finally, under the current regulation, 

a contract may receive a one year 

market-related contract term addition 

when there are two consecutive 

qualifying quarters and may receive 

three months of additional time within 

the contract’s normal operating season 

for each subsequent consecutive 

qualifying quarter subject to the limits 

on total additional contract time. Some 

sales have a normal operating season 

that is less than three months resulting 

in a situation where the contract could 

be extended for more than one year if 

three months of normal operating 

season is added to the contract term. 

This proposed change will limit the 

amount of additional time to no more 

than one-calendar year when the normal 

operating season is less than three 

months. 

Regulatory Certifications 

Regulatory Impact 

This proposed rule has been reviewed 

under USDA procedures and Executive 

Order 12866 on Regulatory Planning 

and Review. It has been determined that 

this proposed rule is not a significant 

regulatory action and is not subject to 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) review. This proposed rule will 

not have an annual effect of $100 

million or more on the economy and 

will not adversely affect the economy, a 

sector of the economy, productivity, 

competition, jobs, the environment, 

public health or safety, or State, local or 

tribal governments or communities. 

This proposed rule will not interfere 

with an action taken or planned by 

another agency nor raise new legal or 

policy issues. Little or no effect on the 

national economy will result from this 

regulatory action, which consists of 

necessary, technical changes to the 

regulation governing market-related 

contract term additions. Using the 

replacement indices and the modified 

formula contained in this proposed rule, 

the Forest Service will be able to 

determine whether a drastic decline in 

wood products prices has occurred. 

Finally, 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 

proposed rule is not subject to OMB 

review under Executive Order 12866. 

Moreover, this proposed rule has been 

considered in light of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 610 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. As 

revised in this proposed rule, the Forest 

Service will be able to grant additional 

market-related contract term additions 

to small and large purchasers when 

there is a prolonged drastic reduction in 

wood product prices. This will have the 

intended effect of averting massive 

defaults and attendant adverse 

economic impacts on industry and 

dependent communities by providing 

purchasers additional contract time 

until markets improve. 

Proper Consideration of Small Entities 

This proposed rule has been 

considered in light of Executive Order 

13272 regarding proper consideration of 

small entities and the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 

1996 (SBREFA), which amended the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.). The Forest Service has 

determined that this action will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities as 

defined by SBREFA. 

To the extent that the proposed rule 

imposes additional requirements on 

small entities, these requirements are 

the minimum necessary to protect the 

public interest, are not administratively 

burdensome or costly to meet, and are 

well within the capability of small 

entities to perform. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Pursuant to Title II of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 

1531–1538), which the President signed 

into law on March 22, 1995, the Forest 

Service has assessed the effects of this 

proposed rule on State, local, and tribal 

governments and the private sector. 

This proposed rule does not compel the 

expenditure of $100 million or more by 

any State, local, or tribal government or 

anyone in the private sector. Therefore, 

a statement under section 202 of the act 

is not required. 

Environmental Impact 

This proposed rule concerns the 

extension of timber sale contracts when 

warranted by a drastic reduction in 

wood product prices, and, as such, has 

no direct effect upon the amount, 

location, or manner of timber offered for 

purchase. Section 31.1b of Forest 

Service Handbook 1909.15 (57 FR 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
51392 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 3, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

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 rule 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 

This proposed rule includes 

information collection requirements as 

defined in 5 CFR part 1320. 

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 apply. This collection of 

information was submitted to the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) and 

received emergency approval under 

OMB No. 0596–0212. Notice of this 

information collection and request for 

comment was published in the Federal 

Register on July 22, 2008 (73 FR 42542). 

This rule contains no additional 

information collection under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act. 

Energy Effects 

This proposed rule has been reviewed 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. It has been 

determined that this proposed rule does 

not constitute a significant energy action 

as defined in the Executive order. 

Federalism 

The agency has considered this 

proposed rule under the requirements of 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The 

agency has made an assessment that the 

proposed rule conforms with the 

federalism principles set out in this 

Executive Order; would not impose any 

compliance costs on the States; and 

would not have substantial direct effects 

on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government. 

Consultation and Coordination With 

Indian Tribal Governments 

This proposed rule does not have 

tribal implications as defined in 

Executive Order 13175, Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments, and, therefore, advance 

consultation with tribes is not required. 

No Takings Implications 

This proposed rule has been analyzed 

in accordance with the principles and 

criteria contained in Executive Order 

12630, and it has been determined that 

the rule does not pose the risk of a 

taking of Constitutionally-protected 

private property. 

Civil Justice Reform 

This proposed rule has been reviewed 

under Executive Order 12988, Civil 

Justice Reform. The agency has not 

identified any State or local laws or 

regulations that are in conflict with this 

regulation or that would impede full 

implementation of this rule. In any 

event, after adoption of this proposed 

rule: (1) All State and local laws or 

regulations that conflict with this rule or 

that would impede full implementation 

would be preempted; (2) no retroactive 

effect would be given to this final rule, 

except as described herein; and (3) the 

proposed rule would not require the use 

of administrative proceedings before 

parties could file suit in court 

challenging its provisions. 

List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 223 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Exports, Forests and forest 

products, Government contracts, 

National forests, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Therefore, for the reasons set forth in 

the preamble, part 223 of Title 36 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations is amended 

as follows: 

PART 223—SALE AND DISPOSAL OF 

NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM TIMBER 

1. The authority citation for part 223 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 90 Stat. 2958, 16 U.S.C. 472a; 98 

Stat. 2213; 16 U.S.C. 618, 104 Stat. 714–726, 

16 U.S.C. 620–620j, unless otherwise noted. 

2. Amend § 223.52 by revising 

paragraphs (a)(2) and (c)(2) through (4) 

to read as follows: 

§ 223.52 Market-related contract term 

additions. 

(a) * * * 

(2) The contract term addition 

provision of the contract must specify 

the index to be applied to each sale. The 

Forest Supervisor shall determine, and 

select from paragraph (b) of this section, 

the index to be used for each sale based 

on the species and product 

characteristics, by volume, being 

harvested on the sale. The index 

specified shall represent more than onehalf of the advertised volume. If none of 

the indices in paragraph (b) represent 

more than one half of the advertised 

volume, the index specified shall 

represent the species product 

combination representing the highest 

percentage of volume for which there is 

an index. When the Forest Supervisor 

determines that the species and 

potential product characteristics are 

such that more than one index could be 

used, the prospectus will state that the 

Contracting Officer may, upon the 

purchaser’s written request, select an 

alternative index from paragraph (b), 

and may modify the contract by mutual 

agreement, at time of contract award, to 

include an alternative index that the 

Contracting Officer has determined 

represents the highest percentage of 

products the purchaser intends to 

produce or have produced from the sale. 

Purchasers seeking a change of index at 

time of award must substantiate the 

need for an alternative index by 

providing the Contracting Officer with a 

written request including a list of 

products by volume it intends to 

produce or expects will be produced 

from the timber on that sale. In the 

event a mutual agreement to modify a 

contract to include an alternative index 

is not reached at time of award, the 

index specified in the sample contract 

shall apply. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(2) For each additional consecutive 

quarter in which a contract qualifies for 

a market-related contract term addition, 

the Forest Service will, upon the 

purchaser’s written request, add an 

additional 3 months during the normal 

operating season to the contract, except 

that sales with a normal operating 

season of less than 3 months may only 

receive additional time equal to their 

normal operating season. 

(3) No more than 3 years of MRCTA 

time shall be added to a contract’s term 

by market-related contract term addition 

unless the following conditions are met: 

(i) The sale was awarded after 

December 31, 2006; 

(ii) During each quarter between the 

original contract termination date and 

the current termination date, contract 

rates for one or more of the biddable 

species exceeded base rates; and 

(iii) A drastic reduction in wood 

product prices occurred for eleven 

consecutive qualifying quarters. 

(4) For contracts eligible for more than 

3 calendar years of market-related 

contract term addition under 

§ 223.52(c)(3), beginning with the 

eleventh consecutive qualifying quarter, 

and for each subsequent consecutive 

qualifying quarter, the Forest Service 

will, upon the purchaser’s written 

request, add an additional 3 months 

during the normal operating season to 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 3, 2008 / Proposed Rules 51393 

the contract, except that sales with a 

normal operating season of less than 3 

months may only receive additional 

time equal to their normal operating 

season. 

* * * * * 

Dated: August 26, 2008. 

Sally Collins, 

Associate Chief, Forest Service. 

[FR Doc. E8–20301 Filed 9–2–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 300 

[EPA–HQ–SFUND–2008–0574, EPA–HQ– 

SFUND–2008–0575, EPA–HQ–SFUND–2008– 

0576, EPA–HQ–SFUND–2008–0577, EPA– 

HQ–SFUND–2008–0579, EPA–HQ–SFUND– 

2008–0580, EPA–HQ–SFUND–2008–0581, 

EPA–HQ–SFUND–2008–0582, EPA–HQ– 

SFUND–2008–0583, EPA–HQ–SFUND–2008– 

0584, EPA–HQ–SFUND–2008–0585, EPA– 

HQ–SFUND–2008–0586; FRL–8710–7] 

RIN 2050–AD75 

National Priorities List, Proposed Rule 

No. 49 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act 

(‘‘CERCLA’’ or ‘‘the Act’’), as amended, 

requires that the National Oil and 

Hazardous Substances Pollution 

Contingency Plan (‘‘NCP’’) include a list 

of national priorities among the known 

releases or threatened releases of 

hazardous substances, pollutants, or 

contaminants throughout the United 

States. The National Priorities List 

(‘‘NPL’’) constitutes this list. The NPL is 

intended primarily to guide the 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(‘‘EPA’’ or ‘‘the Agency’’) in determining 

which sites warrant further 

investigation. These further 

investigations will allow EPA to assess 

the nature and extent of public health 

and environmental risks associated with 

the site and to determine what CERCLAfinanced remedial action(s), if any, may 

be appropriate. This rule proposes to 

add 11 sites to the NPL, 10 to the 

General Superfund Section and 1 to the 

Federal Facilities Section. This rule also 

withdraws one site from proposal to the 

NPL. 

DATES: Comments regarding any of these 

proposed listings must be submitted 

(postmarked) on or before November 3, 

2008. 

ADDRESSES: Identify the appropriate 

FDMS Docket Number from the table 

below. 

FDMS DOCKET IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS BY SITE

Site name City/state FDMS Docket ID No. 

B.F. Goodrich ............................................................ Rialto, CA .................................................................. EPA–HQ–SFUND–2008–0574. 

Raleigh Street Dump ................................................. Tampa, FL ................................................................. EPA–HQ–SFUND–2008–0575. 

Arkla Terra Property .................................................. Thonotosassa, FL ..................................................... EPA–HQ–SFUND–2008–0576. 

U.S. Smelter and Lead Refinery, Inc ........................ East Chicago, IN ....................................................... EPA–HQ–SFUND–2008–0577. 

Fort Detrick Area B Ground Water ............................ Frederick, MD ........................................................... EPA–HQ–SFUND–2008–0585. 

Curtis Papers, Inc ...................................................... Milford, NJ ................................................................. EPA–HQ–SFUND–2008–0579. 

Behr Dayton Thermal System VOC Plume ............... Dayton, OH ............................................................... EPA–HQ–SFUND–2008–0580. 

New Carlisle Landfill .................................................. New Carlisle, OH ...................................................... EPA–HQ–SFUND–2008–0581. 

Borit Asbestos Tailings Pile ....................................... Ambler, PA ................................................................ EPA–HQ–SFUND–2008–0582. 

Barite Hill/Nevada Goldfields ..................................... McCormick, SC ......................................................... EPA–HQ–SFUND–2008–0583. 

U.S. Magnesium ........................................................ Tooele County, UT .................................................... EPA–HQ–SFUND–2008–0584. 

Kennecott (South Zone) ............................................ Copperton, UT .......................................................... EPA–HQ–SFUND–2008–0586. 

Submit your comments, identified by 

the appropriate FDMS Docket number, 

by one of the following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: superfund.Docket@epa.gov. 

• Mail: Mail comments (no facsimiles 

or tapes) to Docket Coordinator, 

Headquarters; U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency; CERCLA Docket 

Office; (Mail Code 5305T); 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. 

• Hand Delivery or Express Mail: 

Send comments (no facsimiles or tapes) 

to Docket Coordinator, Headquarters; 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; 

CERCLA Docket Office; 1301 

Constitution Avenue; EPA West, Room 

3340, Washington, DC 20004. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation 

(8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday excluding Federal holidays). 

Special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

the appropriate FDMS Docket number 

(see table above). EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public Docket without change and 

may be made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or e-mail. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system; 

that means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an e-mail 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

Docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS