[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 81 (Thursday, April 28, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page ]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-10031]


[Federal Register: April 28, 1994]


_______________________________________________________________________

Part VI





Department of Agriculture





_______________________________________________________________________



Forest Service



_______________________________________________________________________



36 CFR Part 222



Management of Grazing Use Within Rangeland Ecosystems; Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

36 CFR Part 222

RIN 0596-AA35


Management of Grazing Use Within Rangeland Ecosystems

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Department of Agriculture proposes to revise the National 
Forest System rangeland management regulations to update direction for 
management of domestic livestock, to place grater emphasis on 
stewardship of the rangeland resource, to clarify the link between the 
livestock grazing permit and forest plans, and to clarify the range 
management planning and decisionmaking process. In addition, the 
Department proposes to improve administration of livestock grazing 
permits, and to achieve greater consistency between the grazing 
management regulations of the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land 
Management, U.S. Department of the Interior. The intended effect of 
this proposed rule is to provide for healthy, diverse, sustainable 
rangeland ecosystems on National Forest System lands.
    By separate rule published elsewhere in this separate part of the 
Federal Register, the Forest Service is proposing a revised system for 
determining livestock grazing fees on National Forest System lands and 
other lands under Forest Service control.

DATES: Comments must be received in writing by July 28, 1994.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Rangeland Reform '94, P.O. Box 
66300, Washington, DC 20035-6300.
    Comments on the proposed rule will be made available for public 
inspection during the regular business hours (7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m.), 
Monday through Friday. Viewing of the comments can be arranged by 
contacting the Forest Service.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
David M. Stewart, Range Management Staff, (202) 205-1746.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    The existing rule governing rangeland management and livestock use 
on National Forest System lands and other lands under Forest Service 
control (36 CFR part 222, subpart A) provides guidance for management 
of the range environment and addresses the issuance and modification of 
grazing and livestock use permits, compensation for permittees' 
interest in authorized permanent improvements, cooperation in 
management, rangeland improvements, the use of the range betterment 
fund, and grazing advisory boards. The current rule was adopted October 
28, 1977 (42 FR 56732).
    As required by Departmental Regulation 1512-1, Forest Service 
personnel involved with rangeland management participated in a review 
of the existing grazing regulations in 1987. This review identified 
some parts of the existing regulations that required revision and 
clarification, and other parts that were outdated and required removal. 
In addition, several issues not covered by the regulations were 
identified that need to be addressed in the rules. The Forest Service 
published a proposed rule responding to the findings of the review on 
August 16, 1988 (53 FR 30954). That proposed rule was not finalized, 
but principal features of and comments received on that proposed rule 
have been considered in the current effort to identify needed changes 
to the rangeland management and grazing regulations.
    The 1990 RPA Program, entitled ``The Forest Service Program for 
Forest and Rangeland Resource,'' states the following: ``The condition 
of public rangeland is better today than it has been at any other time 
this century. However, the Forest Service is deeply concerned about 
those rangelands in unsatisfactory condition, which, in 1989, consisted 
of 27 percent of all suitable National Forest System rangeland acres.'' 
The 1990 RPA Program further discussed the role of rangelands in 
providing forage, habitat, water, recreational opportunities, and open 
space and signaled the agency's commitment to improve rangeland 
conditions and management.
    More recently, the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of 
the Interior sponsored a series of public meetings on livestock grazing 
on federal lands. Issues and concerns raised at those meetings have 
provided additional momentum to develop grazing regulations that are 
more responsive to the current need for improved management of 
rangeland resources.
    Accordingly, on Friday, August 13, 1993, an advance notice of 
proposed rulemaking (ANPR) was published in the Federal Register, (58 
FR 43202), in which the Department of Agriculture gave notice of its 
intent to revise its grazing and livestock use and grazing fee (36 CFR 
222 subpart A and subpart C) rules to respond to the Administration's 
commitment to implement federal rangeland management reform. The 
Department of the Interior issued an ANPR concurrent (58 FR 43208) with 
the Department of Agriculture's in which it announced its proposed 
grazing regulation changes for BLM lands, including the grazing fee 
system.
    A total of about 12,600 letters were received on the ANPR's 
published by the Department of the Interior and the Department of 
Agriculture. These letters included over 56,000 separate comments on 
various aspects of grazing administration and fees. The greatest number 
of comments addressed possible changes in the grazing fee. Comments 
also identified a need for protection of rangeland ecosystems through 
an ecosystem approach to management and the use of locally developed 
standards and guidelines. Other concerns included the suitability of 
land for grazing and the need for balance between livestock grazing and 
other forest uses with the ability to implement and enforce the 
necessary management. A healthy and productive human environment with 
opportunities for public participation in planning decisions also 
received support from many respondents. Also, frequently noted in the 
comments was the longstanding role of land steward played by grazing 
permittees. A large number of comments highlighted the need for 
consistency between regulations of the Bureau of Land Management and 
the Forest Service.
    Based on the comment received on the ANPR, the Secretary of 
Agriculture has decided to separate the rulemaking for grazing fees 
from the rulemaking for other grazing and livestock use proposals 
identified in the ANPR. Comments on the grazing fee portion of the ANPR 
will be considered in the development of the final grazing fee rule. 
Reviewers need not resubmit comments they filed on the Department of 
Agriculture's ANPR in order for them to be considered by the agency in 
the preparation of the final rule. All comments received on the 
Department of Agriculture's ANPR and this proposed rule will be 
considered in the preparation of a final rule.
    Also, by separate rule, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is 
proposing a revision of their grazing management regulations and a 
revised system for determining livestock grazing fees on the public 
lands they administer. The fee system proposed by the BLM is similar to 
that proposed by the Forest Service.

Proposed Revisions to 36 CFR Part 222, Subpart A

    The rules of Subpart A currently focus exclusively on issuance and 
administration of livestock grazing permits. Under the proposed rule, 
this Subpart would be retitled ``Management of Grazing Use Within 
Rangeland Ecosystems'' signaling the Department's intent to plan for 
rangeland activities and to regulate grazing use within an ecosystem 
management framework. In addition, the structure of the Subpart would 
be extensively revised to improve the flow and order of the text. To 
assist readers, a redesignation table which shows the disposition of 
provisions of the current rule is set out at the end of this preamble. 
Finally, extensive editorial revisions have been made to existing 
provisions to improve clarity of the rule, to remove gender specific 
pronoun references, to remove passive voice, and to correct spelling 
and punctuation.
    A discussion of the proposal, keyed to the section numbers of the 
proposed rule, follows.

Proposed Section 222.1--Purpose and Scope

    This section sets forth the purpose of the rule as governing 
domestic livestock grazing on National Forest System lands and other 
lands under Forest Service control. The scope of the rule, as described 
in this proposed section, is to specifically address decision points 
related to NEPA procedures for determining suitability for and 
authorization of grazing use and to address specific and general 
requirements and standards related to the issuance and administration 
of grazing permits.

Proposed Section 222.2--Definitions

    In the current rule, definitions are set out in Sec. 222.1 entitled 
``Authority and definitions.'' Because existing paragraph (a) of 
Sec. 222.1 is a restatement of the authority delegated to the Chief of 
the Forest Service by the Assistant Secretary at 7 CFR 2.60, this 
paragraph would be removed and Sec. 222.2 would be limited solely to 
definitions.
    Under this proposed rule, a number of terms would be added, 
revised, or removed.

Terms Proposed To Be Added

    The following terms and their definitions would be added:
    1. The term affiliates is used to denote entities that have a 
business relationship with permit applicants or holders. The term is 
used in proposed Sec. 222.7 in relation to determinations that the 
applicants have satisfactory records of performance. The definition is 
derived from the definition of affiliation used by the Small Business 
Administration and found at 13 CFR 121.3.
    2. The term authorized officer needs to be defined because it is 
used throughout the subpart. The term and the definition is consistent 
with the use of this term under 36 CFR part 251, which governs 
administration of special use authorizations.
    3. The term escrow waiver is used within the subpart and needs to 
be defined. The term has been used by permittees and the Forest Service 
since 1938. The definition in the proposed rule is derived from the 
definition currently found in the Forest Service Grazing Permit 
Administration Handbook 2209.13, Chapter 10 (36 CFR part 200).
    4. The term National Forest System lands in the Eastern States 
would be added for ease of reference and to distinguish certain 
livestock management provisions that apply solely in the Western United 
States.
    5. Where grazing permit requirements apply only to lands in the 
Western United States, the term National Forest System lands in the 
Western States would be added.
    6. The term NEPA procedures is used throughout the subpart to refer 
to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
    7. A definition of rangelands would be added to reflect that 
rangelands are a category of land, not a type of use. This proposed 
definition of rangelands is derived from the definition provided by the 
Society for Range Management following consultations with the Soil 
Conservation Service and the Bureau of Land Management. This definition 
is qualified to note that rangelands may include other lands that do 
not fall within the technical definition of rangelands if there is 
grazing activity by wild and domestic herbivores on these lands.
    8. The term rangeland improvement is used to denote any structural 
or nonstructural improvements which occur on or benefit rangelands.
    9. The term unauthorized use would be added to define all livestock 
use except for certain temporary livestock uses explicitly provided for 
in the rule that is not authorized by a grazing permit.

Proposed Revisions of Existing Terms

    The following terms in the current rule are proposed to be revised:
    1. The definition of allotment management plan would be limited to 
defining allotment management plans and removes regulatory text that is 
inappropriately included as part of the definition in the current rule. 
While under proposed Sec. 222.3 the agency is proposing to eliminate 
allotment management plans, the term is needed to address authorization 
of grazing within the transitional procedures established in this 
section of the proposed rule.
    2. The definition of base property would be slightly reworded for 
clarity with no change in meaning.
    3. The definition of grazing permit would be revised for clarity.
    4. The term 16 contiguous Western States would be reworded for 
clarity and brevity.
    5. The definition of livestock would be clarified by specifying 
that the term means foraging animals and by adding that the animals are 
raised for livestock production.
    6. The definition of National Forest System lands would be revised 
to conform to the statutory definition found in 16 U.S.C. 1609.
    7. The definition of other lands under Forest Service control would 
be shortened and clarified by substituting the words ``other means'' 
for ``otherwise.''
    8. The definition of permitted livestock would be expanded to 
include those livestock grazed under a permit during the preceding 
season, including offspring retained for herd replacement. This change 
reflects the current practice of recognizing these animals as permitted 
livestock when approving waivers of permits based on the sale of 
permitted livestock.
    9. The definition of range betterment fund is shortened and makes 
clear that the funds are available for range rehabilitation, 
protection, and improvement.
    10. The definition of transportation livestock would be expanded to 
include other lands under Forest Service control.

Terms Proposed To Be Removed

    The following terms found in the current rule are not included in 
the proposed rule:
    1. The term livestock use permit would be removed since this type 
of use would be covered through a temporary permit as described in 
Sec. 222.6.
    2. The definitions of the terms temporary grazing permit, term 
permits, on-and-off grazing permits, and private land grazing permits 
would be removed since they can be defined and better understood in the 
context of the rule.
    3. The definitions of cancel, modify, on-the-ground expenditure, 
suspend, and term period would be removed since the meanings of these 
terms are easily understood from common usage and in the context of the 
regulation.
    4. The definitions of person, land subject to commercial livestock 
grazing, and range betterment would be removed as these terms would no 
longer be used in the regulatory text with special meanings.

Proposed Section 222.3--Framework for Rangeland Planning and Decisions

    This section of the proposed rule provides the context in which 
plans and decisions regarding rangeland management on National Forest 
System lands are made. This includes the decision to authorize grazing. 
This section would adopt the two-tiered planning and decisionmaking 
framework established by the Chief of the Forest Service through two 
key administrative appeal decisions (Panhandle LRMP Appeal #2130, 
August 15, 1988, p. 7 and Flathead LRMP Appeals #1467 and #1513, August 
31, 1988, p. 8) and subsequently endorsed by the United States Court of 
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Idaho Conservation League vs. Mumma, 
956 F.2d 1508 (9th Cir. 1992).
    Specifically, proposed paragraph (a) would recognize that rangeland 
planning and decisions occur through the land and resource management 
planning process set out in 36 CFR part 219 and that forest plans, 
establish the programmatic direction for rangeland management on the 
forest which includes goals, objectives, standards, guidelines, and an 
identification of lands suitable for livestock grazing. Finally, 
proposed paragraph (a) makes clear that a determination in the forest 
plan that lands are suitable for grazing is not a decision to authorize 
grazing. This latter declaration is included in the rule to eliminate 
recurring permittee and public confusion over the distinction between a 
grazing suitability determination and a grazing authorization decision. 
The first determination--the suitability of lands for grazing--must be 
made before a decision to authorize grazing can be made, but a grazing 
suitability determination does not necessarily lead to a decision to 
graze those lands. Even though lands may be suitable for grazing, other 
resource objectives may take precedence over grazing livestock; for 
example, protection needs of wildlife habitat might have a higher 
priority in a given area and thus grazing use would be incompatible 
with that objective.
    While programmatic rangeland management direction is made in forest 
plans, proposed paragraph (b) makes clear that, except as otherwise 
provided in this section, a rangeland project decision would be 
required when site-specific activities that implement management 
direction in the forest plan are proposed. Examples of rangeland 
project decisions given in the proposed rule include, but are not 
limited to, maintenance or modification of specific plant communities 
or riparian, aquatic, soil, or other resource conditions needed to 
promote the achievement of goals and objectives of the forest plan; 
rangeland improvements needed to promote the achievement of goals and 
objectives of the forest plan; and authorization of livestock grazing, 
where it is suitable and appropriate.
    A significant aspect of the framework for planning and 
decisionmaking as proposed in this rule is the streamlining and 
simplification of rangeland planning. Under this proposed rule, 
allotment management plans, currently prepared on an allotment-by-
allotment basis, would be eliminated. There has been considerable 
permittee and internal agency confusion over how allotment management 
plans fit into the agency's decisionmaking and environmental analysis 
framework. These allotment management plans appear to create a middle 
tier of planning and decisionmaking related to rangeland management 
that does not conform to the two-tier planning and decisionmaking 
process used in planning for all other forest resources. By eliminating 
allotment management plans, the proposed rule would conform rangeland 
management planning to the process applicable to all other uses and 
thus, clarify when and where livestock grazing and livestock use 
decisions are made. While the agency proposes to eliminate the use of 
allotment management plans, the Forest Service still intends to fully 
consult with and involve grazing permittees and other affected parties 
in rangeland planning and decisionmaking as required in both NEPA and 
the National Forest Management Act.
    It is generally at the site-specific project level that 
authorization of livestock grazing is made and the site-specific 
environmental effects of alternatives are fully analyzed and disclosed. 
For this reason, proposed paragraph (b)(l)(iii) specifies that, where a 
rangeland project decision authorizes livestock grazing, the decision 
must also specify the maximum permissible amount of grazing use, the 
timing and duration of such use, and other appropriate livestock 
management requirements or measures needed to promote the achievement 
of goals and objectives of the forest plan. Further, paragraph (b)(3) 
clarifies that where a rangeland project decision has been made that 
authorizes livestock grazing, the timely issuance of the grazing permit 
is an administrative act and not a separate decision subject to 
additional NEPA analysis and disclosure. Inclusion of this provision is 
intended to avoid any confusion about administrative appeal points and 
to make clear that issuance of a grazing permit is not the decision 
point, provided the grazing permit is issued within a reasonable 
timeframe of the authorization decision and the environmental effects 
disclosed in the rangeland project decision are still current.
    Although a decision to authorize grazing use may be made in a 
forest plan as long as there is adequate analysis and documentation of 
the environmental effects, it is generally more practicable to make a 
livestock grazing use decision and disclose the environmental effects 
of grazing at the project decision level.
    While the agency intends to move toward rangeland project 
decisionmaking at broader ecological scales, these project level 
decisions cannot be undertaken and completed immediately upon adoption 
of the final rule. In light of the approximately 4500 Forest Service 
grazing permits subject to renewal in 1995, transitional procedures are 
thus needed to guide the agency over the short term. Under proposed 
paragraph (c), the agency would utilize a screening approach that 
permits a smooth transition for the reauthorization of grazing permits 
and completion of rangeland project decisions. This approach balances 
the interests of permittees with the need for compliance with 
environmental law.
    Proposed paragraphs (c)(1), (2), (3), and (4) address the 
situations where a rangeland project decision to authorize grazing use 
does not exist. Specifically, proposed paragraph (c)(1) would permit 
the authorized officer to issue a term grazing permit for up to ten 
years on allotments where there is a current allotment management plan 
and where the NEPA documentation associated with that management plan 
is also current. This provision is necessary since in many cases there 
are current allotment plans that are consistent with forest plan 
standards and guidelines and are sufficient to guide rangeland 
management in the foreseeable future. This provision would allow for 
the smooth transition from allotment management plans to rangeland 
project decisions.
    Proposed paragraph (c)(2) would permit the authorized officer to 
issue a term grazing permit for up to ten years based on an approved 
forest plan for allotments that are meeting, or moving toward 
achievement of forest plan goals and objectives. In this situation, the 
forest plan must contain applicable standards and guidelines that can 
be incorporated as terms and conditions of the grazing permit and the 
environmental effects of applying the standards and guidelines on the 
land must be analyzed and disclosed pursuant to NEPA procedures.
    However, if the allotment is meeting or moving toward achievement 
of forest plan goals and objectives but the forest plan does not 
contain applicable standards and guidelines that can be incorporated as 
terms and conditions of the permit, the authorized officer would be 
prohibited, pursuant to proposed paragraph (c)(3), from renewing or 
issuing a new term permit of more than three years duration. In those 
situations where allotments are meeting or moving toward achievement of 
forest plan goals and objectives, paragraph (c)(3) would allow the 
authorized officer to issue a term permit of up to three years duration 
while the agency gathers information and conducts the necessary 
analysis to determine if grazing should be authorized or a different 
term should be established. Issuance of 1-3 year term permits in this 
situation would require disclosure of the short term environmental 
effects of grazing under the permit pursuant to NEPA procedures. This 
term permit provision is needed to prevent undue impact on operators 
who are in compliance with the terms and conditions of their permit.
    Paragraph (c)(4) addresses those situations where allotments are 
not meeting or moving toward forest plan goals and objectives. In this 
situation, the authorized officer cannot issue a new ten year term 
permit until a rangeland project decision and disclosure of 
environmental effects are accomplished. However, the authorized officer 
may issue a term permit for a period of up to three years until a 
rangeland project decision is completed. The term permit to be issued 
during this transition period must include applicable forest plan 
standards and guidelines and/or any other measures necessary to move 
management of the allotment toward forest plan goals and objectives. 
Prior to issuance of the 1-3 year term permit, the environmental 
effects of continuing grazing under the permit must be disclosed 
pursuant to NEPA procedures. This term permit provision provides for 
resource protection and prevents undue impact on operators while 
rangeland project decisions are being prepared.
    Fundamental to proposed paragraphs (c)2, 3, and 4, is the necessity 
for the agency to make a determination as to whether management of a 
given allotment is or is not meeting or moving toward forest plan goals 
and objectives. The programmatic direction in forest plans establishes 
goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines for management of the 
resources on the National Forests, including management of rangelands. 
Forest plan goals and objectives are designed to promote achievement of 
desired resource conditions on the land. Site specific projects 
implementing the forest plan must be consistent with forest plan 
standards and guidelines, which provide for resource protection in the 
achievement of forest plan goals and objectives. Under the transitional 
procedures proposed in this section, agency employees would determine 
whether management of an allotment is meeting or moving toward 
achievement of forest plan goals and objectives through forest plan and 
allotment monitoring and evaluation, allotment field inspections, other 
existing resource information, and professional judgment.
    The exhibit at the end of this document outlines the tiered 
screening approach proposed in paragraphs (c)(1)-(4) to guide issuance 
of grazing permits in compliance with NEPA procedures.
    Additionally, the Klamath, Mendocino, Shasta-Trinity, and Six 
Rivers National Forests in the state of California are without approved 
forest plans. Under the provisions of the planning regulations (36 CFR 
219.29) these national forests continue to be managed under existing 
land use and resource plans. In such cases, provisions of proposed 
paragraph (c)(1), (3), and (4) would provide a reasonable mechanism for 
the continuation of livestock operations which are in compliance with 
the terms and conditions of their permits.
    The agency is committed to the long term improvement of rangeland 
condition. Therefore, proposed paragraph (c)(5) would require the 
authorized officer to develop and maintain a schedule for rangeland 
project decisions and site specific disclosure of environmental effects 
on affected allotments pursuant to NEPA procedures. These schedules 
will be developed in consultation with grazing permittees and other 
interested parties. Priority for scheduling the completion of rangeland 
project decisions will be given to those areas with significant 
resource concerns such as protection of threatened and endangered 
species, riparian and aquatic habitat, and water quality. These 
schedules are necessary to ensure an orderly transition for completion 
of rangeland project decisions through both the short term (1-3 years) 
and long term (10-13 years). It it not the intent of the transitional 
procedures proposed in this section to avoid or delay the completion of 
rangeland project decisions, but rather to complete rangeland project 
decisions on all allotments within 13 years from the effective date of 
the final rule.
    Paragraph (c)(6) of this section clarifies that where grazing 
permits are issued under the transitional procedures of paragraphs (c) 
(1), (2), (3), and (4), the timely issuance of a grazing permit is an 
administrative act and not a separate decision subject to additional 
NEPA analysis and disclosure.
    Paragraph (c)(7) of this section states that adoption of these 
rules would not compel the agency to immediately initiate rangeland 
project planning and decisionmaking. This provision is necessary to 
prevent any claim or assertion that, upon the effective date of this 
rule, the agency would intend to immediately initiate rangeland project 
decisions for issuance or renewal of all grazing permits. This 
provision also provides the necessary transitions from the current 
allotment-by-allotment decisionmaking process to a more streamlined 
process for future decisionmaking in an orderly and planned manner.
    Paragraph (d) of Sec. 222.3 of the proposed rule requires the 
authorized officer to delineate lands suitable and authorized for 
grazing use into allotments. The introductory text retains the current 
policy of including nonfederal lands in an allotment where doing so 
would form logical management units. Proposed paragraph (d)(1) would 
require that maps delineating allotments must be on file at the office 
of the District Ranger. Proposed paragraph (d)(2) would make clear that 
the delineation of allotments is merely an administrative act and not a 
decision subject to further NEPA analysis for disclosure of 
environmental effects. The intent is to eliminate confusion and future 
disputes over the decision point, the requisite environmental 
disclosure requirements, and administrative appeal opportunities.
    In summary, proposed Sec. 222.3 would make clear that planning and 
decisionmaking for National Forest System rangeland management, 
including authorization of livestock grazing use, is a two-level 
process, just as is the case for all other National Forest resources. 
As a consequence, the agency would discontinue the use of the allotment 
management plan. Additionally, this section signals the agency's intent 
and provides the foundation for moving toward an ecological approach to 
rangeland management decisions. Under an ecological approach, the 
agency will seek to focus on appropriate larger geographic scales for 
ecological analysis purposes, while incorporating and building on the 
best science available to ensure the sustainability of the land to 
continue to produce goods and services to meet public demand.
    In the ANPR, the Department specifically asked the public for input 
on appropriate scales of rangeland ecosystem analysis. Public comments 
received support a broader scope of analysis and planning with 
consideration of the human element of the ecosystem. However, mandating 
a particular hierarchical level of analysis for planning is 
inappropriate in this proposed rule on rangeland management. The 
framework for overall agency land management planning and planning for 
all resources must be set out in a cohesive and integrated way in the 
agency's land management planning regulations in Part 219. Accordingly, 
the comments received on the scales of rangeland ecosystem analysis and 
planning in response to the ANPR on rangeland management will be 
considered in the agency's development of a proposed revision of the 
land management planning regulations, which is now underway.

Proposed Section 222.4--General Provisions Applicable to All Grazing 
Permits.

    This section of the proposed rule establishes some of the 
fundamental ground rules governing grazing on National Forest System 
land and other lands under Forest Service control.
    Section 222.4(a) of the proposed rule is essentially the same as 
Sec. 222.3(a) of the current rule and provides that grazing activities 
require written authorization in the form of a grazing permit. Similar 
to current practice, certain minor exceptions for temporary grazing are 
allowed under proposed Sec. 222.6(c).
    At Sec. 222.4(b), the proposed rules describes the permit as a 
privilege subject to the terms and conditions contained therein. As in 
the current rule, Sec. 222.3(b), proposed Sec. 222.4(b) states that the 
grazing permit does not convey any right, title, or interest in United 
States lands, resources, or permanent range improvements to the 
permittee. This is entirely consistent with statutory and case law 
which, for nearly a century has recognized grazing permits as a license 
or privilege to use federal lands for grazing activities which can be 
revoked at anytime without requiring the payment of compensation.
    Proposed Sec. 222.4(c) states that the issuance of the grazing 
permit implements an existing decision to authorize grazing and that 
issuance of the permit is an administrative act that is not a decision 
point subject to NEPA procedures as provided in Sec. 222.3(b)(3) of 
this subpart. This provision is intended to eliminate the confusion of 
permittees and the public regarding the role of the grazing permit in 
management of National Forest System rangelands.
    Proposed paragraph (d) would require the authorized officer to 
prescribe the terms and conditions of each grazing permit in accordance 
with applicable law and administrative direction. Paragraph (d)(1) of 
Sec. 222.4 of the proposed rule parallels the intent of the current 
rule at Sec. 222.2(c). However, in contrast to the current rule, 
proposed paragraph (d)(1) makes clear that terms and conditions of the 
permit include applicable standards and guidelines from the forest plan 
and/or from applicable rangeland project decisions. This provision of 
the proposed rule replaces the allotment management plan as the basis 
of the terms and conditions of the permit and ties the permit terms and 
conditions to the two-tiered planning and decisionmaking process, as 
discussed earlier.
    The current regulations recognize an allotment management plan 
(AMP) as the mechanism for carrying out forest plan direction on a 
grazing allotment. The proposed rule would phase out the AMP as a 
source of direction for rangeland management and grazing use and, 
instead, make applicable standards and guidelines from forest plans 
and/or from applicable rangeland project decisions a part of the terms 
and conditions of the grazing permit. This provision is significant in 
that it would provide the means for ensuring that those current grazing 
operations authorized without benefit of rangeland project decisions 
would comply with the direction of forest plans. As previously noted, 
many of those who submitted comments on the ANPR recommended adoption 
of local standards and guidelines because they would be relevant to the 
land being affected by the action. On National Forest System lands, the 
forest plan and project decisions fulfill this role.
    Under paragraph (d)(2) of Sec. 222.4 of the proposed rule, the 
permittee may be required to collect and submit monitoring, inventory, 
or other resource information related to the permitted livestock 
grazing activity. Information of this nature is essential for 
identifying progress toward forest plan goals and objectives and 
changes in operational practices which may be necessary. This 
information is vital to proper rangeland management and in some 
instances the permittee is in a better position to gather the 
information than the agency.
    Paragraph (e) of Sec. 222.4 of the proposed rule allows the 
authorized officer to issue written annual operating instructions that 
document temporary stocking adjustments and/or provide additional 
direction necessary for proper management of the range resource. While 
not explicitly covered in the current rule, this is a long-standing 
agency practice provided for in the agency's internal directive system 
and in part 2 of the term grazing permit (Form FS-2222-10). Until now, 
most written instructions have been contained in annual operating plans 
provided to the permittees. These annual operating plans have been the 
subject of increasing controversy over whether decisions made therein 
are subject to NEPA procedures. Proposed paragraph (e) would make clear 
that where operating instructions fall within the scope of the decision 
authorizing the grazing use and NEPA documentation associated with that 
decision, a new decision and additional analysis is not required. If, 
however, they fall outside the scope of the decision authorizing 
grazing use, additional environmental analysis would be required before 
those annual operating instructions can be issued.
    Annual adjustments documented in operating instructions would be 
prepared with the involvement of the permittee. This approach conforms 
to current practices and helps insure permittee involvement and mutual 
understanding of rangeland management and operational objectives. The 
agency believes the elimination of annual operating plans and the 
adoption of operating instructions will reduce current confusion over 
how grazing use decisions are made and lead to more uniform 
understanding of grazing permit administration by both agency employees 
and external groups who are interested in national forest rangeland 
resources.

Proposed Section 222.5--Term Grazing Permits; Types and Duration

    This section of the proposed rule describes the types of term 
grazing permits which may be issued. This includes term permits, term 
private land permits, term permits with on-and-off provisions, and 
grazing agreements. These four types of permits are necessary because 
of the various grazing use and land ownership patterns which occur on 
National Forest System lands.
    Proposed Sec. 222.5(a) contains descriptions of the various types 
of term permits authorized. This same information is covered at 
Sec. 223.3(c)(1) in the current rule and in the Forest Service 
directives system. The types of term permits listed in the proposed 
rule are the same as those provided in the current rule. This section 
of the proposed rule contains no change in current practice and, 
therefore, would have no effect on permittees.
    Proposed paragraph (a)(1) covers the circumstances where a term 
permit is appropriate. In addition, a provision for a term grazing 
association permit, which is presently provided for in Forest Service 
Manual (FSM) Chapter 2230, would be incorporated into the proposed 
rule. Proposed paragraph (a)(2) describes a term private land permit 
which is issued to a qualified applicant who owns or controls land 
within an allotment. The permit waives exclusive grazing use of the 
private land to the United States and in return the applicant is 
authorized to graze livestock on the allotment. The amount of livestock 
grazing use authorized in a term private land grazing permit is 
determined by the authorized officer. A term permit with on-and-off 
provisions described in proposed paragraph (a)(3) is issued when the 
grazing area includes grazing lands other than the lands under Forest 
System control. Under this type of permit, the livestock graze 
concurrently on National Forest Service lands and other lands 
controlled by the applicant. Proposed paragraph (a)(4) describes the 
circumstances when a grazing agreement is appropriate.
    Proposed Sec. 222.5(b) establishes the duration of term grazing 
permits which, normally, is for a 10 year period. Proposed paragraph 
(b)(1) contains direction presently found in Sec. 222.3(c)(1) of the 
current rule which describes those instances when a term grazing permit 
on National Forest land in the 16 contiguous Western States may be 
issued for a period less than the maximum ten year time period as 
provided for in FLPMA. Under proposed paragraph (b)(2) of this section, 
the authorized officer may issue permits on all other National Forest 
System lands or other lands under Forest Service control for up to a 
ten year period as determined to be in the best interest of sound land 
management.

Propsed Section 222.6--Authorization of Temporary Grazing

    The proposed rule provides that, when term permits are not 
appropriate for administration of livestock grazing, a paid or free 
temporary permit can be issued or free grazing without a permit can be 
allowed. Issuance of these permits or allowance of free use is 
dependent upon the availability of forage.
    Current regulations found in Sec. 222.3(c)(2) provide for either a 
temporary or a livestock use permit depending on the particular 
situation. Section 222.3(c)(2)(i) provides for temporary grazing 
permits to be issued for a period of up to one year for a variety of 
purposes. Section 222.3(c)(2)(ii) provides for the issuance of 
livestock use permits for periods up to one year for a variety of 
purposes.
    Using two types of permits to cover temporary livestock grazing 
uses is often confusing and requires maintenance and use of two 
policies and procedures, applications, and permits. Thus, the 
Department proposes to eliminate livestock use permits, combine them 
with temporary permits, and extend the term period for temporary 
permits for up to three years. These changes will streamline and 
simplify the issuance of temporary permits.
    The proposed rule eliminates the provision in the current rule at 
Sec. 222.3(c)(2)(ii)(D) for free livestock grazing use for persons who 
reside on ranch or agricultural lands within or contiguous to National 
Forest System lands for not to exceed 10 head of owned or kept 
livestock whose products are consumed or whose services are used 
directly by the family of the resident who distinctly needs National 
Forest System lands to support such animals. The proposed rule does not 
retain this provision since a review of permit administration revealed 
no use of or need for this authority.
    Paragraphs (a)(1)-(4) of Sec. 222.6 of the proposed rule provide 
the same requirements as found in the current rule at 
Sec. 222.3(c)(2)(i)(A)-(D) for the issuance of temporary permits for a 
variety of purposes. The proposed rule makes not substantive change 
from the current rule; however, the text of these paragraphs is revised 
and reduced for clarification.
    The current rule specifies that temporary permits may be issued in 
times of national or regional drought or emergency where such use would 
not result in permanent resource damage. This provision is retained in 
this proposed rule at Sec. 222.6(a)(5), but is revised. Limiting this 
provision to drought or emergency that is ``national or regional 
scope'' is excessive to the qualifications established for temporary 
grazing use of other lands by permitted livestock from an affected 
allotment. Additionally, the qualifying phrase ``* * * where such use 
would not result in permanent resource damage,'' would be removed since 
this qualification is unnecessary. Part of a determination that the 
capacity exists to graze animals is that any such grazing use permitted 
will be done in accordance with appropriate standards and guidelines in 
a forest plan or rangeland project decision to prevent resource damage.
    Paragraphs (a)(6) and (a)(7) of Sec. 222.6 of the proposed rule 
provide the same requirements as found in the current rule at 
Sec. 222.3(c)(2)(ii) (A) and (H), concerning temporary permits for 
transportation livestock an animals used for breeding purposes. The 
proposed rule makes no substantive changes from the current rule; 
however, the text of these paragraphs is revised and reduced for 
clarification.
    The current rule at Sec. 222.3(c)(2)(ii)(C) allows free or paid 
permits for trailing livestock that graze along the way as they cross 
National Forest System lands. Issuing free permits for such use is not 
in the public interest and must be closely administered to prevent 
excessive use and potential resource damage. As a result, the proposed 
rule at Sec. 222.6(a)(8) would allow authorized officers to issue only 
paid temporary permits for trailing livestock across National Forest 
System lands and other lands under Forest Service control. This should 
not result in a substantial increase in the cost of business since, in 
many instances, there may be alternatives to trailing that do not 
require the payment of a grazing fee.
    Paragraph (b) of this proposed section would allow an authorized 
officer the discretion to issue free or paid temporary permits where 
the primary documented objective is managing vegetation to meet a 
resource objective other than livestock forage utilization. Where the 
primary land management objective is to ``manipulate vegetation'' (as 
opposed to livestock production), the current regulations at 
Sec. 222.3(c)(2)(ii)(I) require that a fee be charged for this use. The 
agency believes this fee requirement is an impediment to effective 
vegetative management. In some areas, vegetation, such as chaparral, is 
best managed by grazing livestock. Permitting free use could be a cost-
effective way to manage fuelbreaks, tree plantations, or other areas 
where it is desirable to remove vegetation periodically. In these 
situations, grazing can be used instead of more costly methods 
involving herbicides, fire, or mowing. The temporary permits for 
vegetation management issued under this authority would not replace 
existing grazing permits where the primary purpose if livestock 
production and the permittee pays a fee.
    The current rule at Sec. 222.3(c)(2)(ii)(E) provides for free 
permits to campers and travelers for the livestock used during the 
period of occupancy. This same provision is carried forth into the 
proposed rule at paragraph (c)(1) of proposed Sec. 222.6. Livestock use 
under this provision does not included livestock being used by campers 
and travelers permitted under the provisions of paragraph (a)(6) of 
this section which covers use by transportation livestock for 
commercial purposes.
    The current rule at Sec. 222.3(c)(2)(ii)(B) allows for free or paid 
grazing for research purposes and administrative studies but requires 
the issuance of a permit. Under the proposed rule at Sec. 222.6(c)(2), 
authorized offices may provide for this type of grazing use free of 
charge without a written permit. Experience shows that the amount of 
grazing permitted under this authority is insignificant. Most of the 
livestock involved in such studies are owned by permitted and are 
authorized and paid for under a term grazing permit. Where a university 
or other research entity owns or borrows the livestock used in a study, 
it is in the interest of the United States to allow such use free of 
charge and without a written permit, since the public will benefit from 
the information gained from the research.
    Paragraph (c)(3) of proposed Sec. 222.6 would allow authorized 
officers to grant free grazing with no permit to permittees for horses, 
mules, or burros that are used to support the management of permitted 
livestock. This type of free grazing use is appropriate when the animal 
is not grazed full time on the allotment but is used occasionally as a 
work animal during the grazing season. This is a revision of the 
provision of the current rule at Sec. 222.3(c)(2)(ii)(F), which allows 
for this type of permitted use on either a free or paid basis.

Proposed Section 222.7--Requirements Applicable to Grazing Permits

    This section of the proposed rule contains the requirements which 
must be met in order to hold a term or temporary grazing permit. 
Proposed paragraph (a) lists the requirements for term and temporary 
grazing permits while paragraph (b) covers all additional requirements 
applicable specifically to term permits. The proposed rule is similar 
in content to the current rule at Sec. 222.3(c)(1) and existing agency 
direction with two primary differences. First, the proposed 
requirements would enable foreign corporations to hold grazing permits, 
and second, this proposed rule would establish a satisfactory record of 
performance under previous or currently held federal grazing permits as 
a requirement for the issuance or renewal of a grazing permit.
    Proposed Sec. 222.7(a)(1) would limit issuing term and temporary 
grazing permits to private individuals, grazing associations and 
districts, business concerns, or tribal governments, making it clear 
that government agencies are not eligible to receive term or temporary 
grazing permits. This is consistent with Sec. 222.3(c)(1) of the 
current rule.
    Paragraph (a)(2) of Sec. 222.7 of the proposed rule requires 
eligible individuals or entities seeking a grazing permit to make 
written application, using one of the forms listed in Sec. 222.12. 
Currently this requirement is established in the Forest Service Grazing 
Permit Administration Handbook, FSH 2209.13, section 14, which provides 
that applicants must submit an application and any other information 
requested by the authorized officer in order for the officer to 
determine that all permit requirements have been satisfied. This 
requirement belongs with other requirements in the rules rather in 
agency directives.
    Paragraph (a)(3) of Sec. 222.7 of the proposed rule requires that 
applicants, permittee(s), and affiliates(s), have a satisfactory record 
of performance under previous or currently held federal grazing permits 
to be eligible for a permit. An applicant, permittee, or affiliate, if 
any, with a history of prior grazing use on federal lands that has had 
a Forest Service grazing permit canceled, in whole, pursuant to 
Sec. 222.10(b) (2), (3), (4), or (5), or other federal grazing permits 
cancelled for similar reasons within 36 months prior to application, 
would be presumed to have an unsatisfactory performance record. This 
provision is a substantive change from the existing rule and would 
conform with the intent of FLPMA which requires that, in order to be 
given first priority for receipt of a new grazing permit, existing 
permittees must be in compliance with the terms and conditions in the 
permit and any applicable rules and regulations. Under the current 
rule, permittees who have their permits cancelled because they have 
violated their permit terms and conditions may, be reorganizing as a 
new entity, remain eligible to hold a permit provided that they are 
otherwise qualified. This situation is contrary to the public interest 
and to the intent of FLPMA and would be remedied by this proposed 
Sec. 222.7(a)(3) which would protect the public interest by allowing 
only those who have satisfactory performance records to hold a grazing 
permit. In determining eligibility for a new permit or for reissuance 
of a permit, under the proposed rule an authorized officer would 
consider current performance under federal grazing permits held at the 
time of application as well as performance under other federal grazing 
permits held within the past 36 months. A 36-month period is believed 
to be a reasonable period of time to consider in establishing a record 
of performance under grazing permits. This consideration would extend 
to any affiliates of the applicant or permittee and would include 
review of all federal grazing permits or leases held by those parties.
    Section 222.7(b) of the proposed rule establishes additional 
requirements that are applicable only to term grazing permits. 
Specifically, Sec. 222.7(b)(1) would establish that term permits may 
only be issued to the following:
    (1) A citizen of the United States.
    (2) An alien who has filed a petition for naturalization with the 
proper authorities.
    (3) A corporation or other business concern that is authorized to 
do business in the state where the graving activity is sought or is 
otherwise licensed to do business in that state.
    (4) Tribal governments.
    Currently, the Forest Service Manual (FSM 2231.21) identifies who 
is eligible for a grazing permit. These eligibility standards belong 
with the other requirements in regulation, not in an internal agency 
directive, and, therefore, and being incorporated in the proposed rule 
at Sec. 222.7(b). The current Forest Service eligibility requirements 
do not allow corporations or other business concerns to hold a grazing 
permit unless 80% of the capital stock is held by American citizens 
(FSM 2231.21). This policy would be eliminated by adoption of the 
proposed rule, which at Sec. 222.7(b)(1)(iii) would allow foreign 
corporations or other business concerns to hold a grazing permit if 
they are licensed to do business in the state in which the grazing 
permit is sought. This change will make eligibility requirements for 
graving permits consistent with requirements for all other Forest 
Service permits and with those of the Bureau of Land Management.
    Section 222.7(b)(2) of the proposed rule would establish that an 
applicant or permit holder must own the livestock to be graved under 
permit and such base property as required by the Forest Service. This 
requirement is the same as that in Sec. 222.3(c)(1)(i) of the current 
rule. However, in contrast to the current rule, the proposed rule would 
allow for five exceptions to the livestock ownership requirements.
    The first exception is at proposed Sec. 222.7(b)(2)(i) and would 
allow livestock owned by children of permittees to be run under the 
parents' term grazing permit for up to 50 percent of the permitted 
numbers. The inclusion of this section makes an existing Forest Service 
practice currently authorized in the Forest Service Grazing Permit 
Administration Handbook (FSH 2209.13, sec. 12.22) a part of the grazing 
regulations. The intent of this exception is to allow children who own 
livestock for 4-H, Future Farmers of America, or similar projects, or 
those who want to build up their own livestock herd and ultimately take 
over the family ranch operation, to run livestock under the parents' 
permit and to encourage family operations.
    The second exception, Sec. 222.7(b)(2)(ii) of the proposed rule, 
recognizes that where the permit or agreement is issued to a grazing 
association or district, the members of the association or district 
must own the requisite base property and livestock as specified in the 
term permit or grazing agreement. This is consistent with the intent of 
the current rule (Sec. 222.7) and agency practice as provided in the 
Forest Service Grazing Permit Administration Handbook (FSH 2209.13, 
Chapter 20). Thus, the agency has concluded this provision belongs in 
the rule.
    Under the third exception, Sec. 222.7(b)(2)(iii) of the proposed 
rule, holders of term private land permits would not be required to own 
the livestock or base property under Forest Service permit. This is 
current agency practice as provided in the Forest Service Manual (FSM 
2231.22c). However, it belongs in the rules and, accordingly, is 
incorporated.
    The fourth exception, at G222.7(b)(2)(iv) of the proposed rule, 
provides that term permit holders for developing ranges on National 
Forest System lands in the Eastern States would not be required to own 
livestock or base property for the initial permit, but must meet the 
livestock and base property ownership requirements for permit renewal. 
This provision, which is not in the current rule, would allow new 
livestock operators to get into the livestock business incrementally. 
This flexibility is desirable in the Eastern States where the Forest 
Service administers areas where vegetation can be better and more 
economically managed through livestock grazing rather than by spraying, 
mowing, or burning.
    The fifth exception is found at proposed Sec. 222.7(b)(2)(v) and 
would allow a permittee who disposes or loses control of all or part of 
the base property but retains the permit up to one year, to meet base 
property requirements. The proposed rule is very similar to the current 
rule at Sec. 222.3(c)(1)(v) but is reworded to clarify its intent and 
to recognize that the loss of control of the base property can result 
from actions other than disposal through sale.
    Proposed Sec. 222.7(b)(3) would grant authorized officers authority 
to impose additional requirements for term permits including, but not 
limited to, nonuse of permits and upper limits on the total number of 
permitted livestock. This is a continuation of existing authority 
currently located in Sec. 222.3(c)(1)(vi).

Proposed Section 222.8--Waivers and Escrow Waivers

    This section sets out the circumstances where term grazing permits 
may be waived in favor of another entity, where escrow waivers may be 
executed, and the Forest Service role in each. Although escrow waivers 
have long been allowed through Forest Service Manual direction, they 
have not been addressed in the grazing regulations.
    Proposed Sec. 222.8(a) would include provisions for the waiver of 
term grazing permits to the United States in favor of another entity. 
The current rule at Sec. 222.3(c)(1)(vi)(F) provides for the 
establishment of conditions where waived grazing privileges may be 
confirmed in favor of a new applicant. The proposed rule at 
Sec. 222.8(a)(1) would include the current conditions established in 
the Forest Service Manual (FSM 2230) for waiver of term grazing permits 
for National Forest System lands in the Western States.
    In addition, the proposed rule at Sec. 222.8(a)(2) would provide 
that an existing term grazing permit for National Forest System lands 
in the Eastern States, issued under the noncompetitive procedures of 36 
CFR 222.53, may be waived to the United States in favor of the 
permittee's spouse or child who acquires title to base property or 
permitted livestock. If such a permittee dies and the permit was not 
waived in favor of the spouse or child, the permit reverts to the 
United States and would be competitively offered to other applicants 
pursuant to Sec. 222.5(a)(1). This proposed provision merely placed 
into the rule what is the current practice in the Eastern States and 
clarifies the status of the permit in event of a permittee's death.
    Under proposed Sec. 222.8(a)(3), the holder of a permit for 
National Forest System Lands in the Eastern States, issued as a result 
of the competitive bidding process authorized in the current rule at 36 
CFR 222.54, could not waive a permit. This provision reflects current 
Forest Service practice in the Eastern States and is necessary to 
ensure continuation of the competitive bidding process at 36 CFR 
222.54.
    Proposed paragraph (b) addresses escrow waivers. The Forest Service 
has been allowing permittees to execute escrow waivers in favor of 
lenders since 1938 under a memorandum of understanding between the Farm 
Credit Administration and the Department of Agriculture. That agreement 
is no longer in effect; however, a new memorandum of understanding was 
agreed to by the Forest Service and six western Farm Credit Banks on 
December 21, 1990.
    The current procedures governing escrow waivers are set forth in 
FSM Chapter 2230, section 2231.82. Under these procedures, a permittee 
who mortgages base property or permitted livestock waives all grazing 
permit privileges (except the privilege of continuing to graze 
livestock) to the United States to be held in escrow for a named 
lender. If the lender forecloses on the mortgaged property, the lender 
or a subsequent purchaser who acquires the foreclosed property has 
first priority for receipt of a new term grazing permit. This policy 
would be incorporated in the rules at Sec. 222.8(b).

Proposed Section 222.9--Renewal of Term Grazing permits

    This section of the proposed rule specifies the qualifications and 
priority for reissuance of a term permit. The current rule at 
Sec. 222.3(c)(1)(vi) merely authorizes the Chief of the Forest Service 
to prescribe the provisions and requirements under which term permits 
will be reissued, but does not set out those provisions in the rule. In 
the proposed rule, renewal of term permits is addressed in a separate 
section to ensure that all provisions related to renewal can be easily 
found in one place in the rule.
    Paragraph (a) of proposed Sec. 222.9 states that current permit 
holders must meet the requirements of Sec. 222.7 to qualify for renewal 
of a term permit, and paragraph (b) provides that current permit 
holders on National Forest System lands in the Western States have 
priority for receiving new term permits when the current permit 
expires. Under paragraph (c) of proposed Sec. 222.9, a new permit would 
be issued to the current permit holder if the agency must cancel an 
exiting permit to respond to changing law, executive order, regulation, 
or resource condition. This commitment to issue a new permit is 
necessary to protect permittees' interest when events beyond their 
control result in the need to establish new terms and conditions of the 
grazing permit.
    Proposed paragraph (d) provides a needed cross reference that notes 
that holders of expired term permits on the National Forest System 
lands in the Eastern States, issued under the competitive bidding 
process, are subject to the renewal procedures in 36 CFR part Sec. 222, 
Subpart C.
    Proposed paragraph (e) makes clear that term permits that are 
renewed are subject to the same duration provisions as set out in 
Sec. 222.5(b).

Proposed Section 222.10--Cancellation Suspension, and Modification of 
Grazing Permits

    This section of the proposed rule contains the provisions found in 
the current rule at Sec. 222.4. In addition to editorial changes and 
reorganization of the text for clarity, the proposed rule makes several 
changes from the current rule that take into account important 
rangeland resource management needs.
    Areas of emphasis that were not specifically stated in the current 
rule include cancellation, suspension, or modification of a permit to 
correct documented resource damage [Sec. 222.10(b)] and for 
unauthorized use [Sec. 222.10(b)(3)]. Documented resource damage refers 
to damage occurring as a result of the livestock grazing. If permittee-
owned livestock exceed the permitted numbers or are on the allotment at 
times or in locations not authorized under the permit, they are 
considered unauthorized livestock. This change replaces the current 
excess livestock designation and is consistent with the current Bureau 
of Land Management regulations.
    Proposed Sec. 222.10(b)(1) strengthens direction in the current 
rule at Sec. 222.4(a)(3) by explicitly providing for a permit to be 
canceled, suspended, or modified, in whole or in part for failure to 
pay grazing fees. The proposed rule includes failure to pay 
unauthorized use and service charges in the same category.
    Cancellation of permits for the purpose of reissuance of a new ten 
year term permit is provided for in both the current and proposed 
rules. The current rule Sec. 222.3(c)(1)(iii) states that a permit may 
be cancelled at the end of the midyear of the decade for reissuance of 
a new permit. The term grazing permit also currently contains a clause 
which states that an authorized officer may cancel the permit at the 
end of the midyear of the decade so that it may be updated. The clause 
provides that, in such a case, a new permit will be reissued to the 
existing permit holder. This permit clause causes authorized officers 
to cancel all the term permits needing updating at the same time and 
reissue them. This practice results in inefficiency and delays in 
reissuing permits. Therefore, paragraph (a)(4) of this section of the 
proposed rule retains the authority to cancel permits to update their 
terms and conditions but does not limit the point at which this could 
be done. This charge would allow authorized officers to update permits 
over a period of time in an efficient and timely manner. Paragraph 
(a)(4) also stipulates that when a permit is cancelled under this 
provision, issuance of a new permit is preceded by a rangeland project 
decision and NEPA documentation.
    The current rule at Sec. 222.4(a)(6) authorizes the Forest Service 
to cancel or suspend a permit if the permit holder is convicted of 
failing to comply with certain Federal laws or regulations or state 
laws when exercising the grazing use authorized by the permit. The 
proposed rule at Sec. 222.10(b)(5) would change the words ``when 
exercising'' to ``related to.'' This proposed change would clarify that 
the Forest Service is authorized to cancel or suspend a grazing permit 
when a permittee is convicted of violating the listed laws even though 
the violation may have taken place outside the grazing season or the 
specific allotment, but there is a connection between the violation and 
the grazing use authorized by the permit. The current rule focuses on 
the permitted grazing allotment and on the permitted season of use. 
This clarification is needed so permittees, agency personnel, and the 
public understand the agency's intent, to broaden this provision of the 
rule beyond the grazing allotment and season of use specified in the 
grazing permit.
    The proposed rule would incorporate an existing procedure outlined 
in the Forest Service Grazing Permit Administration Handbook, FSH 
2209.13, section 16.2, that requires an authorized officer to notify a 
permittee in writing of an alleged permit violation and that the 
officer is considering taking action against the permit. Under 
Sec. 222.10(d) of the proposed rule, the permittee would be allowed up 
to 30 days to respond to allegations.

Proposed Section 222.11--Grazing Permit Fees and Other Charges

    This is a new section of the proposed rule that would direct 
authorized officers to establish grazing fees and charges for livestock 
grazing use in accordance with this section of the proposed rule and 
the rules in subpart C--Grazing fees of part 222. Additionally, this 
section would set out the charges to be assessed for unauthorized use 
and provide for the assessment of a service charge for recovery of 
administrative costs for processing actions related to grazing permits.
    Proposed Sec. 222.11(a) would permit recovery of administrative 
costs associated with issuance of grazing permits. Under the current 
regulations, the Forest Service does not assess a service charge to 
recover the costs of processing permit actions initiated by an existing 
or prospective permittee or processing of actions related to permit 
violations. Pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 9701, the Forest Service believes it 
should recover the cost of providing services to users who seek a 
special privilege or use, especially when costs of responding to 
permittees or applicants exceed those normally incurred by the agency. 
Paragraph (a) would make clear that the Forest Service is authorized to 
assess a service change to recover the administrative and clerical 
costs for processing those permit actions initiated by an existing 
permittee or applicant. Examples of these types of actions are the 
modification of an existing permit solely at the request and benefit of 
the permittee and issuance of a new permit to a qualified applicant. It 
is estimated that out of the approximately 9,100 permittees on the 
National Forest System, 2,000 may initiate a permit action in any one 
year. The average service charge is estimated to be about $100 per 
action. It is the agency's intent to issue guidelines to its employees 
through the agency directive system establishing the service charge, 
which would include the processing costs and be adjusted periodically 
to reflect any changes in these costs.
    Proposed Sec. 222.11(b) makes clear that unauthorized use is a 
violation of the terms and conditions of the permit and establishes 
that authorized officers shall charge permittees and other livestock 
owners for any unauthorized use. Charges for unauthorized use are in 
addition to grazing fees assessed for authorized grazing use as 
prescribed in subpart C.
    Proposed Sec. 222.11(c) provides for determining if unauthorized 
use is willful or nonwillful. If unauthorized use is determined to be 
willful, the authorized officer is directed to determine if the 
offender has been responsible for other incidents of willful 
unauthorized use within a period of 36 months preceding the subject 
incident, and therefore is subject to the higher rate charge of 
paragraph (d)(3) of this section.
    Proposed Sec. 222.11(d) establishes that the charge for 
unauthorized use will be the average monthly animal unit month (AUM) 
grazing fee rate for the 17 Western States published annually by the 
National Agricultural Statistical Service, U.S. Department of 
Agriculture. Direction for determining charges for unauthorized use is 
covered in the current rule in subpart C--Sec. 222.50(h). Since charges 
for unauthorized use are penalties rather than fees, this direction is 
more appropriately covered under Subpart A of the proposed rule rather 
than Subpart C where it is currently located.
    Proposed Sec. 222.11(d)(1) provides that livestock owners 
responsible for nonwillful unauthorized use would be charged the 
unauthorized use rate. This section also provides for the charge to be 
waived if certain criteria outlined in the proposed rule are met. In 
the case of a waiver there would be no unauthorized use or service 
charges to the permittee when the situation has been resolved to the 
satisfaction of the authorized officer. Paragraphs (2) and (3) of 
proposed Sec. 222.11(d) provide for charging two times the unauthorized 
use rate for willful unauthorized use and three times the unauthorized 
use rate for repeated willful unauthorized use. When unauthorized use 
is found to be willful, or repeatedly willful, charges will be assessed 
for the full cost of all resource and property damage resulting from 
the unauthorized use and all reasonable expenses incurred by the United 
States in detecting, investigating, and resolving such unauthorized 
use. In recognition that Forest Service financial penalties have not 
been effective as a deterrent in preventing unauthorized use in the 
past, this section of the proposed rule represents a significant 
increase in penalties for unauthorized use. Strong support for this 
section of the proposed rule was contained in the public comments on 
the ANPR. This support was based on the need for Forest Service 
enforcement of the terms and conditions of grazing permits and for 
strong penalties for willful unauthorized use; also, for the 
recognition that some situations of unauthorized use are unintentional 
and the appropriate resolution does not entail a financial penalty.

Proposed Section 222.12--Information Collection Requirements

    While this is a new section in the proposed rule describing 
information requirements associated with the application and 
administration of grazing permits, the type of information requested 
has been routinely collected by the agency in its grazing permit 
administration activities for many years. For a description of the 
information requirements associated with this rule, see the discussion 
of ``Information Requirements'' at the end of this ``Supplementary 
Information'' section.

Proposed Section 222.13--Improvements

    The current regulation at Sec. 222.9 authorizes the Forest Service 
to grant permission to individuals, organizations, or other agencies to 
perform range improvement work on National Forest System lands and 
other lands under Forest Service control. Additionally, the current 
rule allows authorized officers to require permittees to maintain range 
improvements to specified standards. The proposed rule at Sec. 222.13 
includes the provisions of the current rule but would be reorganized 
for ease of use. The only substantive changes embodied in this section 
is to incorporate provisions related to the Range Betterment Fund into 
this section of the proposed rule (currently at Sec. 222.10) and to 
conform the rules prohibiting adjustment of fees or charges for range 
improvement work to the new rules governing grazing fees in the East 
adopted in 1990.
    The current rule at Sec. 222.10 details background and direction 
for range development through the Range Betterment Fund. Direction 
presently contained in the current rule at Sec. 222.10 has now more 
appropriately been incorporated into the Forest Service Manual (FSM 
2240). Therefore, direction for use of the Range Betterment Fund in the 
proposed rule is greatly reduced from that in the current rule and is 
incorporated in paragraph (c) of proposed Sec. 222.13.
    The current rule at Sec. 222.9(d) prohibits adjusting grazing fees 
or charges for number of head months to compensate permittees for range 
improvement work performed on National Forest System lands with the 
exception of National Grasslands and land utilization projects. On 
January 26, 1990, FR 2646, Vol. 55, No. 18, Subpart C of part 222 was 
amended to allow grazing fee credits for range improvements on National 
Forest System lands in the Eastern States to facilitate the development 
of ranges. Therefore, the proposed rule at Sec. 222.13(d) makes clear 
where the use of grazing fee credits or adjustments for rangeland 
improvement work is authorized within the National Forest System. 
Proposed paragraph (d)(1) references the specific sections of Subpart C 
of part 222 authorizing grazing fee credits for rangeland improvements 
on National Forest System lands in the Eastern States. Proposed 
paragraph (d)(2) continues the provision of the current rule at 
Sec. 222.9(d) authorizing the adjustment of annual grazing fees on 
National Grasslands or Land Utilization Projects to reflect the cost to 
a grazing permittee of complying with required conservation practices. 
Proposed paragraph (d)(3) then specifically states that adjustment in 
grazing fees charged in exchange for rangeland improvement work is not 
authorized on all other National Forest System lands except as provided 
in proposed paragraphs (d)(2) and (d)(3).

Proposed Section 222.14--Compensation for Permittees' Interest in Range 
Improvements

    This section of the proposed rule provides for and sets the 
conditions under which permittees may be compensated for investments in 
existing rangeland improvements in the event of grazing permit 
cancellation.
    The proposed rule at Sec. 222.14(a) would incorporate the 
provisions of the current rule Sec. 222.6(a) which directs that 
whenever a term permit for grazing livestock on National Forest lands 
in the 16 contiguous Western States is cancelled, that the current 
permittee shall be compensated for the current value of any authorized 
permanent range improvements they placed or constructed on the lands. 
This situation applies when the permit is cancelled, in whole or in 
part, to devote the land to another public purpose, including disposal. 
This provision is applicable only when lands are actually permanently 
excluded from grazing and does not apply in the situation when a 
grazing permit is partially reduced due to resource conditions but 
grazing use continues at a reduced level. The value of these range 
improvements may not exceed the fair market value of the terminated 
portion of the permittee(s) interest in the improvement.
    Questions have arisen concerning the status of former permittees 
and any interest they might have had in a range improvement. To address 
these questions, the proposed rule at Sec. 222.14 (b) and (c) would 
state that those permittees who had waived permits or allowed permits 
to expire prior to receiving notice of cancellation of grazing in an 
area would not be entitled to compensation under this section. This is 
intended to clarify the direction in the current rule at Sec. 222.6(b) 
concerning permittees who have waived their permit in connection with 
the sale of permitted livestock or base property.

Proposed Section 222.15--Recognition and Cooperation With Local 
Livestock or Grazing Associations and Districts

    This section of the proposed rule deals with the recognition of and 
subsequent issuance of term permits to local livestock or grazing 
associations and the requirements that must be met and adhered to in 
order to maintain that recognition.
    Section 222.7(a) of the current rule authorizes and sets out 
procedures for Forest Officers to recognize and cooperate with local 
livestock associations. Section 222.15 of the proposed rule covers the 
same information in the current rule at Sec. 222.7(a); however, the 
text has been edited for clarity and contains two modifications of 
existing practice.
    Historically, a clause has been included in term permits which 
specified that grazing association or district members must address 
their grievances to the association or district in accordance with the 
term permit and the governing constitution and bylaws of the 
organization. This requirement should be in the rule. Accordingly, the 
proposed rule would include this longstanding grievance process at 
Sec. 222.15(a)(2).
    The current rule at Sec. 222.7(a)(4) allows an authorized officer 
to withdraw recognition of an association if it does not hold an annual 
or special meeting during a 24-month period. However, if an association 
does not meet at least once a year, the organization cannot effectively 
assist in the management of allotment(s), which is the purpose of the 
Forest Service cooperating with the association. Therefore, the 
proposed rule at Sec. 222.15(c) would require an association or 
district to meet at least once every 12 months. Failure to meet at 
least annually would be grounds for withdrawal of recognition. The 
proposed rule further clarifies that the loss of recognition would 
result in cancellation of the grazing permit to the association or 
district.

Proposed Section 222.16--Cooperation with National, State, and County 
Livestock Organizations and Others

    This section of the proposed rule encourages Forest Service 
officials to cooperate with national, state, and county livestock 
organizations, other agencies, institutions, organizations, and 
individuals having an interest in the protection and management of the 
rangeland resources on National Forest system and private lands. The 
proposed rule is very similar to information in the current rule found 
in Sec. 222.7(b), (c), and (d), and Sec. 222.8. The text of these 
sections of the current rule has been edited for clarity and 
consolidated into a revised section of the proposed rule at 
Sec. 222.16. Additionally, Sec. 222.11 of the current regulation, 
providing direction for the establishment and operation of grazing 
advisory boards would be removed, as the statutory authority mandating 
such boards has expired.
    In addition to editorial changes for clarity, proposed 
Sec. 222.16(b) would make clear that cooperation with other agencies 
and units of government is subject to the availability of appropriated 
funds. Also, the word ``farm'' would be eliminated from the term 
``noxious farm weeds'' in proposed Sec. 222.16(b) (1) and (2) to 
broaden the term to include undesirable plant species which may occur 
on rangelands or farm (cultivated) lands. Animal damage management is 
added to paragraph (b)(3) as a specific activity in addition to 
surveillance of pesticide programs for which the Forest Service 
cooperates with the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
    The authority for Grazing Advisory Boards, established under the 
Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, expired December 31, 
1985. Thus, the current regulations at Sec. 222.11 concerning Grazing 
Advisory Boards are obsolete and need to be removed. However, the 
proposed rule at Sec. 222.16(d) would note that the Secretary has the 
authority, under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 1), 
and the implementing regulation at 41 CFR part 101-6.10, and the Food 
and Agriculture Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2281, et seq.), to establish 
advisory boards reflecting a variety of points of view and resource 
interests to advise the Forest Service on management of the resources 
of the National Forest System including forage production.

Other Considerations

    In addition to the changes noted in the preceding section-by-
section discussion of the proposed rule, gender specific references 
have been identified throughout the current rule and eliminated. Also, 
wherever possible, the language--but not the intended meaning--of the 
existing rule has been revised for clarity and ease of reading; for 
example, text written in passive voice has been rewritten in active 
voice whenever possible. In addition, the organization and arrangement 
of the sections of the rule have been revised for easier use by permit 
holders, agency personnel, and other readers. Publication of the final 
rule will require concurrent modifications in the standard conditions 
and clauses of grazing permit forms.
    Public comment on this proposed rule, is invited and will be 
considered in adoption of the final rule. Due to the great volume of 
comments anticipated on this proposed rule the Department requests that 
reviewers identify the specific section and paragraph label for the 
regulatory text on which they are commenting. Specific statements of 
what regulatory text the reviewer feels should be modified, and the 
reasons for the recommended changes, are encouraged. By separate 
rulemaking, the Department also will propose a revision in the system 
used to determine the fees for grazing livestock on National Forest 
System lands in the Western States.

Redesignation of Existing Rule

    The following redesignation table systematically lists the old CFR 
numbers with the new CFR numbers.

                           Redesignation Table                          
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Old section                          New section            
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     222.1.                             
222.1..............................  222.2.                             
222.2..............................  222.3.                             
                                     222.4 (Partial).                   
222.3..............................  222.3 (Partial).                   
                                     222.4.                             
                                     222.5.                             
                                     222.6.                             
                                     222.7.                             
                                     222.8.                             
                                     222.9.                             
                                     222.10 (Partial).                  
222.4..............................  222.10.                            
                                     222.11.                            
                                     222.12.                            
(Note: no Sec. 222.5 in the current                                     
 rule.).                                                                
222.6..............................  222.14.                            
222.7..............................  222.15.                            
                                     222.16 (Partial).                  
222.8..............................  222.16.                            
222.9..............................  222.13.                            
222.10.............................  222.13.                            
222.11.............................  ...................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because the current rule is so comprehensively revised and reorganized 
in the proposed rule, it is not practical to provide a full derivation 
and distribution table for this subchapter. However, as an aid to 
readers the agency has prepared a very simplified chart showing where 
old sections can be found in the proposed rule and whether that section 
has been edited in the proposed rule. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Old section                          New section            
------------------------------------------------------------------------
222.1(a) First half of paragraph...  222.3 Addresses and expands.       
222.1(a) Second half of paragraph..  222.4 Addresses and expands.       
222.1(b)...........................  222.2 (Edited).                    
222.2(a)...........................  222.3(d) Addresses and expands.    
222.2(b)...........................  222.3 Addresses and expands.       
222.2(c) First half of paragraph...  222.3(b)(1)(iii) Addresses and     
                                      expands.                          
222.2(c) Second half of paragraph..  222.3(b),(c) and 222.4(b) Addresses
                                      and expands.                      
222.3(a)...........................  222.4(a) (Edited).                 
222.3(b)...........................  222.4(b) (Edited).                 
222.3(c)...........................  222.3 (b) and (c) Addresses and    
                                      expands.                          
222.3(c)(1) ``Grazing permits ...    222.5(b) Addresses and expands.    
 or less.''                                                             
222.3(c)(1) ``Term grazing ...       222.5(a)(4) (Edited).              
 policies.''                                                            
222.3(c)(1) ``Term permits ...       222.5(a) (2) and (3) Addresses and 
 requires.''                          expands.                          
222.3(c)(1)(i) First half of         222.7(b)(2).                       
 paragraph.                                                             
222.3(c)(1)(i) Second half of        222.3(a) and 222.3(b)(1)(iii)      
 paragraph.                           Addresses and expands.            
222.3(c)(1)(ii)....................  222.9(a), (b), and (d) Addresses   
                                      and expands.                      
222.3(c)(1)(iii)...................  222.10(a)(4) (Edited)              
222.3(a)(1)(iv)....................  222.8(a)(1), (2) and (3) (Edited). 
222.3(c)(1)(v).....................  222.7(b)(2)(v) (Edited).           
222.3(c)(1)(vi)....................  222.7 (Edited).                    
222.3(c)(1)(vi)(A).................  222.7(b)(2) (Edited).              
222.3(c)(1)(vi)(B).................  Unnecessary.                       
222.3(c)(1)(vi)(C).................  222.8 Addresses and expands.       
222.3(c)(1)(vi)(D).................  222.7(b)(3)(i) (Edited).           
222.3(c)(1)(vi)(E).................  222.7(b)(3)(ii) (Edited).          
222.3(c)(1)(vi)(F).................  222.8(a) (Edited).                 
222.3(c)(2) Entire section.........  222.6 (Edited).                    
222.4(a)(1) and (2)(i) through (iv)  222.10(a)(1) and (a)(2) (Edited).  
222.4(a)(2)(v) and (3) through (6).  222.10(b) addresses and expands.   
222.4(a) (7) and (8)...............  222.10(c) (Edited).                
222.4(b)...........................  222.10(a)(3) (Edited).             
(There is no 222.5 in the current                                       
 rule.)                                                                 
222.6..............................  222.14 (Edited).                   
222.7(a)(1)........................  222.15(a) (Edited).                
222.7(a)(2)........................  222.15(b) (Edited).                
222.7(a)(3)........................  222.15(a) (1) through (4) (Edited).
222.7(a)(4)........................  222.15(c) (Edited).                
222.7(b)...........................  222.16(a) (Edited).                
222.7(c) and (d)...................  222.16(c) (Edited).                
222.8(a)...........................  222.16(b) (Edited).                
222.8(a) (1) through (3)...........  222.16(b)(1)(3) and (4) (Edited).  
222.8(b)...........................  222.16(b)(2) (Edited).             
222.9..............................  222.13 (Edited).                   
222.10.............................  222.13(c) (edited).                
222.10(a)..........................  Unnecessary.                       
222.10(b)..........................  Unnecessary.                       
222.11.............................  Obsolete.                          
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regulatory Impact

    This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866 on 
Regulatory Planning and Review, The agency has determined that in 
combination with a separate proposed rule to revise grazing fees this 
proposed rule is a significant regulatory action subject to Office of 
Management and Budget review. The proposed increase in grazing fees may 
result in increased operational costs for small ranching businesses 
that have permits on National Forest System land in Western States.
    The Department of Interior has prepared an initial Small Entities 
Flexibility Assessment analyzing the economic impact of this rulemaking 
on small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605 et 
seq). The public may obtain copies of the draft Small Entities 
Flexibility Assessment by writing the address listed under ADDRESSES 
earlier in the document.

Environmental Impact

    The Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service, as a 
cooperating agency, are preparing a draft environmental impact 
statement (DEIS) on rangeland reform as announced in the Federal 
Register on August 13, 1993. Upon completion of the draft EIS, a notice 
of availability will be published in the Federal Register with an 
opportunity for public comment. Following the comment period on the 
draft EIS, a final EIS will be developed.

Constitutionally Protected Property Rights

    This rule has been reviewed for its effects on private property 
rights (Executive Order 12630 of March 15, 1988, ``Government Actions 
and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights'' as 
implemented by the U.S. Attorneys General's Guidelines for the 
Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings). Under the 
Guidelines, benefits and privileges bestowed by the Government are 
expressly excluded from the definition of private property rights 
protected by the Fifth Amendment.
    The Congress established that a grazing permit is a privilege 
through the Granger-Thye Act of April 24, 1950 (Section 19) and the 
Federal Land Policy and Management Act of October 21, 1976 (Section 
402h)). Both of these acts state that the issuance of grazing permits 
in no way grants any right, title, interest, or estate in or to lands 
or resources held by the United States.
    A long line of court cases has established that a grazing permit is 
a noncompensable interest since it is a privilege to use federally 
owned land for livestock grazing purposes. Accordingly, it is a 
privilege--not a right--which can be withdrawn or canceled by the 
United States without compensation. Since this rule deals with granting 
a privilege, Executive Order 12630, which involves the taking of 
private property for public use, does not apply.
    Notwithstanding the above, the Office of General Counsel has 
prepared a Taking Implication Assessment on grazing activities 
undertaken by the Forest Service. It was the conclusion of that 
assessment that regulatory activities associated with Forest Service 
administration of grazing on National Forest System lands do not 
present the risk of a taking of private property.

Information Requirements

    This proposed rule governing grazing and livestock use on National 
Forest System lands specifies the information that applicants or 
permittees must provide in order for an authorized officer to act on a 
request. This proposed rule would not require permittees to provide any 
additional information from that already required under the existing 
rule. As such, this rule contains information requirements as defined 
in 5 CFR part 1320.
    The following Forest Service grazing-related forms: FS 2200-1, 
Refund, Credit, or Transfer Application; FS 2200-2, Application for 
Temporary Grazing Permit)--Part 1; FS 2200-12, Waiver of Term Grazing 
Permit; FS 2200-13, Escrow Waiver of Term Grazing Permit Privileges; FS 
2200-16, Application for Term Grazing Permit; and FS 2200-17, 
Application for Term Private Land Grazing Permit are already cleared 
for the use that would be required by this proposed rule and have been 
assigned OMB control No. 0596-0003, with an expiration date of August 
31, 1995.
    Public reporting burdens for the collection of information by these 
forms is estimated to average from 9 to 18 minutes per response 
depending on the form. Extremely complex situations may require up to 2 
hours to prepare. The information needed to complete the forms should 
be readily available from existing livestock and landownership records. 
Reviewers should send comments regarding the burden estimate or any 
other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions 
for reduction this burden to: Chief (2200) Forest Service, USDA, P.O. 
Box 96090, Washington, DC 20090-6090; and Forest Service Desk Officer, 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and 
Budget, Washington, DC 20503.

Civil Justice Reform Act

    This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12778, 
Civil Justice Reform. If this proposed rule were adopted, (1) all state 
and local laws and regulations that are in conflict with this proposed 
rule or which would impede its full implementation would be preempted; 
(2) no retroactive effect would be given to this proposed rule; and (3) 
it would not require administrative proceedings before parties may file 
suit in court challenging its provisions.

List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 222

    Grazing Lands, Livestock, National forests, National grasslands, 
Range Management, Wildlife, and Wild horses and burros.

    Therefore, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, it is 
proposed to revise subpart A of part 222 of title 36 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations to read as follows:

PART 222--RANGE MANAGEMENT

Subpart A--Management of Grazing Use Within Rangeland Ecosystems

Sec.
222.1  Purpose and scope.
222.2  Definitions.
222.3  Framework for rangeland planning and decisions.

Grazing Permits

222.4  General provisions applicable to all grazing permits.
222.5  Term grazing permits; types and duration.
222.6  Authorization of temporary grazing.
222.7  Requirements applicable to grazing permits.
222.8  Waivers and escrow waivers.
222.9  Renewal of term grazing permits.
222.10  Cancellation, suspension, and modification of grazing 
permits.
222.11  Grazing permit fees and other charges.
222.12  Information collection requirements.

Rangeland Improvements

222.13  Improvements.
222.14  Compensation for permittees' interest in rangeland 
improvements.

Cooperation

222.15  Recognition and cooperation with local livestock or grazing 
associations and districts.
222.16  Cooperation with national, state, and county livestock 
organizations and others.

Subpart A--Management of Grazing Use Within Rangeland Ecosystems

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1011; 16 U.S.C. 472, 551, 572, 580g, 580h, 
580l, 1600 et seq.; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 43 U.S.C. 1901-1903, 1751-1752.


Sec. 222.1  Purpose and scope.

    (a) The purpose of this subpart is to set forth the rules by which 
domestic livestock operations are managed on National Forest System 
lands and other lands under Forest Service control.
    (b) This subpart addresses the following:
    (1) The points in the planning and decisionmaking process at which 
decisions are made on the suitability of rangelands for grazing, on the 
authorization of livestock grazing, and when compliance with NEPA 
procedures is required;
    (2) General provisions applicable to all grazing permits;
    (3) Specific requirements related to issuance and administration of 
grazing permits;
    (4) Standards for the cancellation, suspension, and modification of 
grazing permits;
    (5) Requirements related to structural and nonstructural range 
improvements; and
    (6) Standards for cooperative management.


Sec. 222.2  Definitions.

    The special terms used in this subpart are defined as follows:
    Affiliate(s) means a business concern(s) or individual(s) that is 
sufficiently closely related to a permittee through personal, 
professional, or other ties that it either controls, has the power to 
control, or can influence business decisions made by the permittee 
concerning authorized grazing use on National Forest System lands or 
other lands under Forest Service control.
    Allotment is a delineated area of land available for livestock 
grazing.
    Allotment management plan is a document that specifies the actions 
to be taken to manage and protect the rangeland resources and reach a 
given set of objectives.
    Authorized officer is a Forest Service line officer who has been 
delegated the authority to take certain actions related to rangeland 
management on National Forest System lands and other lands under Forest 
Service control.
    Base property is land and improvements owned and used by a grazing 
permittee for a farm or ranch operation and specifically identified by 
a permittee, in order to qualify for a term grazing permit.
    Escrow waiver is a document by which a permittee, who has mortgaged 
permitted livestock or base property, waives all privileges associated 
with a grazing permit, except the privilege of continuing to graze 
livestock, to the United States to be held in escrow for the lender.
    Grazing permit is a document authorizing livestock use of National 
Forest System lands or other lands under Forest Service control.
    Livestock means foraging animals kept or raised for livestock 
production, pleasure, or other use.
    National Forest System lands means the National Forests, National 
Grasslands, Land Utilization Projects, and other lands, waters, or 
interests therein administered by the Forest Service or designated for 
administration through the Forest Service as a part of the System (16 
U.S.C. 1609).
    National Forest System lands in the Eastern States refers to all 
National Forest System Lands in the Eastern and Southern administrative 
regions of the Forest Service (36 CFR 200.2), except the National 
Grasslands in Texas and Oklahoma.
    National Forest System lands in the Western States refers to all 
National Forest System lands in the states of Arizona, California, 
Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, 
Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming but only to the 
National Grasslands in the states of Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. This 
term does not include national forests in the states of Oklahoma and 
Texas.
    NEPA procedures are the requirements of the National Environmental 
Policy Act of 1969, (42 U.S.C. 4321 et. seq.) regulations at 40 CFR 
parts 1500 through 1508, and Forest Service policies and procedures in 
the Forest Service Manual Chapter 1950 and Forest Service Handbook 
1909.15.
    Other lands under Forest Service control are non-federal lands over 
which the Forest Service has been given control through lease, 
agreement, or other means.
    Permittee is any individual or entity who has been issued a grazing 
permit.
    Permitted livestock means livestock being grazed under a permit or 
those that were grazed under a permit during the preceding season, 
including offspring retained for herd replacement.
    Range Betterment Fund is the fund established by section 401(b)(1) 
of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1751) 
which is used for on-the-ground range rehabilitation, protection, and 
improvement projects.
    Rangeland improvement is any permanent or temporary structure or 
any nonstructural land treatment designed to protect, improve or make 
use of rangeland ecosystems.
    Rangelands are a kind of land on which the native vegetation, 
climax or natural potential, is predominantly grasses, grass-like 
plants, forbs or shrubs. Rangelands include lands revegetated naturally 
or artificially to provide a plant cover which is managed like native 
vegetation. Rangelands include natural grasslands, savannas, 
shrublands, most deserts, tundra, alpine communities, coastal marshes, 
and wet meadows. When used in this rule, the term also includes other 
National Forest System lands (including forested lands, woodlands, and 
riparian areas) on which grazing by wild and domestic herbivores may 
occur.
    16 Contiguous Western States refers to the states of Arizona, 
California, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New 
Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, 
and Wyoming.
    Transportation livestock means livestock used as pack and saddle 
stock for travel on National Forest System lands and other lands under 
Forest Service control.
    Unauthorized use means livestock use on National Forest System 
lands or other lands under Forest Service control that is not 
authorized by a grazing permit, or an amendment or modification 
thereto.


Sec. 222.3  Framework for rangeland planning and decisions.

    (a) Forest plan direction. Planning for management of rangelands is 
accomplished through the land and resource management planning process 
set out in 36 CFR part 219. Forest plans establish programmatic 
direction including goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines for 
rangeland management and identify National Forest System lands suitable 
for livestock grazing. A suitability determination is not a decision to 
authorize grazing.
    (b) Rangeland project decisions. Except as otherwise provided in 
this section, a rangeland project decision is required when site-
specific activities designed to accomplish a specific, on-the-ground 
purpose or result are proposed which implements the programmatic 
management direction in the forest plan.
    (1) Examples of rangeland project decisions include, but are not 
limited to, the following:
    (i) Maintenance or modification of specific plant communities or 
riparian, aquatic, soil, or other resource conditions needed to promote 
the achievement of goals and objectives of the forest plan.
    (ii) Rangeland improvements needed to promote the achievement of 
goals and objectives of the forest plan.
    (iii) Authorization of livestock grazing where grazing is suitable 
and appropriate. A rangeland project decision authorizing livestock 
grazing must specify the maximum permissible amount of grazing use, the 
timing and duration of such use, and other appropriate livestock 
management requirements or measures needed to promote the achievement 
of goals and objectives of the forest plan.
    (2) Rangeland project decisions must be consistent with applicable 
forest plan standards and guidelines.
    (3) Rangeland project decisions are decision points subject to NEPA 
procedures. Where a rangeland project decision authorizes livestock 
grazing, timely issuance of the grazing permit based on the rangeland 
project decision is an administrative act and not a separate decision.
    (c) Transitional procedures for authorizing grazing use. In the 
absence of a rangeland project decision that addresses livestock 
grazing use, the authorized officer may issue a grazing permit in 
accordance with the following transitional procedures:
    (1) The authorized officer may issue a new term permit for up to 
ten years where there is a current allotment management plan adopted 
prior to [180 days from date of publication of the final rule] and the 
analysis and disclosure of environmental effects are still current.
    (2) On those allotments for which there is no current allotment 
management plan but which are meeting, or moving toward achievement of, 
forest plan goals and objectives, the authorized officer may issue a 
new term permit for up to ten years based on the forest plan, provided 
that the plan contains applicable standards and guidelines that can be 
incorporated as terms and conditions of the permit and that the 
environmental effects of applying the standards and guidelines on the 
land are analyzed and disclosed pursuant to NEPA procedures.
    (3) On those allotments for which there is no allotment management 
plan or current NEPA disclosure and the allotments are meeting, or 
moving toward achievement of, forest plan goals and objectives, but the 
forest plan does not contain applicable standards and guidelines that 
can be incorporated into the permit, the authorized officer shall issue 
a term permit not exceeding three years in duration to authorize the 
continuation of grazing. This interim period will permit the agency to 
gather information and conduct necessary analysis to determine if 
grazing should be authorized or a different permit term should be 
established. In such cases, the environmental effects of continuing 
grazing under a 1-3 year term permit must be analyzed and disclosed 
pursuant to NEPA procedures prior to issuance of the permit.
    (4) On those allotments for which there is no allotment management 
plan or current NEPA disclosure, and the allotments are not meeting or 
moving toward achievement of forest plan goals and objectives, the 
authorized officer may not issue a term permit of more than three years 
in duration until a rangeland project decision and disclosure of 
environmental effects is accomplished. In the interim, the authorized 
officer may issue a term permit of up to three years in duration 
provided that the terms and conditions of the permit include existing 
or amended forest plan standards and guidelines or other measures 
necessary to move management of the allotment toward achievement of 
forest plan goals and objectives. In such case, the environmental 
effects of continuing grazing under the 1-3 year term permit must be 
analyzed and disclosed pursuant to NEPA procedures prior to issuance of 
the permit.
    (5) Where authorization of livestock grazing is made pursuant to 
paragraphs (c) (1), (2), (3), and (4) of this section, the authorized 
officer shall develop and maintain a schedule for completing rangeland 
project decisions and site specific disclosure of environmental effects 
on affected allotments pursuant to NEPA procedures. The authorized 
officer shall develop this schedule in consultation with the grazing 
permittees and other interested parties. Priority for scheduling the 
completion of rangeland project decisions shall be given to those areas 
with significant resource concerns such as protection of threatened and 
endangered species, riparian and aquatic habitats, and water quality.
    (6) Where grazing permits are issued under the transitional 
procedures of paragraphs (c) (1), (2), (3), and (4) of this section, 
the timely issuance of a grazing permit is an administrative act and 
not a separate decision.
    (7) This subpart does not compel immediate initiation of rangeland 
project decisions to issue or renew grazing permits.
    (d) Delineation of allotments. Where lands are suitable for grazing 
and livestock grazing is to be authorized, the authorized officer shall 
delineate allotments consistent with the forest plan and applicable 
rangeland project decisions. When approved by the affected landowner, 
lessee, or cooperating agency, allotments may include associated 
private and other public lands in order to form logical range 
management units for effective coordinated resource management.
    (1) Maps delineating allotments shall be on file at the office of 
the District Ranger.
    (2) The delineation of allotments is an administrative act and not 
a decision subject to further NEPA analysis or disclosure of 
environmental effects.

Grazing Permits


Sec. 222.4  General provisions applicable to all grazing permits.

    (a) Grazing authorization required. All livestock grazing use of 
National Forest System lands and other lands under Forest Service 
control requires prior written authorization through a grazing permit 
issued by an authorized officer, except for certain temporary grazing 
as provided for in Sec. 222.6(c).
    (b) Nature of grazing permit. A grazing permit is a privilege 
authorizing the holder to use National Forest System lands or other 
lands under Forest Service control subject to the terms and conditions 
contained therein. Grazing permits do not convey any right, title, or 
interest in United States lands, resources, or permanent range 
improvements to the permittee.
    (c) NEPA compliance. Issuance of a permit implements a previous 
decision to authorize grazing and is not a decision point subject to 
NEPA procedures as provided for in Sec. 222.3(b)(3).
    (d) Terms and conditions. The authorized officer shall prescribe 
the terms and conditions of each grazing permit in accordance with 
applicable statutes, regulations, and direction issued through the 
Forest Service Directive System (36 CFR 200.4).
    (1) The authorized officer shall include as terms and conditions of 
the grazing permit those applicable standards and guidelines in the 
forest plan and rangeland project decision.
    (2) A permittee may be required, as a condition of permit issuance, 
to collect and submit to the Forest Service monitoring, inventory, or 
other resource information related to the permitted livestock grazing 
activity.
    (e) Operating instructions. In addition to the terms and conditions 
of a permit, the authorized officer may issue written operating 
instructions to the permittee(s) to make annual, seasonal, or other 
temporary adjustments in the amount or duration of livestock grazing 
use authorized by a grazing permit. The authorized officer may also 
issue written instructions that temporarily adjust or tailor terms and 
conditions as necessary for proper management of the rangelands. As 
long as the operating instructions fall within the scope of the 
decision authorizing the grazing use and the NEPA documentation 
associated with that decision, this does not require a new decision and 
additional environmental analysis.


Sec. 222.5  Term grazing permits; types and duration.

    (a) Types of term permits. The following types of grazing permits 
may be issued to applicants that meet the relevant requirements of 
Sec. 222.7 for a term of up to 10 years with priority for renewal, as 
described in Sec. 222.9.
    (1) A term grazing permit may be issued to qualified applicants, 
including grazing associations and districts, to graze livestock on 
National Forest System lands or other lands under Forest Service 
control. On all National Forest System lands in the Eastern States, 
except the National Grasslands in Texas and Oklahoma, permits for new 
allotments or permits that are vacated or terminated are issued under 
the competitive provision of Sec. 222.54.
    (2) A term private land grazing permit may be issued to a qualified 
applicant who owns or controls land in an allotment under Forest 
Service control. To receive this permit, the applicant must waive 
exclusive grazing use of the private land involved to the United States 
for the full period the permit is to be issued. In return, the 
applicant is authorized to graze livestock within the allotment 
associated with the waived private land.
    (3) A term grazing permit with provisions for grazing on and off 
National Forest System lands and other lands under Forest Service 
control may be issued to a qualified applicant when a logical grazing 
area contains both lands under Forest Service administration and lands 
controlled by the applicant.
    (4) A grazing agreement may be issued to eligible grazing 
associations or districts, to graze livestock on National Forest System 
lands and other lands under Forest Service control. Under such grazing 
agreements, grazing associations or districts may be authorized to 
issue and administer grazing permits subject to rules, policies, and 
procedures agreed to by the authorized officer.
    (b) Duration of term grazing permits. The maximum length of a term 
grazing permit is 10 years.
    (1) On National Forest lands in the 16 contiguous Western States, 
the authorized officer shall issue permits for the full 10-year period, 
unless one of the following situations exist:
    (i) The land is pending disposal;
    (ii) The land will be devoted to non-grazing uses prior to the end 
of 10 years; or
    (iii) It will be in the best interest of sound land management to 
specify a shorter term.
    (2) On all other National Forest System lands or other lands under 
Forest Service control, the authorized officer may issue permits for up 
to a ten year period, as determined to be in the best interest of sound 
land management.


Sec. 222.6  Authorization of temporary grazing.

    Provided that the necessary forage is available, applicants meeting 
the relevant requirements of Sec. 222.7 may receive authorization to 
graze livestock for a term of up to three years, with no priority for 
renewal. Grazing fees for authorized temporary livestock grazing shall 
be assessed in accordance with Sec. 222.11 and Subpart C--Grazing Fees 
of this part, unless free permits as expressly provided for in this 
section.
    (a) Paid temporary permits. Temporary permits for a fee are 
appropriate in the following circumstances:
    (1) Where a new permittee assumes previously authorized grazing use 
which has been suspended or cancelled.
    (2) Where there has been unusually favorable climatic conditions.
    (3) Where a permittee has exercised the nonuse provision of a term 
permit.
    (4) Where the base property has been sold; the term permit waived; 
a new term permit issued; the new permittee does not want to graze 
livestock that season; and the most recent former permittee desires to 
graze livestock for the remainder of the permitted grazing season.
    (5) Where fire, drought, pestilence or other natural phenomenon has 
reduced livestock grazing capacity on other National Forest System 
lands or other lands under Forest Service control.
    (6) Where transportation livestock are engaged in commercial 
packing, dude ranching, or other commercial enterprises, such as 
mining, ranching, and logging activities.
    (7) Where animals are being used to breed permitted livestock.
    (8) Where livestock are trailing across National Forest System 
lands and other lands under Forest Service control.
    (b) Free or paid temporary permits: The authorized officer has 
discretion to issue temporary permits for a fee or free of charge where 
the primary objective for grazing use is managing vegetation, rather 
than utilizing forage.
    (c) Free grazing with no written permit. Grazing may be authorized 
free of charge and without a written permit in the following 
circumstances:
    (1) Where livestock are being used by campers and travelers during 
the period of occupancy.
    (2) Where horses, mules, or burros are being used in support of 
research, administration, or other approved work being conducted on 
National Forest System lands and other lands under Forest Service 
control.
    (3) Where horses, mules, or burros are being used occasionally to 
assist a permittee in managing the permitted livestock during the 
grazing season.


Sec. 222.7  Requirements applicable to grazing permits.

    (a) Requirements applicable to all Forest Service livestock grazing 
permits. (1) Grazing permits may be issued only to private individuals, 
grazing associations and districts, business concerns, or tribal 
governments. Federal, State, and local governments, or units thereof, 
are not eligible to receive or hold grazing permits.
    (2) Applicants for a grazing permit must file a written application 
to the District Ranger responsible for the administration of the lands 
to be grazed.
    (3) An applicant or permittee(s), and affiliate(s), if any, with a 
history of prior grazing use on federal lands, must show a satisfactory 
record of performance under previous or currently held federal grazing 
permits. Applicants, permittees, or affiliates, who have had Forest 
Service grazing permits cancelled, in whole, pursuant to Sec. 222.10(b) 
(2), (3), (4), or (5), or other federal grazing permits or leases 
cancelled within 36 months prior to application are presumed to have an 
unsatisfactory performance record.
    (b) Additional requirements applicable to term permits:
    (1) Term permits may be issued to the following:
    (i) A citizen of the United States;
    (ii) An alien who has filed a petition for naturalization;
    (iii) A corporation or other business concern, including but not 
limited to grazing associations and districts, that is authorized to do 
business in the State where the grazing activity is to be conducted 
regardless of the ownership of the company or the company's stock; or
    (iv) Tribal governments.
    (2) An applicant or permittee must own the livestock to be grazed 
under permit and such base property as required by the Forest Service, 
except that:
    (i) Livestock owned by children of permittees may be run under 
their parent's term grazing permit for up to 50 percent of the 
permitted numbers when the children are establishing a livestock herd 
with the intent of acquiring the family ranch operation or when 
children own livestock as part of a youth agricultural program or 
project.
    (ii) Members of a grazing association or a grazing district, as 
opposed to the association or district itself, must meet base property 
and livestock ownership requirements as specified in the term permit 
issued to that association or district.
    (iii) Applicants for or holders of term private land grazing 
permits are not required to own base property or the livestock 
authorized by the grazing permit.
    (iv) Applicants for or holders of term permits for developing 
ranges on National Forest System lands in the Eastern States are not 
required to own livestock or base property to obtain the initial 
grazing permit. However, when applying for permit renewal, the 
permittee must meet the livestock and base property ownership 
requirements.
    (v) If a term grazing permittee disposes or loses control of all or 
part of the base property but does not waive the permit to the United 
States in favor of the new owner, the permittee has one year from the 
date of sale or loss of control to meet base property requirements. If 
the permittee does not meet base property requirements within that time 
period, the permittee is no longer qualified to hold a term grazing 
permit, and the authorized officer shall promptly cancel the permit.
    (3) An authorized officer may prescribe other requirements for term 
grazing permits including, but not limited to, the following:
    (i) Conditions for and length of time that non-use may be allowed; 
and
    (ii) Upper limits on the total number of permitted livestock and 
any exceptions to upper limits.


Sec. 222.8  Waivers and escrow waivers.

    (a) Waiver of term permits. Holders of term grazing permits may 
waive their permits to the United States in favor of another entity and 
the waiver may be confirmed by an authorized officer as follows:
    (1) A holder of a term grazing permit for National Forest System 
lands in the Western States may waive a permit to the United States in 
favor of an applicant who has purchased the permitted livestock or base 
property if there is no escrow waiver in effect for that portion of the 
permit. An authorized officer may confirm the waiver and issue a new 
term grazing permit if the purchaser meets the requirements of 
Sec. 222.7.
    (2) On National Forest System lands in the Eastern States, a holder 
of a term grazing permit issued under the noncompetitive procedures of 
Sec. 222.53 may waive the permit to the United States in favor of a 
spouse or child who acquires title to base property or permitted 
livestock. An authorized officer may confirm the waiver and issue a new 
term grazing permit if the spouse or child meets the applicable 
requirements of Sec. 222.7.
    (3) A holder of a term grazing permit issued under the competitive 
bidding procedure in Subpart C-Grazing Fees of this part, may not waive 
the permit to the United States in favor of another entity.
    (b) Escrow waivers. Authorized officers may accept an escrow waiver 
executed by the holder of a term grazing permit for National Forest 
System lands in the Western States. The lender in whose name the United 
States holds the grazing privileges in escrow shall receive copies of 
all correspondence by the Forest Service related to actions under 
Sec. 222.10 of this subpart to cancel, suspend, or modify the grazing 
permit that is the subject of the escrow waiver. The authorized officer 
may release an escrow waiver only upon the satisfaction of the mortgage 
or upon the lender's written notification to the Forest Service that it 
does not require such an arrangement to adequately protect its 
interest. Authorized officers may issue term grazing permits to the 
lender named on the escrow waiver, if the lender has acquired the 
mortgaged base property or livestock and otherwise meets the 
requirements of Sec. 222.7.


Sec. 222.9  Renewal of term grazing permits.

    (a) To qualify for renewal of a term permit, current permit holders 
must meet the requirements of Sec. 222.7.
    (b) Current permit holders on National Forest System lands in the 
Western States have priority for receiving a new term grazing permit 
when the current term grazing permit expires.
    (c) If the agency must cancel an existing permit and issue a new 
permit to respond to changing law, executive order, regulation, or 
resource condition, the new permit shall be issued to the current 
permit holder.
    (d) Procedures for renewal of term grazing permits for National 
Forest System Lands in the Eastern States are set forth in subpart C of 
this part.
    (e) The duration of a term grazing permit renewed under this 
section is determined in accordance with Sec. 222.5(b).


Sec. 222.10  Cancellation, suspension, and modification of grazing 
permits.

    (a) An authorized officer may cancel grazing permits, in whole or 
in part, under the following circumstances:
    (1) If the lands grazed under the permit are to be disposed of or 
devoted to another public purpose. In these cases, except in an 
emergency, the authorized officer must give the permittee two-years 
advance notice of the intent to cancel.
    (2) If a permittee does one or more of the following:
    (i) Fails to meet the requirements in Sec. 222.7.
    (ii) Waives the permit to the United States.
    (iii) Fails to resume livestock grazing after exhausting the 
maximum permitted time for nonuse.
    (3) If a grazing association or district fails to comply with Title 
VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and regulations promulgated 
thereunder (7 CFR part 15).
    (4) If it is necessary to update the grazing permit terms and 
conditions. In this case, issuance of a new permit is preceded by a 
rangeland project decision and NEPA disclosure and the duration of the 
permit is determined in accordance with Sec. 222.5(b).
    (b) An authorized officer may cancel, suspend, or modify a permit, 
in whole or in part, to correct documented resource damage, or if a 
permittee:
    (1) Fails to pay grazing fees, service charges or unauthorized use 
charges within the established time limit;
    (2) Fails to comply with terms and conditions in the grazing 
permit;
    (3) Is responsible for unauthorized livestock use;
    (4) Intentionally misrepresents a material fact to an authorized 
officer on an application for a grazing permit or during the permit 
term by making a false statement or by failing to disclose relevant 
information; or
    (5) Is convicted for violation of Federal laws or regulations or 
State laws concerning animal control, protection of air, water, soil, 
vegetation, fish, wildlife, or other environmental values related to 
the grazing use authorized by the permit.
    (c) An authorized officer may suspend or modify a permit, in whole 
or in part, for the following purposes:
    (1) To conform with changes in statute, court order, regulation, 
Executive order, forest plans, rangeland project decisions, or other 
management needs.
    (2) To respond to a permittee(s) request, provided that the 
requested modification is consistent with the forest plan and 
applicable rangeland project decisions.
    (3) To alter the amount of grazing permitted, the time or duration 
of grazing use, or the allotment(s) to be used because of resource 
condition(s). The authorized officer shall give a permittee one year's 
notice, expect in an emergency or when agreed to by the permittee.
    (d) When an authorized officer believes that cancellation, 
suspension, or modification of a permit may be warranted, the officer 
shall notify the permittee in writing that such action is being 
considered. The permittee shall be accorded a reasonable opportunity to 
respond, not to exceed 30 days. The officer shall consider any response 
submitted by or on behalf of the permittee. If the authorized officer 
decides that the permit action is appropriate, the decision becomes 
effective on the date the decision is issued, unless specified 
otherwise in the written decision.


Sec. 222.11  Grazing permit fees and other charges.

    Authorized officers shall establish grazing fees and charges for 
livestock grazing use in accordance with this section and the rules in 
subpart C--Grazing Fees of this part.
    (a) An authorized officer may assess a service charge for 
processing the following actions related to a grazing permit:
    (1) Actions initiated by a permittee or applicant;
    (2) Actions arising under Sec. 222.10; or
    (3) Actions related to willful unauthorized use.
    (b) Unauthorized use is a violation of the terms and conditions of 
the grazing permit. Except as otherwise provided in this section, the 
authorized officer shall charge permittees and other livestock owners 
for any unauthorized use. Charges for unauthorized use are in addition 
to grazing fees assessed for authorized grazing use as prescribed in 
subpart C of this part.
    (c) The authorized officer shall determine whether unauthorized use 
is willful or nonwillful. If willful, the authorized officer shall 
check agency records and check with other federal agencies to determine 
whether the permittee, applicant, or affiliate (if any) has been 
responsible for other incidents of willful unauthorized grazing use in 
the 36 months preceding the subject incident and, therefore, is subject 
to the higher rate charge of paragraph (d)(3) of this section.
    (d) The basic charge for unauthorized use will be the average 
monthly animal unit month (AUM) grazing fee rate for the 17 Western 
States published annually by the National Agricultural Statistical 
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Charges for unauthorized use 
are as follows:
    (1) Nonwillful unauthorized use. Livestock owners responsible for 
nonwillful unauthorized use shall be charged the unauthorized use rate 
unless the authorized officer waives the charge. The charge for 
nonwillful unauthorized use may be waived if the authorized officer 
finds that all of the following apply;
    (i) The unauthorized use was not due to the negligence of the 
livestock operator;
    (ii) Forage consumed by the unauthorized livestock was 
insignificant;
    (iii) There has been no damage to the land, resources or 
improvements resulting from the unauthorized use; and
    (iv) The waiver is in the best interest of the United States.
    (2) Willful unauthorized use. Except as provided in paragraph 
(d)(3) of this section, livestock owners responsible for willful 
unauthorized use shall be charged two times the unauthorized use rate, 
and they also shall be charged for all resource and property damage 
resulting from the unauthorized use and for all reasonable expenses 
incurred by the United States in detecting, investigating, and 
resolving such unauthorized use.
    (3) Repeated willful unauthorized use. Livestock owners responsible 
for repeated willful unauthorized use shall be charged three times the 
unauthorized use rate, and they also shall be charged for all resource 
and property damage resulting from the unauthorized use and all 
reasonable expenses incurred by the United States in detecting, 
investigating, and resolving such unauthorized use.


Sec. 222.12  Information collection requirements.

    (a) This subpart contains information requirements as defined by 
the Paperwork Reduction Act and implementing regulations at 5 CFR part 
1320, which, along with the forms listed in this section, have been 
assigned OMB Control Number 0596-0003.
    (b) Applicants or permittees must submit such information as may be 
reasonably necessary for the authorized officer to determine whether 
all applicable requirements under this subpart are satisfied.
    (1) A person or entity desiring a grazing permit must submit an 
application (Sec. 222.7), using one of the following forms:
    (i) FS-2200-2, Application for Temporary Grazing Permit-Part 1.
    (ii) FS-2200-16, Application for Term Grazing Permit.
    (iii) FS-2200-17, Application for Term Private Land Grazing Permit.
    (2) A permittee desiring a refund, credit, or transfer of grazing 
fees (Sec. 222.11) must complete Form FS-2200-1, Refund, Credit, or 
Transfer Application.
    (3) A permittee desiring to waive a term permit to the Forest 
Service (Sec. 222.8) should complete Form FS-2200-12, Waiver of Term 
Grazing Permit.
    (4) A permittee desiring to have the Forest Service hold a term 
grazing permit in escrow in favor of a lender (Sec. 222.8) must 
complete Form FS-2200-13, Escrow Waiver of Term Grazing Permit 
Privileges.

Rangeland Improvements


Sec. 222.13  Improvements.

    (a) An authorized officer may authorize permittees, individuals, 
organizations, or other federal, State, and local agencies to perform 
rangeland improvement work (Sec. 222.2) consistent with the forest plan 
and with applicable rangeland project decisions.
    (1) An authorized officer may require as a term or condition of the 
permit that the permittee maintain rangeland improvements to specified 
standards.
    (2) The cost of rangeland improvement work may be borne in whole or 
in part by the Forest Service.
    (b) The installation, construction, and/or maintenance of rangeland 
improvements are subject to the following conditions:
    (1) All new or replacement rangeland improvements to be constructed 
or accomplished by permittees must be expressly authorized by the 
grazing permit.
    (2) Subject to valid existing rights, title to permanent structural 
rangeland improvements is held by the United States. Title to temporary 
structural rangeland improvements may be held by the party which 
performs the rangeland improvement work, if no part of the cost of that 
work is borne by the United States.
    (3) When rangeland improvement work is performed by a party other 
than the Forest Service, that party does not obtain an exclusive right 
to use the improvement or the land influenced by the improvement.
    (c) Rangeland improvements on National Forest land in the 16 
contiguous Western States may be funded by the Range Betterment Fund.
    (d) Grazing fee credits or adjustments for rangeland improvement 
work are subject to the following:
    (1) Grazing fee credits for rangeland improvements may be granted 
to permittees on National Forest System lands in the Eastern States 
pursuant to Secs. 222.53 and 222.54.
    (2) The annual grazing fee on National Grasslands or Land 
Utilization Projects may be adjusted to reflect the cost to a grazing 
permittee of complying with conservation practices required by a term 
grazing permit, provided that such cost has not already been used in 
establishing the grazing base value.
    (3) Except as provided in paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2) of this 
section, authorized officers shall not adjust grazing fees charged in 
exchange for rangeland improvement work performed on all other National 
Forest System lands.


Sec. 222.14  Compensation for permittees' interest in rangeland 
improvements.

    (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whenever a term 
grazing permit in the 16 contiguous Western States is cancelled, in 
whole or in part, to dispose of the land or to devote it to another 
public purpose, the current permittee shall receive reasonable 
compensation for investments in authorized permanent structural 
rangeland improvements on the land affected by the permit concellation. 
Compensation may not exceed the fair market value of the terminated 
portion of the permittee's interest in the improvement.
    (b) A permittee who waived a grazing permit to the United States 
prior to the notice of cancellation, in accordance with 
Sec. 222.8(a)(1), shall not receive any compensation under this 
section.
    (c) If a term grazing permit expires and the permittee fails to 
renew it in accordance with Sec. 222.9, no compensation will be granted 
for rangeland improvements to the former holder of the expired permit.

Cooperation


Sec. 222.15  Recognition and cooperation with local livestock or 
grazing associations and districts.

    (a) An authorized officer may recognize a local livestock or 
grazing association or district for the purpose of issuing a term 
permit if the following requirements are met:
    (1) A majority of the grazing permittees on the allotments 
designated in the term permit to be issued are members of the 
association or district.
    (2) The activities of the association or district are governed by a 
constitution and bylaws which include a provision for members to 
address their grievances to the association or district in accordance 
with the term permit and the governing constitution and bylaws of the 
organization and which are approved by the authorized officer.
    (3) The officers of the association or district are elected by a 
majority of the association or district members or by a quorum as 
specified in the organization's constitution and bylaws.
    (4) The officers, other than secretary and treasurer, are grazing 
permittees on the allotments involved.
    (b) Once an association or district is recognized and a term permit 
issued, the Forest Service may cooperate with the association or 
district under the terms and conditions of the permit in the management 
of rangeland resources and livestock on the land covered by the term 
permit issued to the association, provided that the association 
provides the means for their members to:
    (1) Manage their permitted livestock and the range resources 
cooperatively;
    (2) Share costs for handling of livestock, construction, and 
maintenance of range improvements or other projects deemed necessary 
for proper management of the permitted livestock and range resources;
    (3) Meet with Forest officers to discuss and formulate programs for 
management of their livestock and the rangeland resources;
    (4) Communicate proposals, issues, or concerns to Forest Service 
officials; and
    (5) Formulate special association rules as needed to ensure proper 
resource management.
    (c) An authorized officer may withdraw recognition and subsequently 
cancel the grazing permit of a grazing association or district at the 
request of the majority of the members, when the association or 
district is inactive and does not hold an annual or a special meeting 
during a 12-month period, or when the association or district fails to 
comply with the provisions of paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this 
section.


Sec. 222.16  Cooperation with national, state, and county livestock 
organizations and others.

    (a) Forest Service officials shall endeavor to establish and 
maintain cooperative working relationships with national livestock 
organizations who have an interest in the administration of National 
Forest System lands and other lands under Forest Service control and to 
work cooperatively with state and county livestock organizations having 
similar interests.
    (b) Insofar as the programs and responsibilities of other agencies 
and units of government involve grazing upon National Forest System 
lands and other lands under Forest Service control or the livestock 
which graze thereupon, the Forest Service may, subject to the 
availability of appropriated funds, cooperate with:
    (1) State, county, and federal agencies in the application and 
enforcement of all laws and regulations relating to livestock diseases, 
sanitation, and noxious weeds;
    (2) County or other local weed control districts in analyzing 
noxious weed problems and developing integrated weed management 
strategies for areas which may include National Forest System lands and 
other lands under Forest Service control;
    (3) The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service and other 
Federal or State agencies and institutions in surveillance of pesticide 
application programs and animal damage management; and
    (4) State cattle and sheep sanitary or brand boards in control of 
estray and unbranded livestock, to the extent such cooperation does not 
conflict with the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act of December 15, 
1971.
    (c) Forest Service officials also shall endeavor to cooperate with 
other agencies, institutions, organizations, and individuals having an 
interest in the protection and management of the range resource on 
public or private lands.
    (d) Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.), 
and the implementing regulation at 41 CFR part 101-6, subpart 101-6.10, 
and the Food and Agriculture Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2281, et seq.), the 
Secretary may establish advisory boards to advise the Forest Service on 
range resource management concerns. The membership of such boards shall 
be appointed to reflect a variety of points of view about resource 
management and a range of resource interests.

    Dated: April 20, 1994.
James R. Lyons,
Assistant Secretary, Natural Resources and Environment.

    Note: This appendix will not appear in the Code of Federal 
Regulations.

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M

Appendix to Preamble of Proposed Rule

TP28AP94.001

[FR Doc. 94-10031 Filed 4-26-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-C