53820 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 17, 2008 / Notices 

16At this time, the softwood lumber is expected 

to recover sufficiently by December 31, 2013. 

terminate before the end of 2008 and 18 

have termination dates in 2009. Six of 

the 46 contracts have current 

termination dates of December 31, 2013 

or later. Contracts with termination 

dates after December 31, 2013 are not 

eligible for relief under this SOPI.16

Therefore, up to 40 timber sales could 

benefit from using MRCTA to extend 

contract length beyond 10 years. While 

this number is not large, the Secretary 

of Agriculture agrees with Senator 

Allard’s observation that forcing those 

sales to be operated in the current 

market situation could hasten the loss of 

infrastructure needed by the Forest 

Service to perform its mission. 

Extending these sales and other sales 

allows purchasers to delay harvest of 

green timber while harvesting damaged 

timber. 

Purchasers of the 40 sales potentially 

eligible for relief under this SOPI face 

the same market conditions as 

purchasers eligible for the additional 

MRCTA time authorized by the Farm 

Bill. Further, some of these green timber 

sales have been delayed as a result of 

the Forest Service requesting that the 

purchasers harvest salvage timber 

instead. Without this SOPI, many of 

these purchasers may be forced to 

harvest sales that are uneconomical or 

may face default if their contracts can’t 

be extended. An indication of the 

economic problems facing existing 

green sales is that over 360 applications 

have been made for a rate 

redetermination under the Farm Bill. 

These applications show how much the 

market has changed over the past few 

years and that without some economic 

or time-frame relief, older green timber 

sales can not be harvested economically. 

The 2006 and 2007 SOPI 

determinations and section 8401 of the 

Farm Bill provided relief options for 

most National Forest System timber sale 

contracts suffering under the ongoing 

drastic decline in forest product 

markets. The principal exceptions are 

the contracts ineligible for additional 

MRCTA time because of the ten-year 

limit on total contract length. 

Therefore, pursuant to 16 U.S.C. 

472a(c) of NFMA, and the authority 

delegated to me at 7 CFR 2.20, I, Mark 

E. Rey, Under Secretary of Agriculture 

for Natural Resources and Environment, 

have determined that the substantial 

overriding public interest justifies the 

use of MRCTA to extend beyond 10 

years certain existing green timber sale 

contracts awarded prior to January 1, 

2007, that are tied to Softwood Lumber 

index #0811 and the Hardwood Lumber 

index #0812. 

MRCTA relief granted pursuant to this 

SOPI must be made in accordance with 

36 CFR 223.52, subject to the following 

exceptions: 

(a) Notwithstanding 36 CFR 

223.52(c)(3), up to 4 years may be added 

to a contract’s length by market-related 

contract term addition; 

(b) Notwithstanding 36 CFR 

223.52(c)(4), the revised contract term 

may exceed 10 years; and 

(c) No contract’s termination date 

shall be set past December 31, 2013. 

Periodic payments shall be adjusted 

pursuant to 36 CFR 223.52(d). 

The following types of contracts are 

not eligible for relief under this SOPI: 

(1) Contracts the Forest Service 

determines are in urgent need of harvest 

for reasons including, but not limited to, 

deteriorating timber conditions or 

public safety, and (2) contracts that are 

in breach. 

To be considered for additional 

MRCTA time under this SOPI, eligible 

purchasers must make a written request 

to the Contracting Officer. The timber 

purchaser must also agree to release the 

United States from all liability resulting 

from (1) any relief provided by this 

SOPI, and (2) a decision by the Forest 

Service not to provide relief under this 

SOPI. 

Dated: September 10, 2008. 

Mark Rey, 

Under Secretary, NRE. 

[FR Doc. E8–21613 Filed 9–16–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Forest Service 

Forest Certification and Its 

Implications for America’s National 

Forests 

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice; request for comment. 

SUMMARY: The USDA, Forest Service is 

seeking comments on forest certification 

and its implications for America’s 

national forests. This Federal Register 

notice is to serve as a formal public 

solicitation of views on the question of 

National Forest System certification and 

its implications, if national forest lands 

were to become certified under one or 

both of the two major certification 

systems being used in the United States. 

The U.S. Forest Service, which manages 

193 million acres, or approximately 

eight percent of the nation’s land, 

believes that it is important to better 

understand the implications of thirdparty certification of National Forest 

System (NFS) lands and, in 2005, began 

exploring independent, third party 

certification as a potential option. To 

this end, the Forest Service initiated the 

National Forest Certification Study, 

which resulted in the report, ‘‘National 

Forest Certification Study: An 

Evaluation of the Application of Forest 

Stewardship Council (FSC) and 

Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) 

Standards on Five National Forests.’’ 

This report documents the study in 

which third-party auditors evaluated 

current forest management practices on 

five national forest units using the 

existing certification standards of two 

certification programs, Sustainable 

Forestry Initiative (SFI) and Forest 

Stewardship Council (FSC). 

Recognizing that the Forest Service 

has not decided whether it will seek 

certification, public outreach and 

discussion is requested to obtain public 

and stakeholder views on the National 

Forest Certification Study and its 

associated report, as well as the 

potential implications of NFS 

certification in general before 

determining how to proceed. 

In addition to comments on the 

National Forest Certification Study, the 

Forest Service is particularly interested 

in public views on the following 

questions: 

1. What are your general views on the 

implications of independent, third party 

certification of NFS lands? 

2. Would certification improve the 

management of national forests? 

3. Could certification make it more 

difficult to achieve national forest 

management goals? 

4. What questions would certification 

be able to answer, and what needs 

would it be able to meet, on national 

forest lands? 

5. Are there key questions or needs 

that certification would be unable or 

poorly suited to address? 

6. Would independent, third party 

certification be an appropriate or 

effective tool, given the unique role of 

national forests? Or, because of that 

unique role, would certification be 

particularly inappropriate or 

ineffective? 

Detailed information about the NFS 

Certification Study is available on the 

following Web site: http:// 

www.fs.fed.us/projects/ 

forestcertification/index.shtml. 

DATES: Comments must be received, in 

writing, on or before November 17, 

2008. Comments received after that date 

will be considered to the extent 

praticable. 

ADDRESSES: Comments concerning this 

notice should be addressed to Doug 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 17, 2008 / Notices 53821 

MacCleery, USDA Forest Service (FM), 

201 14th St. SW., Mailstop: 1103, 

Washington, DC 20024. Comments may 

also be sent via e-mail to 

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

(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 above 

address. Visitors are encouraged to call 

ahead to (202) 205–1745 to facilitate 

entry to the building. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Doug MacCleery, Forest Management, 

(202) 205–1745, dmaccleery@fs.fed.us. 

Additional information concerning 

Forest Service certification may be 

obtained on the Internet at http:// 

www.fs.fed.us/projects/ 

forestcertification/index.shtml. 

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: 

Independent, third-party certification is 

one of the most significant 

developments in the field of forest 

management in the last two decades. Its 

use has expanded dramatically as the 

public and consumers have increased 

their interest in practical ways to ensure 

that good management practices are 

being applied to forests both 

domestically and around the world. 

Certified area has expanded to an 

estimated 7% of forests globally. In the 

U.S., the area of forests certified by the 

Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) and 

the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) 

has increased from virtually none in 

1998 to over 60 million acres today. 

About 14 million acres of state-owned 

lands have been certified, in most cases 

to both FSC and SFI standards. 

In the United States, certification was 

first applied to private lands. Due to the 

perceived benefits of the process, public 

lands are now becoming involved as 

well. Eight state forest systems in the 

U.S. are now certified. Some State 

forestry officials believe that 

certification has served to improve the 

quality of forestry management and to 

affirm their commitment to accepted 

standards of good forest management. 

Many believe that the certification 

process has been more about public 

accountability than providing certified 

wood to the marketplace. 

Certifying National Forest System 

lands has been debated for several years. 

It is a sensitive and complex issue, 

perhaps more so for the NFS than any 

other type of ownership in the U.S. 

National Forest System planning is 

exceedingly complex and management 

practices and objectives are closely 

scrutinized by both the public and U.S. 

Courts. The Forest Service is currently 

assessing the value and implications of 

certification for the NFS. 

National Forest Certification Study 

In 2005, in order to evaluate the 

implications of national forest 

certification, the U.S. Forest Service 

initiated a formal study of the issue. 

Independent third-party certification 

indicates certification to standards 

derived by a group external to the 

organization being audited. Under this 

study, independent third-party auditors 

evaluated current forest management 

practices on five national forest units 

using the existing certification standards 

of two certification programs, 

Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) and 

Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). FSC 

certification standards and related 

information can be viewed at: http:// 

www.fscus.org. The SFI Web site is at: 

http://www.sfiprogram.org. 

On October 22, 2007, ‘‘National Forest 

Certification Study: An Evaluation of 

the Application of Forest Stewardship 

Council (FSC) and Sustainable Forestry 

Initiative (SFI) Standards on Five 

National Forests’’ was released. This 

report, produced by the Pinchot 

Institute for Conservation (PIC), 

summarizes and discusses the five 

third-party evaluations and captures 

lessons learned through a review of 

participant experiences. 

The study was designed to: 

1. Evaluate the potential implications 

of third-party certification of national 

forests and grasslands, 

2. Provide a better understanding of 

how national forest management 

practices align with FSC and SFI 

standards, and 

3. Study the lessons learned as a basis 

for determining what policy and 

management direction may be needed in 

the event forest certification were 

pursued in the future. 

Actual certification by FSC or SFI was 

outside the scope of these evaluations 

and was not a possible outcome on any 

of the study units. Nor did the FSC or 

SFI participate directly in the study. 

However, this study provided the Forest 

Service with a valuable opportunity to 

examine the consistency of current 

national forest resource management 

activities with the requirements of the 

two major forest certification programs 

now operating in the U.S. This was the 

first time national forest management 

had been evaluated with reference to the 

standards of such certification 

programs. 

Participating Units 

The National Forest System (NFS) 

management units evaluated were the: 

• Allegheny National Forest (ANF) in 

Pennsylvania. 

• Lakeview Federal Stewardship Unit 

(LFSU) on the Fremont-Winema 

National Forest in Oregon. 

• Chequamegon-Nicolet National 

Forest (CNNF) in Wisconsin. 

• Mt. Hood National Forest (MHNF) 

in Oregon. 

• National Forests in Florida (NFF). 

Role of the Pinchot Institute for 

Conservation 

The Pinchot Institute for Conservation 

(PIC), which carried out this study, is an 

independent nonprofit research and 

education organization dedicated to 

investigating new approaches to forest 

conservation and has carried out 

certification tests in a variety of settings. 

The Institute investigated the 

implications of certification on stateowned, private, tribal, and university 

forest lands. For this project the 

Institute: 

• Worked to secure funding for the 

certification evaluations. 

• Contracted with accredited, thirdparty auditors. 

• Provided coordination between the 

Forest Service and auditors. 

• Reviewed and evaluated the 

auditors’ reports. 

• Interviewed those involved in the 

certification evaluations to assess their 

views as to potential benefits and 

detriments/costs of the process. 

• Prepared the study findings, results, 

and a lessons learned report. 

Study Scope and Conduct 

The national forest certification 

evaluations were designed to closely 

approximate the process that a national 

forest would undergo were it actually 

seeking certification. The audit firms 

were required to be fully accredited to 

carry out FSC and SFI certification 

audits and to use the same approach 

they would for an actual certification 

assessment. The study unit national 

forests addressed FSC and SFI 

requirements as set forth in standards 

applicable to private, State-owned and 

Department of Defense and Department 

of Energy (DOD–DOE) lands in the U.S. 

All certification evaluations were the 

functional equivalents of major, broadbased management reviews of all 

aspects of national forest management. 

The FSC and SFI evaluation reports of 

the five national forests read like other 

certification assessment reports. They 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
53822 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 17, 2008 / Notices 

include a summary of the management 

setting, stakeholder feedback, findings 

of performance gaps or nonconformances (major and minor), and 

issuance of Corrective Action Requests. 

Performance Against FSC and SFI 

Standards Used in the Study 

Auditors found many situations 

where practices on the units evaluated 

demonstrated good overall conformance 

with most of the FSC and SFI standards 

currently being applied to private and 

State-owned and DOD–DOE lands in the 

U.S. 

Examples included: 

• Forest planning and operations. 

• Inpact assessments. 

• Stakeholder consultation. 

• Coordination with First Nations. 

• Extent of reserves. 

• Protection of threatened and 

endangered species. 

• Control of invasives and exotics. 

The auditors did cite a number of 

areas where the Forest Service is not 

meeting the FSC or SFI certification 

standards used in the study. 

Performance gaps on one or more study 

units included: 

• Forest health issues arising from the 

backlog of management activities. 

• A backlog of road maintenance and 

decommissioning. 

• Inadequate monitoring of nontimber forest products. 

• Issues with old-growth protection 

and management on two study national 

forests. 

• Inadequate attention to logger 

safety. 

• Operation under outdated 

management plans. 

• Inadequate attention to off highway 

management issues and their 

enviornmental effects. 

• Difficulty in dealing with oil and 

gas leases not controlled by the Federal 

Government on one study unit (split 

estate). 

Some performance gaps are minor and 

do not preclude certification if they can 

be remedied within a given time period 

after a certificate is issued. Other gaps 

are major and would preclude FSC or 

SFI certification until mechanisms are 

put into place to address them. Auditors 

also issue observations or note 

opportunities for improvement that 

suggest things that may improve 

compliance with standards. 

Feedback From Forest Service Staff 

Involved in the Study 

The geographic representation of the 

study on unit national forests provided 

an opportunity to test certification in 

different NFS settings. Each 

participating forest faces similar 

agencywide challenges (limited 

resources and overextended staff, 

appeals and litigation) and yet is faced 

with its own ecological and 

socioeconomic issues. 

Most of the NFS study coordinators 

(the Forest Service point person for the 

study on each forest) felt that the 

certification programs impose 

requirements that are relevant to 

determining whether a forest is meeting 

its management objectives and 

improving their management practices 

over time. Forest staff indicated that 

certification can be a valuable tool if 

carried out in an effective manner that 

does not impose an additional, 

unsupported burden on staff and 

resources. 

Staff found the evaluations to be a 

broad-based and comprehensive 

review—often more so than the Forest 

Service’s own targeted, internal audits, 

of the many integrated management 

activities occurring on the forest. To this 

end, they were impressed with the wide 

range of issues addressed by the 

evaluations. 

Coordinators also reported that the 

FSC and SFI evaluations provided 

positive, independent reinforcement of 

their management activities while 

identifying those areas where 

improvements are needed. In many 

cases, these identified improvements 

were not unfamiliar to forest staff but 

would not be addressed unless 

additional funding and/or staff 

resources were available. Participating 

staff also recognized the value of third 

parties communicating publicly on the 

successes and difficulties of national 

forest management, especially 

difficulties arising from factors they feel 

are ‘‘beyond their control.’’ In this 

context, NFS study coordinators 

identified Corrective Action Requests 

that they felt would be difficult or 

impossible to fix, and would likely need 

to be addressed by the Forest Service 

Washington Office. 

Some Lessons Learned in the Study 

The following is a summary of some 

of the lessons learned in the study. 

Lessons Pertinent to Individual National 

Forests 

• Management issues, challenges, and 

certification assessment results will vary 

from unit to unit. 

• The certification assessments were 

useful feedback mechanisms for 

national forest personnel regarding their 

management of the forest, and by 

providing a more comprehensive and 

integrative review than normal internal 

audits, they complemented existing 

management systems. Normally, a 

certification assessment would also help 

determine whether a forest management 

unit is meeting its own management 

objectives, and would emphasize 

improving management practices over 

time. 

• The assessments provided 

opportunities beyond existing legal and 

administrative requirements for interest 

groups and stakeholders to provide 

input regarding national forest 

management. 

• Outdated land and resource 

management plans may prevent some 

forests from meeting the requirements 

set forth in certification standards, 

which emphasizes a potentially broader 

need for updating national forest 

management systems. 

• The lack in some cases of integrated 

landscape planning involving adjacent 

lands and landowners raised the issue 

of the unique role of national forests 

within the broader landscape, as well as 

nationwide, and how certification 

would take account of this role. 

Lessons Pertinent to the National Forest 

System 

• Backlogs in road maintenance, 

delays in silvicultural treatments, and 

other problems in the implementation of 

approved forest plans were often cited 

as indicators of larger budgeting and 

staffing issues outside the control of 

individual national forests (in the hands 

of Congress or the Administration). 

• National forest staff time required to 

participate in certification assessment 

and reporting procedures varied 

considerably from unit to unit but raised 

issues of ‘unsupported’ budgetary 

demands (not specifically covered by 

existing funding levels). 

• The fact that ownership and control 

of sub-surface mineral rights may lie in 

the hands of external parties raised 

broader questions about how the Forest 

Service would deal with such issues if 

they impact forest management and the 

ability of a forest unit to meet 

certification standards. 

• Inconsistencies between 

certification standards and existing 

National Forest System management, 

planning and policy commitments 

(Northwest Forest Plan, the definition of 

Native American organizations as 

sovereign entities, chemical use), raise 

broader questions about the relationship 

between private certification 

organizations and federal land 

management systems. 

• Requirements in the SFI and FSC 

standards that the Forest Service make 

formal ‘commitments’ to the 

certification programs raise questions 

about how the agency could do this 

organizationally and legally. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 17, 2008 / Notices 53823 

Next Steps 

Recognizing that the Forest Service 

has not decided whether it will seek 

certification, the following are relevant 

considerations: 

The FSC Federal Lands Policy 

establishes three criteria to be met 

before any new Federal land system 

such as the NFS could seek certification. 

In summary, the criteria are a willing 

landowner (the Forest Service), a 

determination that public consensus 

exists regarding management of the 

NFS, and the development of a set of 

standards specific to each category of 

Federal forestland (Forest Service, 

Bureau of Land Management, etc.). 

Because the Forest Service has not 

determined whether it will seek 

certification, FSC has not yet 

determined whether, how or when they 

will address these criteria for the Forest 

Service. 

SFI has indicated that it would 

welcome NFS participation in SFI 

certification. A landowner seeking SFI 

certification must formally commit to 

reporting and management measures 

specific to the SFI Program. How and 

whether the Forest Service could make 

these commitments would also need to 

be determined. 

A public outreach effort is now 

underway to obtain public and 

stakeholder views on the outcomes of 

the National Forest Certification Study 

and the potential implications of NFS 

certification in general. Once this effort 

is completed, the Forest Service will 

evaluate its options and determine how 

to proceed. 

Dated: September 10, 2008. 

Charles L. Myers, 

Associate Deputy Chief, NFS. 

[FR Doc. E8–21611 Filed 9–16–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Forest Service 

RIN 0596–AC50 

Final Directives for Forest Service 

Outfitting and Guiding Special Use 

Permits and Insurance Requirements 

for Forest Service Special Use Permits 

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice of final directives; 

response to public comment. 

SUMMARY: The Forest Service is revising 

directives governing special use permits 

for outfitting and guiding conducted on 

National Forest System lands by 

simplifying the application and 

administrative process; establishing a 

flat land use fee for temporary use 

permits; developing a process for 

allocation of use on a first-come, firstserved or lottery basis for temporary use 

permits to facilitate greater participation 

in outfitting and guiding by youth, 

educational, and religious groups; 

offering the same terms and conditions 

to educational and institutional permit 

holders as offered to other types of 

permit holders when they operate as a 

business; and clarifying policy for 

priority use permits governing 

performance, inspections, and 

allocation of use. In addition, the Forest 

Service is revising the directives 

governing insurance requirements for 

Forest Service special use permits. 

Public comment was considered in the 

development of the final directives, and 

a response to comments is included in 

this notice. 

DATES: Effective Date: These directives 

are effective October 17, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: The record for these final 

directives is available for inspection at 

the office of the Director, Recreation, 

Heritage, and Volunteer Resources Staff, 

USDA, Forest Service, 4th Floor Central, 

Sidney R. Yates Federal Building, 1400 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC, during regular 

business hours (8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.), 

Monday through Friday, except 

holidays. Those wishing to inspect these 

documents are encouraged to call ahead 

at (202) 205–1426 to facilitate access to 

the building. Copies of documents in 

the record may be requested under the 

Freedom of Information Act. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Carolyn Holbrook, (202) 205–1426, 

Recreation, Heritage, and Volunteer 

Resources Staff. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

1. Background and Need for the Final 

Directives 

2. Public Comments on the Proposed 

Directives and Agency Responses 

• Overview of Comments 

• Response to General Comments 

• Response to Comments on Specific 

Sections of the Directives 

FSH 2709.11, section 41.53 

FSH 2709.11, section 37.21b 

FSM 2713.1 

• Response to Comments on Regulatory 

Certifications in the Proposed Directives 

3. Summary of Revisions to the Final 

Directives 

4. Regulatory Certifications for the Final 

Directives 

• Environmental Impact 

• Regulatory Impact 

• No Taking Implications 

• Civil Justice Reform 

• Federalism and Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments 

• Energy Effects 

• Unfunded Mandates 

• Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the 

Public 

5. Access to the Final Directives 

1. Background and Need for the Final 

Directives 

Outfitting and guiding conducted on 

National Forest System lands have 

become one of the chief means for the 

recreating public to experience the 

outdoors. The Forest Service 

administers approximately 5,000 

outfitting and guiding permits, 

authorizing activities ranging from 

guided hunting and fishing trips to jeep 

tours and outdoor leadership programs. 

The agency anticipates that outfitting 

and guiding will increase in importance 

as the public’s desire for use of Federal 

lands increases and as the agency 

encourages use by increasingly diverse 

and urban populations, many of whom 

may lack the equipment and skills 

necessary in the outdoors. Therefore, 

agency policy needs to reflect the 

public’s demand for services while 

incorporating standard business 

practices and sustaining the natural 

environment in which these activities 

occur. 

Except for the revision to term length 

for priority use permits (April 14, 2005, 

70 FR 19727), outfitting and guiding 

directives have remained relatively 

unchanged since they were finalized in 

1995. Since that time, proposed 

legislation and field implementation of 

current policy have shown the need for 

updating the directives. The changes 

adopted will be incorporated as 

appropriate in the standard special use 

permit for outfitting and guiding, form 

FS–2700–4i, and other applicable forms. 

In addition, the Forest Service is 

updating direction on the minimum 

amount of insurance coverage required 

for special use permits generally, 

including outfitting and guiding 

permits. 

2. Public Comments on the Proposed 

Directives and Agency Responses 

Overview of Comments 

The proposed directives were 

published in the Federal Register for 

public notice and comment on October 

19, 2007 (72 FR 59246). The Forest 

Service received several requests for 

extension of the comment period and 

published two notices, each of which 

extended the comment period (72 FR 

71113; December 14, 2007, and 73 FR 

8264; February 13, 2008). The comment 

period closed on March 20, 2008. 

The Forest Service received 

approximately 480 comments on the 

proposed directives. Respondents fell 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES