Home/Federal/Federal Register/2026-09387

Proposed Rule2026-09387

Revision of Regulations for Grazing Administration, Exclusive of Alaska

Primary source

Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.

Published

May 12, 2026

Effective

July 13, 2026

Issuing agencies

Interior DepartmentLand Management Bureau

Abstract

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) are proposing to revise the grazing regulations, Grazing Administration--Exclusive of Alaska, to establish a new part addressing land health management, with certain provisions relocated from existing regulations, and to make conforming updates to the regulations that govern administrative appeals of BLM grazing decisions to OHA's Departmental Cases Hearings Division (DCHD). We solicit comment on all aspects of this rule.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 91 (Tuesday, May 12, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 91 (Tuesday, May 12, 2026)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 26852-26885]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-09387]

[[Page 26851]]

Vol. 91

Tuesday,

No. 91

May 12, 2026

Part XIV

Department of the Interior

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

Office of the Secretary

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

43 CFR Part 4

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

Bureau of Land Management

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

43 CFR Parts 1700 and 4100

Revision of Regulations for Grazing Administration, Exclusive of
Alaska; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 91 / Tuesday, May 12, 2026 / Proposed
Rules

[[Page 26852]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of the Secretary

43 CFR Part 4

Bureau of Land Management

43 CFR Parts 1700 and 4100

[Docket No. BLM-2026-0001; A2407-014-004-065516, #O2509-014-004-125222;
LLHQ220000]
RIN 1004-AE82

Revision of Regulations for Grazing Administration, Exclusive of
Alaska

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management and Office of Hearings and Appeals,
Interior.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Office of Hearings and
Appeals (OHA) are proposing to revise the grazing regulations, Grazing
Administration--Exclusive of Alaska, to establish a new part addressing
land health management, with certain provisions relocated from existing
regulations, and to make conforming updates to the regulations that
govern administrative appeals of BLM grazing decisions to OHA's
Departmental Cases Hearings Division (DCHD). We solicit comment on all
aspects of this rule.

DATES: Send your comments on this proposed rule to the Department of
the Interior (Department) on or before July 13, 2026. The BLM and OHA
are not obligated to consider any comments received after this date in
making their decisions on the final rule. If you wish to comment on the
information-collection requirements in this proposed rule, please note
that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is required to make a
decision concerning the information collections contained in this
proposed rule between 30 and 60 days after publication of this proposed
rule in the Federal Register. Therefore, comments should be submitted
to OMB by June 11, 2026

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
Mail, personal, or messenger delivery: U.S. Department of the
Interior, Director (630), Bureau of Land Management, 1849 C St. NW,
Room 5646, Washington, DC 20240, Attention: Acting, BLM Director.
Federal eRulemaking Portal: <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. In the
Searchbox, enter ``BLM-2026-0001'' and click the ``Search'' button.
Follow the instructions at this website. A plain language summary of
the proposed rule is also available on the Federal eRulemaking Portal.
Comments on Information-Collection Requirements: Written comments
and recommendations for the information-collection requirements should
be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
<a href="http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain">www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain</a>. Find this information-collection by
selecting ``Currently under Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by
using the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The BLM Directorate of Resources and
Planning, Division of Forest, Rangeland and Vegetation Resources, by
phone at (208) 373-3818, or by email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7b393736243c091a0112151c24290e171e3b191716551c140d">[email&#160;protected]</a> for
information relating to the BLM grazing program and information about
the proposed rule, or Julia Bartels, by phone at 703-235-3750, or by
email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8ce6f9e0e5edd3eeedfef8e9e0ffcce3e4eda2e8e3e5a2ebe3fa">[email&#160;protected]</a>, for information relating to OHA.
Please use ``RIN 1004-AE82'' in the subject line. Individuals in the
United States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a
speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access
telecommunications relay services. Individuals outside the United
States should use the relay services offered within their country to
make international calls to the point-of-contact in the United States.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Authority

The BLM currently administers livestock grazing on approximately
155 million acres of public land under the authority and direction of
the Taylor Grazing Act (TGA) (43 U.S.C. 315 et seq.), the Public
Rangelands Improvement Act (PRIA) (43 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.), and the
Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) (43 U.S.C. 1701 et
seq.). Section 3 of the TGA authorizes the BLM to issue grazing
``permits'' that authorize grazing on lands within identified grazing
districts (43 U.S.C. 315b), and section 15 authorizes the BLM to issue
grazing ``leases'' that authorize grazing on lands outside such
districts (43 U.S.C. 315m). For purposes of this preamble, references
to ``permits'' are intended to encompass both permits issued under
section 3 of the TGA and leases issued under section 15. The BLM
administers nearly 18,000 grazing permits that together authorize
approximately 12.3 million animal unit months (AUMs) of grazing
annually (2024 Public Land Statistics, published June 2025).\1\ Permits
are generally issued for ten years and may be renewed if the BLM
determines that the permittee has complied with the terms and
conditions of the expiring permit and meets other regulatory
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ An AUM is the amount of forage necessary for the sustenance
of one cow/calf pair or its equivalent for a period of one month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Need for Amendments

There are a number of issues and considerations that prompt the BLM
and OHA to propose these amendments to the grazing regulations,
including those discussed in the following paragraphs.
The BLM administers its grazing programs under the regulations at
Title 43 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 4100. Those regulations
were comprehensively revised in 1995 (the 1995 Rule) and 2006 (the 2006
Rule). However, elements of the 1995 Rule and the entirety of the 2006
Rule were successfully challenged in court and enjoined by the Tenth
and Ninth Circuit courts of appeals, respectively.\2\ Because the 2006
Rule remains permanently enjoined, the regulations that are currently
in force, and which the BLM implements while administering the grazing
program, are those last published in the 2005 edition of the CFR, which
largely reflect the 1995 Rule.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ Public Land Council v. Babbitt, 167 F.3d 1287 (10th Cir.
1999) (enjoining elements of the 1995 Rule); Western Watersheds
Project v. Kraayenbrink, 620 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 2010) (enjoining
the 2006 Rule).
\3\ Citations to the existing regulations in this notice are,
therefore, all to the 2005 edition of the CFR. Even the 2005 version
of the CFR, however, is not a completely accurate representation of
the regulations presently in effect. Provisions in that version of
the code that relate to ``conservation use'' were invalidated as a
result of the successful legal challenge to the 1995 Rule. Babbitt,
167 F.3d at 1308. Although those provisions still appear in the 2005
edition of the CFR, they are not being and may not legally be
implemented by the BLM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Among other things, the 1995 Rule, in subpart 4180, articulated the
conditions that constitute the fundamentals of rangeland health. From
there, the 1995 Rule directed BLM State Directors, in consultation with
affected resource advisory councils and in coordination with Tribes and
other State and Federal land management agencies, to develop standards
to measure achievement and maintenance of those fundamentals and
guidelines to direct the management of grazing on public lands in a way
that would facilitate such achievement and maintenance. The Rule also
directed the BLM to take ``appropriate action'' to adjust grazing
management whenever it determined that livestock grazing was a
significant causal factor in land not

[[Page 26853]]

meeting rangeland health standards. However, neither subpart 4180 nor
any other regulation directs the BLM to make adjustments to the
management of other programs to address non-grazing-related factors.
The result has been the grazing program--including grazing permittees--
shouldering a disproportionate share of the burden in ensuring
achievement of the fundamentals.
In 2014, meanwhile, Congress amended section 402 of FLPMA to
address the BLM's environmental reviews in connection with grazing
permit renewals, including by providing for the continuation of the
terms and conditions of an expiring or transferred permit for which
environmental review is not yet complete. 43 U.S.C. 1752(c)(2).
Separately, in 2016, the Government Accountability Office (GAO)
issued a report on the BLM's approach to responding to incidents of
unauthorized grazing.\4\ The report included findings that the BLM (and
the United States Forest Service) tend to handle such incidents
informally and fail to record them, and made recommendations that the
BLM revise its regulations to better provide for documentation of
unauthorized grazing use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ United States Government Accountability Office, Report to
the Committee on Natural Resources, House of Representatives,
Unauthorized Grazing: Actions Needed to Improve Tracking and
Deterrence Efforts (July 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Throughout this time, grazing practices have evolved, and the BLM
grazing program has worked to accommodate those changes. BLM grazing
permittees require flexibility to run their operations in the most
efficient manner that is responsive to their business needs and that
can be adjusted to account for changes on the landscape year to year
and over time. While the operative regulations allow the BLM to
facilitate some degree of flexibility within the terms and conditions
of grazing permits, the proposed rule is intended to expand and
otherwise make concrete and explicit in regulation those opportunities
for flexibility.
Appeals of grazing decisions are adjudicated by DCHD. DCHD
decisions on appeals may be further appealed to the Interior Board of
Land Appeals (IBLA). To avoid confusion, it is important to ensure that
the regulations that establish DCHD's procedures for resolving grazing
appeals align with the treatment of appeals in subpart 4160 of the
grazing regulations.

Overview of Proposed Rule

This proposed rule is intended to modernize the BLM's grazing
program and bring its regulations in line with current best practices
for grazing administration. It is also intended to align the
regulations with other developments since promulgation of the 1995
Rule, including Congress's amendments to section 402 of FLPMA and the
observations and recommendations of the GAO in its 2016 report.
The BLM is also proposing to expand the application of the
fundamentals of rangeland health and the standards used to measure
their attainment beyond livestock grazing administration. The proposed
rule keeps the intent of the existing subpart 4180 framework intact,
but would relocate the regulations in a new part of the CFR--part 1700.
This broader application of the fundamentals and standards reflects
that all BLM programs should be responsible for managing toward
improved rangeland health. It will allow the BLM to more effectively
understand the impacts of land management on the whole landscape--which
will, in turn, benefit all BLM-managed lands and public lands users.
The proposed rule would require the BLM to take ``appropriate action''
where a significant factor in failing to achieve land health is within
the BLM's control to address, much as the existing rule does when that
factor is livestock grazing. Rapid landscape-scale condition
assessments and land health evaluations, under the proposed rule, are
intended to inform how uses are managed, rather than dictate whether a
particular use may occur, and what constitutes ``appropriate action''
may vary depending on the resource concern and limitations imposed by
law and relevant planning decisions.
Finally, proposed revisions to the appeal procedures contained in
the grazing rule necessitate conforming revisions to OHA's regulations
governing grazing appeals to DCHD, at 43 CFR part 4, subpart C.
A section-by-section discussion of the proposed changes follows.

II. Section-by-Section Discussion

Part 4--Department of the Interior Hearings and Appeals Procedures

Section 4.170 Appealing a Grazing Decision
OHA is proposing to revise section 4.170 to remove existing
paragraph (g). That paragraph describes the current effect of an appeal
of a grazing decision which does not, under the operative regulations,
suspend the effect of the decision (absent DCHD granting a separate
petition for a stay). Removing this provision is made necessary by the
proposed changes to section 4160.3, which would reverse that default
arrangement to provide that, unless the BLM provides otherwise, appeal
of a grazing decision does suspend the effectiveness of the decision,
pending resolution of the appeal.
OHA is also proposing to correct a cross reference in paragraph (b)
of this section by eliminating the specific paragraph designation from
the cross-reference as cross-reference is more appropriately made to
section 4160.3 as a whole.
Section 4.171 Effect of Decision Pending Appeal; Exhaustion and
Finality
OHA is proposing to redesignate section 4.174 as section 4.171 and
revise it to reflect the changes that the BLM is proposing to make to
section 4160.3(c), also in this proposed rule. Under these collective
proposed changes, the default arrangement would be that an appeal to
DCHD of a grazing decision suspends the effectiveness of that decision.
That dynamic is described in proposed paragraph (a) of this section.
The exceptions to that default understanding are described in
proposed paragraph (b). As proposed section 4160.3(c) also provides,
paragraph (b)(1) would acknowledge that the BLM may place a decision in
full force and effect if doing so is necessary for the protection of
range resource values.
Paragraph (b)(2) would provide that a party to an appeal that has,
by operation of section 4160.3(c) and section 4.171(a)(2), suspended
the effectiveness of the underlying decision may file a motion
requesting that the DCHD administrative law judge hearing the appeal
place the decision in full force and effect. The administrative law
judge may grant such a motion and place the suspended decision in full
force and effect if (1) resources on the public lands require immediate
protection due to changed circumstances that occurred after the filing
of the notice of appeal and (2) immediate and irreparable harm to the
United States due to resource deterioration associated with the
continued suspension of the grazing decision would exceed the harm to
the appellant associated with placing the decision into full force and
effect. The provision provides a mechanism for placing a decision in
full force and effect if changes in circumstances on the ground justify
doing so, even if the circumstances did not justify the BLM placing the
decision in full force and effect at the time it made the decision. OHA
expects that the party making a motion under proposed paragraph (b)(2)
would generally be the BLM, though an

[[Page 26854]]

intervenor may also be in a position to advance such a motion.
Proposed paragraph (b)(3) similarly empowers a DCHD administrative
law judge hearing the appeal of a grazing decision to put his or her
decision on the merits into full force and effect pending further
administrative appeal to the IBLA.
Proposed paragraph (c) amends existing paragraph (b) from section
4.174 to account for the changes to the default relationship between an
appeal and the effectiveness of a decision. Under proposed paragraph
(c), a grazing decision is final and subject to judicial review if it
is made effective by the BLM under section 4160.3(c) and section
4.171(b)(1) or by a DCHD administrative law judge under section
4.171(b)(2) or (3).
Section 4.172 Petitions for Stay
OHA is proposing to redesignate section 4.171 as section 4.172 and
make a minor revision to paragraph (a) to reflect that a petition for
stay, under the proposed rule, would only be necessary in those cases
in which the BLM, under section 4160.3(c) and section 4.171(b)(1),
places a grazing decision in full force and effect.
Section 4.173 BLM Document Filing Requirements and Initial Disclosures
OHA is proposing to redesignate section 4.172 as section 4.173 but
is not proposing any changes to the regulatory text itself.
Section 4.174 Adjudication of Grazing Appeal
OHA is proposing to redesignate section 4.173 as section 4.174 but
is not proposing any changes to the regulatory text itself.
Section 4.175 Appeal and Review
OHA is proposing to revise the cross-reference in paragraph (b) to
align with the other organizational changes proposed in this rule.

Part 1700--Fundamentals of Land Health and Standards for Program
Administration

Section 1700.1 Fundamentals of Land Health
Proposed section 1700.1 describes the fundamentals of land health
and, notwithstanding some minor changes to language, is meant to carry
forward three of the four fundamentals presently articulated in section
4180.1. The exception relates to water quality. Because section 4180.1
defines that fundamental with reference to compliance with associated
state water quality standards, the BLM has determined that enforcement
of those state standards by those state agencies responsible for such
is the appropriate means for ensuring water quality. That fundamental
is, therefore, not included in this proposed rule.
The BLM is specifically soliciting comment on this section and all
of proposed part 1700 and is interested in hearing the public's views
on the proposed relocation of these provisions, the appropriate scope
of land health assessment and evaluation and BLM management to address
land health concerns, and (including from state water quality agencies)
the proposed adjustments to the fundamentals of land health.
Section 1700.2 Standards
Proposed section 1700.2 establishes the process for the development
and amendment of standards designed to allow the BLM to assess the
achievement and maintenance of the fundamentals of land health defined
in section 1700.1. The section borrows from existing section 4180.2 but
eliminates some of the process requirements that exist under the
current regulations. For example, the regulations will no longer
require coordination with resource advisory councils prior to
development or amendment of standards. And the proposed rule would
eliminate the requirement that new or amended standards be approved by
the Secretary, a function that the BLM has historically assumed could
not be delegated under the existing regulations. Instead, under the
proposed rule, new and amended standards must be approved by the BLM
Director. The proposed rule would call for the orderly rescission of
existing standards that address water or air quality. Existing water
quality standards under the existing subpart 4180 process are tied to
the fundamental that is proposed to be removed above and so would no
longer have that link. Existing air quality standards are not directly
linked to any fundamental at all. Ultimately, as in the case of the
fundamentals, the BLM believes that water and air quality are best
regulated by the state agencies responsible for enforcing state
standards, alongside the Environmental Protection Agency, as
appropriate, while the BLM continues to manage its actions in
accordance with those standards under the Clean Water Act.
Section 1700.3 Rapid Landscape-Scale Condition Assessment
Proposed section 1700.3 sets out the process for conducting rapid
landscape-scale condition assessments. The term landscape is meant to
refer to an area encompassing an interacting mosaic of ecosystems and
human systems characterized by a set of common management conditions.
The landscape is not defined by the size of the area, but rather by the
interacting elements that are relevant and meaningful in a management
context. Existing subpart 4180 is largely silent on the process for
conducting such assessments, and the BLM's experience with those
regulations informs this proposed rule. The proposed rule would have
the BLM conduct such assessments at the landscape scale. Measuring land
condition across broader scales increases efficiency relative to the
allotment-by-allotment assessments in which the BLM sometimes engages
by virtue of the close connection between subpart 4180 and the grazing
program. Conducting fewer assessments across broader swaths of public
lands uses fewer resources while still providing the necessary data to
conduct the step-down land health evaluations at appropriate scales.
The BLM already does land condition assessments at broader scales in
some cases. For example, some field offices in Montana, Wyoming,
Colorado, and Idaho are using watershed-scale approaches to land health
evaluations to support other activities such as planning vegetation
treatments as well as completing grazing permit renewals. The explicit
instruction in this proposed section will normalize and standardize
that approach.
The specific provisions of the rule provide requirements for, in
paragraph (b), how to conduct landscape-scale condition assessments;
and in paragraph (c), how to collect and manage data in connection with
landscape-scale assessments.
Section 1700.4 Land Health Evaluation and Causal Factor Determination
Proposed section 1700.4 provides a framework for using data from
the rapid landscape-scale condition assessments to conduct step down
land health evaluations to measure achievement of state and regional
land health standards and for conducting causal factor determinations--
in which the BLM determines what one or more land uses or other causal
factors are making a substantial contribution to the dynamic that
causes land not to meet standards--in cases where the land health
evaluation indicates that land is not meeting or making progress toward
meeting those standards. Under current practice, BLM land health
evaluations are typically initiated at the allotment or project scale
using locally available monitoring data, and broader landscape

[[Page 26855]]

conditions may or may not be consistently taken into account. Proposed
section 1700.4 would standardize and strengthen this process by
requiring that land health evaluations begin with the results of rapid
landscape-scale condition assessments and then ``step down'' to the
appropriate finer scale to determine whether standards are being
achieved or significant progress is being made. Where the evaluation
shows that standards are not being met, the proposed section would also
require preparation of a causal factor determination identifying the
land uses or other factors making a substantial contribution to the
conditions preventing achievement of standards. This approach is
intended to increase consistency and transparency relative to current
practice and to ensure that broader landscape conditions are integrated
into local assessments and management responses.
Paragraph (a) includes requirements for carrying out land health
evaluations, and paragraph (b) confirms that where that evaluation
indicates land is achieving or making progress toward achieving
standards, no further evaluation is needed. In cases where the
evaluation indicates that land is not achieving or making significant
progress toward achieving land health standards, paragraph (c) requires
that the BLM prepare a causal factor determination within 6 months,
consistent with the direction in paragraph (d).
Paragraph (e) provides that the BLM will then take ``appropriate
action'' (i.e., modify permit terms and conditions such as changes to
the period of use, livestock numbers, class of livestock, etc.) within
two years to address those causal factors it has identified that are
within its control to address. Causal factors beyond the BLM's
management control include natural disasters such as drought and
wildfire, excessive wildlife populations (i.e., an overpopulation of
elk, which are managed by State game management agencies), or actions
taken on adjacent private lands (i.e., sedimentation from an adjacent
gravel quarry or irrigation-controlled water flows). The regulation
goes on to explain that what constitutes appropriate action must be
understood in the context of applicable law, the governing land use
plan, and the management objectives of the land in question. As
paragraphs (e) and (f) imply, and paragraph (g) explicitly provides,
appropriate action does not necessarily mean changes to existing uses.
Paragraph (e) provides examples of appropriate action; addressing land
health through the imposition of terms and conditions on permits and
other authorizations is just one of those examples. Paragraph (f),
meanwhile, provides direction in circumstances where the causal factor
is within the BLM's control, but is not directly tied to existing BLM
land management practices--for example, where land health is being
negatively impacted by invasive species or the presence of wild horses.
The BLM expects that by expanding the scope of land health across
all BLM programs, it will move away from limiting appropriate action to
changes to the terms and conditions of authorizations to use the public
lands. Because the current grazing regulations prompt the BLM only to
consider changes within the grazing program, it is often the case that
addressing failures to achieve land health is more difficult because
the BLM cannot directly address the causal factor (e.g., other resource
uses). The proposed rule aims to decouple management for land health
from actions on BLM permits and other land use authorizations.
Finally, paragraphs (h) and (i) of this proposed section provide,
respectively, for the internal reporting and public disclosure of land
health evaluations and causal determinations prepared under these
rules. These reporting and disclosure requirements are not a part of
the existing regulations. The BLM expects that establishing those
requirements here will increase the usefulness of preparing land health
evaluations and causal factor determinations.

Part 4100--Grazing Administration--Exclusive of Alaska \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ Because of the Ninth Circuit's injunction of the 2006 Rule,
this notice presents proposed regulatory language for part 4100 in
its entirety. The proposed language for part 4100 uses as a starting
point the language of the regulations presently in force, i.e.,
those contained in the 2005 edition of the CFR. From that starting
point, the BLM is proposing the substantive changes described herein
as well as a number of cosmetic and ministerial changes to modernize
language, clarify ambiguities, and eliminate references to
``conservation use'' in light of the Tenth Circuit's injunction of
those parts of the 1995 Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 4100.0-2 Objectives
The BLM is proposing to revise section 4100.0-2 to focus its
statement of objectives on the grazing program. The BLM is proposing to
remove existing text that provides that an objective of the grazing
program is ``to accelerate restoration and improvement of public
rangelands to properly functioning conditions.'' While restoration and
improvement of public lands is important, it is properly understood,
consistent with the proposal to apply land health provisions more
broadly, to be an objective of the BLM's overarching management of the
public lands, not just its administration of the grazing program. This
proposed change is consistent with the proposal to relocate land health
provisions from subpart 4180 to a new part 1700 to address restoration
and improvement of public lands across all BLM programs. The remainder
of the proposed edits to this section are ministerial and include
replacing the list of authorities relevant to the grazing program with
nonexclusive language.
Section 4100.0-3 Authority
The BLM is proposing minor changes to section 4100.0-3 to update it
in light of changes to FLPMA and to make other ministerial changes.
Section 4100.0-5 Definitions
The BLM is proposing the following changes to the definitions that
appear in the operative version of section 4100.0-5.
The BLM is proposing to revise the definition of the term active
use to eliminate reference to ``conservation use,'' as that form of
grazing authorization has been found to exceed the BLM's authority
under the TGA (Babbitt, 167 F.3d at 1307-08), and to simplify the
presentation of what the term active use includes (permitted use
available for livestock grazing) and what it does not include
(permitted use that has been approved for temporary nonuse or is held
in suspension).
The BLM is proposing to revise the definition of the term allotment
management plan (AMP) to clarify that development of an activity plan,
as defined by statute, is not the only mechanism for putting an AMP in
place. Methods for establishing an AMP are and should be flexible to
make the BLM's process as efficient as can be, so long as the resulting
AMP has the elements already identified in the existing definition
(i.e., ``the necessary instructions for[ ] the management of livestock
grazing on specified public lands to meet resource condition, sustained
yield, multiple use, economic and other objectives'').
The BLM is proposing to revise the definition of the term animal
unit month (AUM) so that the definition in section 4100.0-5 matches the
more detailed definition in section 4130.8-1(c). There has never been
any intent that the two definitions be interpreted differently, but
maintaining distinct definitions could cause confusion and the
additional detail, proposed to be added here, will have broader
application to operations that graze

[[Page 26856]]

sheep, goats, or other livestock beyond cows.
The BLM is proposing to revise the definition of the term annual
rangelands to specify where such rangelands are designated (i.e., in
the land use plan, activity plan, or other decision of the authorized
officer). That detail is lacking in the present definition.
The BLM is proposing to revise the definition of the term base
property to provide that land that contains livestock operation
facilities capable of serving as a base of livestock operations can
properly qualify as base property. That would be in addition to the two
existing criteria by which land or water may qualify as base property.
The 1995 Rule broadened the definition of base property to provide that
land only had to have the capability to produce crops or forage that
can be used to support authorized livestock for a specified period of
the year. The additional base property type affords the BLM more
flexibility in determining applicant qualifications.
The BLM is proposing to add a definition of the term beginning
rancher (mentee) to establish criteria for who may qualify as a
beginning rancher. Throughout the regulations, the proposed rule would
revise certain provisions that encourage young ranchers to participate
in public land grazing to expand the existing limitation that those
young ranchers must be the sons or daughters of existing permittees. So
long as someone has not owned, controlled, or operated a farm or ranch
for a period of more than 10 years and has not previously held a
grazing permit, that person would be eligible for the allowances that
are presently extended only to ``sons and daughters.''
The BLM is proposing to revise the term cancelled to reflect the
more widely used spelling in American English--canceled. The proposed
rule would make corresponding changes throughout part 4100.
The BLM is proposing to add a definition of the term carrying
capacity and eliminate the existing definition of the term livestock
carrying capacity. Carrying capacity must include use by all species
using the landscape, whether domestic or native.
The new definition would provide that the term means ``the
measurement of how much forage is available on a unit of land.''
The BLM is proposing to eliminate the definition of the term
conservation use. The ``conservation use'' concept was previously
challenged and found to be beyond the BLM's authority under the TGA.
The BLM is proposing non-substantive edits to the definition of the
term ephemeral rangelands for improved clarity.
The BLM is proposing to add a definition of the term grazing
authorization to use throughout the grazing regulations as a catch-all
term to include grazing permits and leases (which, collectively, the
proposed rule would refer to as ``grazing permits'') as well as other,
less frequently used grazing-related authorizations (e.g., trailing
permits and exchange-of-use grazing agreements).
The BLM is proposing to remove the definition of the term grazing
lease because the proposed rule would redefine the term grazing permit
to encompass both permits issued under section 3 of the TGA and leases
issued under section 15 and would remove, with limited exceptions, all
references to and discussion of ``grazing leases'' from the
regulations.
The BLM is proposing to revise the definition of the term grazing
permit to encompass both grazing ``permits'' issued under section 3 of
the TGA and grazing ``leases'' issued under section 15 and to more
succinctly describe the contents of a grazing permit (or lease).
Although the TGA provides for different terminology depending on
whether the lands to be authorized for grazing are within or without a
``grazing district'' and, therefore, which section of the TGA applies,
there is no practical difference under the regulations between a permit
issued under section 3 and a lease issued under section 15 in nearly
all cases. Indeed, the operative regulations use the two terms together
(and so interchangeably) in nearly every instance that one appears. To
simplify the text of the grazing regulations and reduce confusion, the
proposed rule would simply refer to ``permits'' in all cases where both
are invoked. This change is purely semantic and would not alter how the
BLM issues authorizations or processes billing, nor would it alter the
distribution of grazing receipts.
The BLM is proposing to revise the definition of the terms grazing
preference and preference to make explicit that the BLM will take
preference into account in cases of permit renewal. The proposed
revision is not intended to suggest a change from the way that the BLM
presently considers grazing preference under the TGA and the grazing
regulations.
The BLM is proposing to revise the definition of the term
interested public to make explicit that anyone wishing to participate
in the management of livestock grazing on public lands must have a
cognizable interest in such management on the allotment or allotments
for which they wish to participate as a member of the interested
public. An interest in public lands management or the health of the
range or particular resources on it would not alone be sufficient for
the BLM to grant interested public status; rather, an articulable
interest in those matters as applied to the allotment at issue would be
necessary.
The BLM is proposing to eliminate the definition of the terms
livestock and kind of livestock. The existing definition is circular in
that it defines livestock to ``mean[ ] species of domestic livestock.''
Moreover, it is potentially confusing in that it lists certain species
but does not make clear whether that list is exclusive. Rather than
revise or replace the existing definition, the BLM is proposing to
eliminate it altogether while making changes to the substantive
regulations pertaining to the issuance of permits to make clear what
types of operations may obtain grazing permits. For more detailed
discussion of the proposal to only issue permits for grazing by
production-oriented livestock, see the proposed changes to and preamble
discussion of section 4130.2 and the proposed definition of that term
in this section 4100.0-5.
The BLM is proposing minor revisions to the definition of the term
monitoring to provide additional detail around the timing and purpose
of collecting monitoring data. The BLM is proposing to revise the
definition of the term permitted use to eliminate the component of the
definition that refers to land use plans, to include the limitation
that use is permitted for grazing by production-oriented livestock only
(for more detailed discussion of this caveat, see the preamble
discussion of section 4130.2, infra), and to make clear that permitted
use includes both active and suspended use.
The BLM is proposing to add a definition of the term prescribed
grazing to be more specific in identifying the ``management
objectives'' that may be served by the practice.
The BLM is proposing to add a definition of the term production-
oriented livestock to inform the parameters for issuing grazing
permits. The TGA was enacted in 1934, in the midst of the Great
Depression and the Dust Bowl. The Great Depression, spanning from 1929
to the late 1930s, resulted in widespread malnutrition and even
starvation. In that context, the TGA and subsequent statutory
authorities for authorizing grazing were intended to support the
livestock industry as an industry. Dust Bowl conditions, meanwhile,
were attributable in part to

[[Page 26857]]

overgrazing spurred by the fact that grazing on public lands was open
to all. The TGA was passed, in part, in response to that dynamic,
leading to the dedication of allotments to specified levels of grazing
by specified permittees, with preference given to those engaged in the
livestock business (43 U.S.C. 315b). Although not expressly stated in
the TGA that grazing authorizations should be issued only for
production-oriented livestock, there are several statements that
heavily imply that intent. For example, the TGA provides that,

[i]n order to promote the highest use of the public lands. . . , the
Secretary of the Interior is authorized, in his discretion, by order
to establish grazing districts or additions thereto and/or to modify
the boundaries thereof, of vacant, unappropriated, and unreserved
lands from any part of the public domain of the United States . . .
which in his opinion are chiefly valuable for grazing and raising
forage crops.

43 U.S.C. 315. Elsewhere, the TGA provides,

The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to issue or cause to
be issued permits to graze livestock on such grazing districts to
such bona fide settlers, residents, and other stock owners as under
his rules and regulations are entitled to participate in the use of
the range . . . Grazing permits shall be issued only to . . .
groups, associations, or corporations authorized to conduct business
under the laws of the State in which the grazing district is
located. Preference shall be given in the issuance of grazing
permits to those within or near a district who are landowners
engaged in the livestock business, bona fide occupants or settlers,
or owners of water or water rights. . . .

43 U.S.C. 315b.\6\ Even if not directly articulated in the TGA, these
provisions can be broadly understood to anticipate that livestock
grazing would be in support of resource consumption. This understanding
is further supported by the policies that animate FLPMA, including the
policy that ``the public lands be managed in a manner which recognizes
the Nation's need for domestic sources of minerals, food, timber, and
fiber from the public lands.'' 43 U.S.C. 1701(a)(12). It is not
appropriate, therefore, for the BLM to entertain applications for
grazing permits from individuals or organizations who aim to compete
with ranchers for valuable public forage but who have no intention of
using that forage to support a commodity-producing operation, as the
TGA originally anticipated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ The House report on the TGA is more explicit about the Act's
purpose, and it provides, ``It should be understood that the whole
purpose of the bill is to conserve the public range in aid of the
livestock industry.'' H.R. Rep. No. 73-903, at 2 (1934).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Taking all of that into consideration, the BLM proposes to update
the grazing regulations to clarify that grazing permits under the TGA
must authorize production-oriented livestock uses, as defined in the
proposed rule. Even putting aside questions of the BLM's legal
authority under the TGA, policy considerations--in favor of supporting
the livestock industry while also ensuring productive use of the public
lands, consistent not just with the TGA but also FLPMA--support the
proposal here and throughout this rule to restrict grazing permits to
production-oriented operations.
The BLM is proposing to eliminate the definition of the term
rangeland studies. The term is not used anywhere in the grazing
regulations, making it unnecessary to define it.
The BLM is proposing minor, clarifying revisions to the definition
of the term Secretary.
The BLM is proposing minor, clarifying revisions to the definition
of the term service area.
The BLM is proposing minor, clarifying revisions to the definition
of the term State Director.
The BLM is proposing to add a definition of the term stocking rate,
which would mean ``the number of specific kinds and classes of animals
grazing land over a specific time period.''
The BLM is proposing to revise the definition of the term
suspension so that that definition also applies to the term suspended
use. Long-term (more than 5 years) reduction of AUMs from active use
should be accomplished only through a new decision.
The BLM is proposing to add a definition of the term sustained
yield. The proposed definition reflects the statutory definition of
that term as it appears in section 103(h) of FLPMA, 43 U.S.C. 1702(h).
The BLM is proposing to add a definition of the term targeted
grazing to delineate the actions that may be taken under section
4190.1(a)(1) to address wildfire risk. The proposed definition would
make explicit that such actions include creating strategic linear fuel
breaks, reducing fine fuel height and fuel loading, and maintaining
fine fuels reductions.
The BLM is proposing to add a definition of the term temporary
nonrenewable (TNR) to describe a particular type of grazing
authorization that the BLM may issue when forage is temporarily
available for livestock grazing. TNR authorizations may be appropriate
in many different circumstances, but the intent is to permit grazing
for a year or less based on temporary availability of forage in an
existing grazing allotment.
The BLM is proposing to revise the definition of the term temporary
nonuse to simplify the definition and align it with the changes the
proposed rule would make to the process for applying for and approving
temporary nonuse under section 4130.4. (For more detailed discussion of
the temporary nonuse process, see discussion of section 4130.4, infra.)
The BLM is proposing to add a definition of the term terms and
conditions, which would include cross-references to the relevant
provisions of the grazing regulations, under which such terms and
conditions are applied via grazing authorizations.
The BLM is proposing minor, clarifying revisions to the definition
of the term trend.
The BLM is proposing to revise the definition of the term
unauthorized leasing and subleasing to add the term ``beginning
ranchers'' in each place that the operative definition uses ``sons and
daughters.'' (For more detailed discussion of the rationale for this
change, see the discussion of the proposed definition for the term
beginning rancher (mentee), supra.)
The BLM is proposing to revise the definition of the term
utilization so that it measures removal, rather than forage, against
the current year's growth to generalize consumption of that growth to
all sources, and to add a citation to Technical Reference 1734-3 or
subsequent updates thereto.
Section 4100.0-7 Cross Reference
The BLM is proposing to revise section 4100.0-7 to add a cross-
reference to part 1700, which the proposed rule would also promulgate.
Section 4100.0-8 Land Use Plans
The BLM is proposing to revise section 4100.0-8 to clarify that
grazing management must account for direction in the applicable statute
in addition to land use plans and to remove the reference to ``related
levels of production or use to be maintained.'' That language has
always been intended to call on the BLM to disclose levels of
production in land use planning decisions, not to establish such levels
at the planning stage, but its inclusion in the regulation has caused
confusion on this point. The BLM is proposing this change in an effort
to eliminate that confusion.

[[Page 26858]]

Section 4100.0-9 Information Collection
The BLM is proposing to revise section 4100.0-9 to remove paragraph
(b) on the public reporting burden for information collection and to
streamline the remaining text.
Section 4110.1 Mandatory Qualifications
The BLM is proposing to revise paragraph (a) of section 4110.1 to
reinsert as a qualification the requirement that an applicant be
engaged in the livestock business and that its business be production
oriented. For further discussion of the meaning of production-oriented
livestock see the preamble discussion, above, of the newly proposed
definition of that term. For further discussion of the authority and
rationale for this proposed change, see the preamble discussion of the
proposed changes to 4130.2, below.
The BLM is proposing to revise paragraph (a)(1) of section 4110.1
to clarify that a qualified applicant must have reached the age of
majority. The BLM is also proposing changes to paragraph (b) to clarify
the intent of the section without changing anything about the
requirement that the authorized officer be satisfied that applicants
have a satisfactory record of performance.
Section 4110.2-1 Base Property
The BLM is proposing to revise section 4110.2-1 to remove paragraph
(b) in its entirety. Paragraph (b), under the operative regulations,
requires the authorized officer to specify the length of time for which
land base property would be capable of supporting authorized livestock
during the year, following appropriate consultation, cooperation, and
coordination. The BLM believes this regulatory provision is unnecessary
because grazing permittees and lessees must ensure, and the BLM must
find, that land base property can support their livestock when not
grazing on public land in general.
Section 4110.2-2 Specifying Permitted Use
The BLM is proposing minor revisions to section 4110.2-2 to
modernize language and clarify how the BLM specifies permitted use,
particularly in the case of ephemeral or annual rangelands, and the
relationship between permitted use and the associated base property.
The proposed revisions include the introduction of the limitation that
grazing permits issued under section 4130.2 are only for grazing by
production-oriented livestock. For more detailed discussion of that
proposal, see the discussion of proposed changes to section 4130.2,
infra.
Section 4110.2-3 Transfer of Grazing Preference
The BLM is proposing to amend paragraph (c) of section 4110.2-3 to
make clear that consent of the owner is required in all base property
transfers and to eliminate existing exceptions to that requirement.
The BLM is proposing to amend paragraph (d) of section 4110.2-3 to
make clear that the exception for terminating existing permits
established in section 4110.2-1(c) may apply in the circumstances
described in this paragraph.
The BLM is proposing to revise paragraph (f) of the existing
regulation to provide that the presumptive length for a preference
transfer is, at a minimum, five years. The current regulation allows
the BLM to approve transfers for as few as three years. In such cases,
the BLM's experience has been that the administrative burden associated
with continually renewing on a three-year cycle the preference transfer
and grazing authorization, often to the same base property lessee, is
substantial. Setting the presumptive length of a preference transfer at
five years (while allowing the authorized officer to depart from that
duration where appropriate) would help ease that burden by allowing the
BLM to accept an updated base property lease while maintaining the
permit as issued for a longer period before renewal would be required.
Proposed new paragraph (h) would establish an exception to the
requirements of subpart 4160 for name changes and would allow the BLM
to efficiently issue new permits when a name change is required so long
as no terms and conditions, including the expiration date, of the
permit would be changed.
Proposed new paragraph (i) would provide regulatory detail to guide
the process for issuing a new permit following a transfer of grazing
preference. When the BLM approves a transfer of grazing preference,
there are a number of options under the TGA and section 402 of FLPMA
for the BLM to structure and issue the resulting permit to the new
permittee, to whom the grazing preference is being transferred. But the
existing regulations are silent as to the BLM's authority and
flexibility.
At the very least, section 402(c)(2) of FLPMA requires the BLM to
``continue[ ] under a new permit or lease'' the ``terms and conditions
in a grazing permit or lease that . . . was terminated due to a grazing
preference transfer.'' 43 U.S.C. 1752(c)(2). That new permit then
remains in effect until the point that the BLM ``completes any
environmental analysis and documentation for the permit or lease
required under the National Environmental Policy Act . . . and other
applicable laws.'' Id. This potential mode of issuing a new permit
following a transfer of grazing preference is detailed in proposed
paragraph (i)(3). Proceeding as described under that paragraph does not
require environmental review under the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) at the time the permit is issued, and NEPA review would
occur as a part of the next fully processed renewal of the permit.
Alternatively, the BLM may prefer to complete NEPA review at the
time of issuing a permit following a transfer of grazing preference in
order that the resulting permit be fully processed. It may do so by
either (1) issuing a new permit with the same terms and conditions as
the previous permit and limited in duration to the remaining term of
that previous permit, or (2) issuing a new permit with whatever
appropriate terms and conditions for up to ten years. These options are
detailed in proposed paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2), respectively. In the
former case, as the proposed rule acknowledges, it is presumed that the
BLM would be able to comply with NEPA through a determination of NEPA
adequacy, given that the terms and conditions and length of
authorization would be precisely the same as those in place when the
previous permit was issued or last renewed. In the latter case, the BLM
could rely on previous NEPA documentation to the extent appropriate,
though some form of new or supplemental NEPA analysis may be required.
The remaining proposed changes, including those to paragraphs
(a)(1) and (b), are ministerial in nature.
Section 4110.2-4 Allotments
The BLM is proposing to amend section 4110.2-4 to limit the
consultation, cooperation, and coordination process to just the
affected permittee and the state or states that contain the allotment
at issue. The regulation would no longer require consultation,
cooperation, and coordination with the interested public for decisions
to combine or divide allotments. In general, the BLM has found that
requiring the interested public be consulted at every step of the
process for managing grazing can be inefficient and prevent timely

[[Page 26859]]

management necessary to both facilitate grazing and protect forage and
other resources. The proposed change would not preclude coordination
with the interested public in cases where it would be helpful, but it
would no longer require it. Moreover, the interested public would
continue to have an opportunity to participate through its ability to
comment on draft environmental assessments and other documents prepared
under NEPA and through the proposed decision and protest process
outlined in sections 4160.1 and 4160.2.
Section 4110.3 Changes in Permitted Use
The BLM is proposing to revise section 4110.3 to eliminate
references to subpart 4180, which is proposed to be repealed and
replaced by generally applicable regulations at part 1700. The
remaining proposed changes to this section are for clarity or otherwise
ministerial in nature.
Section 4110.3-1 Increasing Active Use
The BLM is proposing to revise paragraph (c) of section 4110.3-1 to
split it into three paragraphs and to introduce the notion that
additional forage will be apportioned consistent with multiple-use
objectives. The BLM is also proposing in newly designated paragraph (d)
to limit the consultation, cooperation, and coordination process under
this section to just the affected permittee and the state or states
that contain the allotment at issue. For further discussion of the
rationale for removing requirements to include the interested public in
consultation, cooperation, and coordination opportunities, see the
discussion above of the proposed changes to section 4110.2-4. The BLM
is also proposing to revise newly designated paragraph (e) to eliminate
the provision that would prioritize ``contributions to stewardship
efforts'' when apportioning additional forage. In the BLM's experience,
this provision is unclear and poorly defined, making it difficult to
implement consistently when evaluating applications for apportioning
additional forage, and is unlikely to result in a different
apportionment of additional forage than does application of the
remaining criteria.
The BLM is also proposing to add throughout the section references
to the limitation that grazing permits issued under section 4130.2 are
only for grazing by production-oriented livestock. For more detailed
discussion of that proposal, see the discussion of proposed changes to
section 4130.2, infra.
The remaining proposed revisions to section 4110.3-1 are
organizational or otherwise ministerial in nature.
Section 4110.3-2 Decreasing Active Use
The BLM is proposing to revise paragraph (b) of section 4110.3-2 to
eliminate the reference to subpart 4180, which is proposed to be
repealed and replaced by generally applicable regulations at part 1700.
The BLM is also proposing a new paragraph (c) that would provide
that reductions in active use will be held in suspension and not
canceled. It is appropriate to suspend, rather than cancel, use so that
active use may efficiently resume at the original or otherwise
increased levels when the conditions necessitating decreased use are no
longer present.
Section 4110.3-3 Implementing Changes in Active Use
The BLM is proposing to revise section 4110.3-3 to limit the
consultation, cooperation, and coordination process under this section
to just the affected permittee and the state or states that contain the
allotment at issue. For further discussion of the rationale for
removing requirements to include the interested public in consultation,
cooperation, and coordination opportunities, see the discussion above
of the proposed changes to section 4110.2-4.
The BLM is proposing to revise paragraph (b) (proposed to be
reorganized across paragraphs (a)(2) and (b)) of section 4110.3-3 to
modify the process for issuing notices of closure and modifying
authorized grazing use to address exigent circumstances such as
drought, fire, flood, insect infestation, and imminent threat of
resource damage. In such cases, the BLM must consult, cooperate, and
coordinate with affected permittees and the relevant state and may not,
as under the existing regulation, rely on a ``reasonable attempt'' at
such consultation, cooperation, and coordination. The remaining
proposed changes to section 4110.3-3, including those in paragraph (a)
of the section, are organizational or otherwise ministerial in nature.
Section 4120.2 Allotment Management Plans
The BLM proposes to rename this section by removing the reference
in the existing section title to ``resource activity plans'' to
simplify language and be consistent with the proposed changes to the
definition of Allotment management plan in section 4100.0-5. Allotment
management plan, as it is proposed to be defined, would include
functional equivalents, like resource activity plans. The BLM also
proposes updating this section to reflect the current practice by which
an allotment management plan (AMP) is frequently incorporated directly
into permits after being developed through the NEPA process and the
BLM's consideration of a reasonable range of alternatives that occurs
as part of that process.
The BLM is also proposing to revise section 4120.2 in various
places to limit the consultation, cooperation, and coordination
processes under this section to just the affected permittee and the
state or states that contain the allotment at issue. For further
discussion of the rationale for removing requirements to include the
interested public in consultation, cooperation, and coordination
opportunities, see the discussion above of the proposed changes to
section 4110.2-4.
The BLM also proposes to remove paragraph (c) but revise paragraph
(a) to clarify that an AMP would become effective after complying with
applicable laws and the provisions of subpart 4160. The operative rule
states that an AMP becomes effective upon approval by the authorized
officer.
After renumbering paragraphs (d) and (e) as paragraphs (c) and (d),
the BLM proposes to amend paragraphs (a) and the new (d) to remove the
requirement for consultation, cooperation, and coordination with the
resource advisory council (RAC) having responsibility for managing
resources within the area to be covered by the plan when preparing,
revising, or terminating an AMP or other activity plan. The BLM is
proposing this change to improve efficiency in site-specific AMP
development and implementation. The BLM routinely meets with RACs to
consult, cooperate, and coordinate on issues and projects at larger
management scales than specific grazing allotments. This proposed
change does not preclude the BLM from engaging in consultation,
cooperation, and coordination with the RAC, in appropriate
circumstances, but it would no longer be a regulatory requirement.
Section 4120.3-1 Conditions for Range Improvements
The BLM is proposing to revise section 4120.3-2 to provide that
certain bureau decisions pertaining to range improvements must be
memorialized in a written decision document. The BLM is proposing to
revise paragraph (f) to account for the fact that some decisions
related to range improvements may fall outside the purview of part
4100. The

[[Page 26860]]

remaining proposed revisions to section 4110.3-1 are organizational or
otherwise ministerial in nature.
Section 4120.3-2 Cooperative Range Improvement Agreements
The BLM is proposing to revise paragraph (a) of section 4120.3-2 to
clarify that cooperative range improvement agreements must specify the
cost of materials in addition to the cost of labor and must identify
who is responsible for operation and maintenance. The BLM is proposing
to revise paragraph (b) to make explicit that water rights permitted or
authorized under state law are included in that provision's reference
to valid existing rights.
Section 4120.3-3 Range Improvement Permits
The BLM is proposing to revise paragraph (c) of section 4120.3-3 to
provide additional detail, including appropriate cross-references to
other provisions of the grazing regulations, regarding the process to
issue nonrenewable grazing permits for forage that will not be used by
the existing permittee. The BLM is proposing to revise paragraph (c)(2)
regarding dispute resolution to clarify that the reference to
``interested parties'' in the operative regulation means the parties to
the dispute in question.
Section 4120.3-8 Range Improvement Fund
For the same reasons identified above in the discussion of sections
4110.2-4 and 4120.2, respectively, the BLM is proposing to revise
paragraph (c) of section 4120.3-8 to remove the requirement to consult
with the interested public and with RACs during the planning of range
developments and range improvement programs.
Section 4120.3-9 Water Rights for the Purpose of Livestock Grazing on
Public Lands
The BLM is proposing to designate the operative text of section
4120.3-9 as paragraph (a) and revise that text to clarify that the
provisions of this regulation apply only to stockwater rights acquired
``on the basis of state law.'' This proposed addition is intended to
clarify that the regulation does not apply to Federal reserved water
rights, such as water rights reserved by Public Water Reserve 107. The
proposed revisions to paragraph (a) would also provide examples for how
to acquire, perfect, maintain, and administer water rights under state
law, including through use of joint ownership arrangements and
principal-agent relationships.
The BLM is proposing to add a new paragraph (b) which would require
that the BLM only make changes to the purpose of use, place of use, or
place of diversion of a water right as allowed under applicable state
law and provide 30 days' notice to affected grazing permittees before
doing so.
Section 4120.4 Special Rules
The BLM is proposing a minor addition to section 4120.4 to require
that special rules be posted to a BLM or Department website, if
available.
Section 4120.5-2 Cooperation With State, County, Tribal and Federal
Agencies and Governments
The BLM is proposing a revision to the title of section 4120.5-2 to
clarify the expectation that the BLM will cooperate with state and
county governments, not just the agencies of such governments, in
administering laws and regulations related to livestock, livestock
diseases, sanitation, and noxious weeds.
Section 4130.1-2 Conflicting Applications
The BLM is proposing a minor revision to paragraph (d) of section
4130.1-2 (redesignated as paragraph (c)) to modernize the language
regarding access to public land. The proposed change would not change
the operation of the section. The BLM is proposing to remove paragraphs
(b) and (g) of section 4130.1-2. In addition to being duplicative, an
applicant may not be able to demonstrate proper use or stewardship of
rangeland resources prior to becoming a permittee.
The BLM is proposing to add a new paragraph (f) that would identify
the applicant's demonstrated ability to manage its grazing operation in
a manner that would meet applicable objectives as a criterion for the
BLM to consider when resolving conflicting applications.
Finally, the BLM is proposing to revise paragraph (h) (redesignated
as paragraph (g)) to provide that the BLM may require an applicant to
provide additional information with its application concerning any
unresolved violations of grazing permit terms and conditions. Such
information may be necessary to allow the BLM to give this criterion
appropriate consideration and weight when resolving conflicting
applications.
Section 4130.2 Grazing Permits
The BLM is proposing to revise paragraphs (a) and (e)(1) of section
4130.2 to more simply identify the key components of a grazing permit--
the permitted use, including active and suspended use, and the terms
and conditions of the permit. The BLM is also proposing to limit
grazing permits to ``production-oriented'' operations. In the TGA,
Congress expressed the preference that grazing permits be issued to
``landowners engaged in the livestock business.'' 43 U.S.C. 315b. The
BLM's administration of the grazing program has nearly universally
reflected that principle from the time of the TGA's passage through
today. By proposing this limitation now, the BLM is seeking to head off
suggestions that grazing permits may be appropriate for other purposes,
including preservation or conservation. Active management (i.e.,
grazing) is consistent with the direction in FLPMA to manage the public
lands under principles of multiple use and serves as a critical tool
(i.e., targeted grazing) to minimize dangerous buildup of fine fuels.
Fine fuels are those that carry fires and create a consistent fuel bed,
creating unsafe conditions during fire season. In this context, fine
fuels are generally non-native annual grasses. Native bunchgrasses are
less able to carry fire through an area due to the spacing between
plants. To allow for application and enforcement of this limitation,
the BLM is also defining production-oriented livestock in section
4100.0-5 to improve consistency with the intent of the TGA and reflect
policy considerations. (And see the preamble discussion of that
proposed definition, above, for further detail on the authority and
rationale for this proposal.) The term has also been proposed to be
added, as appropriate, in other provisions throughout part 4100 that
discuss the nature of the use that grazing permits may authorize.
The BLM is proposing to modify paragraph (b) to make explicit that
consultation, cooperation, and coordination occurs after the BLM has
received a complete application for permit issuance or renewal and to
note that consultation, cooperation, and coordination need not occur at
all prior to renewal of a permit under section 402(c)(2) of FLPMA, 43
U.S.C. 1752(c)(2). Renewals under that provision of FLPMA are mandatory
by law and leave the BLM no discretion to do anything other than
continue the authorization under the same terms and conditions as
existed in the expiring permit. Moreover, the BLM is proposing to limit
that consultation, cooperation, and coordination process to just the
affected permittee and the state or states

[[Page 26861]]

that contain the allotment at issue. For further discussion of the
rationale for removing requirements to include the interested public in
consultation, cooperation, and coordination opportunities, see the
discussion above of the proposed changes to section 4110.2-4.
The BLM is proposing to revise paragraph (d) to combine
subparagraphs (3) and (4). Under the resulting proposed subparagraph
(3), the BLM may issue a permit for less than ten years when doing so
would be ``consistent with management and resource condition
objectives.'' In cases where there is a base property lease associated
with the grazing authorization, the proposed provision would require
that the terms of the base property lease and grazing authorization be
aligned. The BLM is then proposing a new subparagraph (4) to
accommodate short-term permits in cases of prescribed grazing, grazing
for scientific research or administrative studies, and grazing to
control noxious weeds.
The BLM is proposing to revise paragraph (e) to primarily use the
term ``preference'' rather than ``first priority.''
The BLM is proposing to remove paragraphs (g) and (h), which
pertain to approvals of ``conservation use'' and ``temporary nonuse.''
A revision to the grazing regulations in 1995 added provisions that
purported to allow the BLM to issue a grazing permit for ``conservation
use,'' that is the absence of grazing, for up to the full term of the
permit. In 1999, the Tenth Circuit, affirming a decision by a federal
district court, found that the conservation use element of the 1995
rule exceeded the BLM's statutory authority under the TGA. Babbitt, 167
F.3d at 1307-08. The proposed rule eliminates reference to and
discussion of conservation use permits from section 4130.2.
Meanwhile, the discussion of ``temporary nonuse'' in this section
is no longer necessary because that topic is comprehensively addressed
by the proposed revisions to section 4130.4.
The BLM is proposing to redesignate paragraphs (i) and (j) as
paragraphs (g) and (h) and revise the newly designated paragraph (g) to
eliminate the need to include land offered under exchange-of-use
agreements when calculating the percentage of public land within an
allotment for purposes of including that information in a grazing
permit.
The BLM is proposing to add a new paragraph (i) to incorporate into
the grazing regulations the statutory provision of FLPMA that allows
the BLM to prioritize grazing permits for renewal based on relevant
environmental concerns and available funding. See 43 U.S.C. 1752(i).
Section 4130.3 Terms and Conditions
The BLM is proposing to revise section 4130.3 to eliminate its
reference to subpart 4180 which this proposed rule would also
eliminate. For detailed discussion of the proposals to eliminate
subpart 4180 and promulgate similar provisions at new part 1700, see
the preamble discussion of those sections.
Section 4130.3-1 Mandatory Terms and Conditions
The BLM is proposing to revise paragraph (a) of section 4130.3-1 to
provide for how the BLM will determine the carrying capacity that
serves as the limit for permitting grazing use. The remaining proposed
changes to section 4130.3-1 are organizational or otherwise ministerial
in nature. The BLM is also proposing to eliminate paragraph (c) as it
refers to subpart 4180 which this proposed rule would also eliminate.
For detailed discussion of the proposals to eliminate subpart 4180 and
promulgate similar provisions at new part 1700, see the preamble
discussion of those sections.
Section 4130.3-2 Other Terms and Conditions
The BLM is proposing to revise paragraph (b) of section 4130.3-2 to
provide that the BLM will identify the class of livestock in addition
to or instead of, as appropriate, the breed when issuing permits for
allotments within which two or more permittees are permitted to graze.
The BLM is proposing to revise paragraph (c) to provide that
authorization for placement of nutritional supplements beyond salt must
be included in the terms and conditions of a permit.
The BLM is proposing to delete paragraph (e). Consistent with the
proposal elsewhere to limit grazing authorizations under section 4130.2
to production-oriented livestock, there is no basis for a different
treatment of ``indigenous'' animals within those permits. For more
detailed discussion of that proposal, see the discussion of proposed
changes to section 4130.2, supra.
The BLM is proposing to add a new paragraph (h) (having renumbered
paragraphs (f) through (h) as paragraphs (e) through (g) with the
deletion of existing paragraph (e)) to provide for the inclusion of
flexible terms and conditions, and their limits, to allow operators to
adjust grazing practices without separate approval by the BLM. Since
the operative regulations were put in place, the BLM and operators have
in many cases moved toward a more flexible, outcome-based model for
grazing authorizations. This addition is part of an effort to modernize
the grazing regulations to reflect this more flexible approach.
Section 4130.3-3 Modification of Permits
The BLM is proposing to revise section 4130.3-3 to make clear that
a modification of permit terms and conditions must be made by a final
grazing decision in a process that follows the procedures of subpart
4160. The proposed rule would also clarify that, in cases where the
modification is in response to an application by the permittee, the BLM
will begin the consultation, cooperation, and coordination process only
once such application is complete, and that the consultation,
cooperation, and coordination process under this section is limited to
just the affected permittee and the state or states that contain the
allotment at issue. For further discussion of the rationale for
removing requirements to include the interested public in consultation,
cooperation, and coordination opportunities, see the discussion above
of the proposed changes to section 4110.2-4.
Other proposed changes to section 4130.3-3 are limited to edits for
organization and clarity and would not change the operation of the
section.
Section 4130.4 Authorization of Temporary Changes in Grazing Use Within
the Terms and Conditions of Permits, Including Temporary Nonuse
The BLM is proposing a wholesale revision of section 4130.4 to
better delineate the process and standards for adjusting grazing use
within the terms and conditions of a permit, and in particular to
clarify that process and those standards with respect to temporary
nonuse. This revision is necessary because the operative provision
continues to reflect the ``conservation use'' concept that was
challenged and found to be beyond the BLM's authority under the TGA and
because the operative provision does not reflect changes in grazing
management by the BLM and permittees to move toward a more flexible,
outcome-based approach or to allow for the application of targeted
grazing to address resource needs.
The proposed section would allow the BLM to approve changes to
livestock number and period of use when a permittee applies for
temporary nonuse. The proposed section would require permittees to
actively apply for

[[Page 26862]]

temporary nonuse and would provide that the BLM approves temporary
nonuse on an annual basis. Temporary nonuse may be appropriate and
approved for natural resource management, enhancement, and protection
(including fuels management), or based on the business or personal
needs of the permittee, in the latter case for no more than four
consecutive years. In the case of temporary nonuse for business or
personal reasons, the proposed provision would allow the BLM to make
the forage subject to temporary nonuse available to another qualified
applicant.
The proposed section would also allow the BLM to approve changes to
period of use to allow the permittee to graze up to 21 days before the
begin date and 21 days after the end date specified in the permit terms
and conditions.
In both cases, the ability to change grazing use within the terms
and conditions of the permit provides operators and the BLM with
flexibility to respond to changing conditions, both on the ground and
in operators' business and personal lives, and protect resources to
ensure healthy rangelands and continued availability of forage.
Section 4130.5 Free-Use Grazing Permits
The BLM is proposing to remove section 4130.5 as a stand-alone
section. The provisions of paragraph (a) are no longer necessary as the
BLM treats applications for permits issued in the circumstances
described in paragraph (a) the same as it would a general application
for a grazing permit. The provisions in paragraph (b), meanwhile, are
proposed to be relocated to section 4130.2(d)(4), which allows
authorization of grazing for less than the standard ten-year period.
Section 4130.6 Other Grazing Authorizations
The BLM is proposing minor revisions to the types of other
authorizations listed here to align with changes proposed to the
related substantive provisions that follow, which are described below.
Section 4130.6-1 Exchange-of-Use Grazing Agreements
The BLM is proposing to revise section 4130.6-1 to make explicit
that exchange-of-use grazing agreements are available to applicants who
do not already hold a permit to graze the allotment that would be
subject to the agreement and that applicants are not required to have
grazing preference to be eligible for an exchange-of-use agreement. The
proposed rule would also change ``livestock carrying capacity'' to
``carrying capacity'' to reflect that carrying capacity encompasses
more than just livestock use. The remaining proposed revisions to
section 4130.6-1 are organizational or otherwise ministerial in nature.
Section 4130.6-2 Nonrenewable Grazing Permits
The BLM is proposing to revise section 4130.6-2 to limit the
consultation, cooperation, and coordination process under this section
to just the affected permittee and the state or states that contain the
allotment at issue. For further discussion of the rationale for
removing requirements to include the interested public in consultation,
cooperation, and coordination opportunities, see the discussion above
of the proposed changes to section 4110.2-4.
The BLM is proposing other minor revisions to section 4130.6-2 to
add relevant cross-references to other provisions of the grazing
regulations and to clarify language.
Section 4130.6-3 Trailing Permits
The BLM is proposing to refer only to ``trailing'' permits and
eliminate use of the synonymous term ``crossing'' permit. Both phrases
are currently used, creating unnecessary confusion. The Rangeland
Administration System (RAS) identifies these permits as ``trailing''
permits.
The BLM is proposing to add a new paragraph (b) to section 4130.6-3
(and to designate the existing operative text of the provision as
paragraph (a)) to provide that the BLM may issue a trailing permit with
immediate effect or on a date set out in the decision. Frequently,
needing to wait 30 days for a trailing permit to go into effect defeats
the purpose of the request for a trailing permit by the livestock
operator.
Section 4130.6-4 Special Grazing Permits
The BLM is proposing to remove section 4130.6-4. The TGA authorizes
the BLM to issue permits for grazing only by ``livestock'' and includes
no separate allowance for grazing by indigenous animals. Grazing by
indigenous animals, therefore, is appropriately subject to the same
requirements and limitations as grazing by other livestock and should
be authorized through a standard grazing permit. Indeed, even today,
with this provision in effect, the BLM often authorizes grazing by
bison and other indigenous animals under standard permits and without
reference to this provision.
Section 4130.7 Ownership and Identification of Livestock
The BLM is proposing to revise section 4130.7 to expand the
category of ranchers who may work with a permittee to learn the
business and begin their own. The operative rule limited that
opportunity to the permittee's ``sons and daughters.'' In the BLM's
experience, that is too restrictive. By expanding the opportunity to
anyone who qualifies as a ``beginning rancher'' (for discussion of the
qualifications to be a beginning rancher, see discussion of the
proposed definition of that term in the discussion of section 4100.0-5,
supra), the proposed rule would give greater opportunity to those who
seek to learn the livestock business and who will become the next
generation of BLM grazing permittees.
The BLM is also proposing to eliminate subparagraph (f)(2), which
requires that livestock owned by sons or daughters or, under the
proposed rule, by grandchildren or other beginning ranchers not exceed
50 percent of the total number of livestock authorized under the
permit. This limitation is unnecessary and similarly serves to
constrain the allowance made in this part to encourage the next
generation of ranchers.
Section 4130.8-1 Payment of Fees
The BLM is proposing to add a new subparagraph (a)(4) to provide
that the grazing fee used for authorizations under newly proposed
paragraphs (g) and (h) will be equal to the average value of the
grazing fee for the 10 years immediately preceding the issuance of the
billed grazing permit.
The BLM is proposing to add to paragraph (b) that no fee shall be
charged for a trailing permit unless livestock will be trailing for
more than 24 hours while also noting that a trailing permit is still
required even in cases where trailing will occur for less than 24
hours.
The BLM's proposed revisions to paragraph (c), including the
proposal to divide it into paragraphs (c), (d), and (e), are
organizational or otherwise ministerial in nature. The BLM is proposing
to redesignate paragraph (d) as paragraph (f) and revise the text to
provide that the surcharge for grazing by livestock owned by persons
other than the permittee will not apply to ``beginning ranchers'' (as
opposed to just ``sons and daughters'') or in cases where the other
person is another permittee being provided relief from drought, fire,
or other natural causes, or to facilitate installation, maintenance, or
modification of range improvements.

[[Page 26863]]

The BLM believes that the surcharge was never intended for situations
where a permittee is in need of relief from external forces beyond its
control or is taking action to help improve the range.
The BLM is proposing to add new paragraphs (g) and (h) to allow the
BLM to issue a single bill to cover fees for the whole life of a permit
in the case of small operations and, at the election of the permittee,
for larger operations, rather than issue a bill each year, as it
currently does for all permits. Preparing and issuing bills on an
annual basis places an administrative burden on the BLM. Similarly,
paying those bills on an annual basis places a burden on permittees,
especially those with small operations or operations that use only a
small amount of BLM-managed land. For example, a permittee with 35 AUMs
could pay $591.50 once at the beginning of their permit instead of
remembering to pay a bill for $59.15 each year for ten years. To
alleviate those burdens, under the proposed rule, the BLM would issue a
single bill to cover the whole life of a permit in all cases in which
the permit authorizes fifty or fewer AUMs per year. Payment would be
required prior to grazing use. Under the proposed rule, the BLM would
allow permittees whose permits authorize more than fifty AUMs per year
to elect to pay a single bill prior to grazing use. As noted above,
under proposed paragraph (a)(4), the fee for permits issued under these
proposed provisions would be based on the average value of the grazing
fee for the 10 years immediately preceding their issuance. Under
proposed section 4130.8-2(c), such fees would be non-refundable. If the
BLM were forced to process refunds for those fees, it would negate the
efficiencies gained by using the aggregate billing approach.
The BLM is proposing to redesignate paragraph (e) as paragraph (i)
and revise the text to provide that, in cases where grazing is billed
after the grazing season, grazing fees are due within 30 days of when
the bill issues and not ``upon issuance,'' as under the operative
regulations. The remaining proposed revisions to paragraph (e)
(redesignated as paragraph (i)) are ministerial in nature.
Section 4130.8-2 Refunds
The BLM is proposing to add a new paragraph (c) to section 4130.8-2
to provide that grazing fees are non-refundable in cases of aggregate
billing under proposed section 4130.8-1(g)-(h) for the reasons of
efficiency discussed above.
Section 4130.8-3 Service Charge
The BLM is proposing minor revisions to section 4130.8-3 to clarify
language.
Section 4140.1 Acts Prohibited on Public Lands
The BLM is proposing to revise paragraph (a) of section 4140.1 to
eliminate references to ``conservation use,'' as that concept was
previously challenged and found to be beyond the BLM's authority under
the TGA, and otherwise clarify the language to provide for precision in
these regulations, the violation of which may carry a criminal
sanction. The BLM is specifically soliciting comment as to whether the
agency should define ``substantial use'' as used in section
4140.1(a)(2).
The BLM is proposing to revise paragraph (b) to more succinctly
provide that timely payment of grazing and surcharge fees is required
to avoid penalties for unauthorized use under section 4140.1(b)(1)(i).
The BLM is proposing to revise paragraph 4140.1(b)(10) to provide
that direction by the authorized officer to reclaim or repair lands,
property, or resources must be in writing before the failure to follow
such direction constitutes a violation.
The BLM is proposing to remove paragraph 4140.1(b)(11). Instances
in which a permittee leaves a gate open can be managed through the
trespass process under subpart 4150. When apprehended, criminal
sanction under other authorities may be available for members of the
public who leave gates open.
The remaining proposed revisions to section 4140.1 are ministerial
in nature.
Section 4150.1 Violations
The BLM is proposing to revise section 4150.1 to require in
regulation that the BLM must contact the owner of livestock, and
document such contact, whenever it appears there is an instance of
unauthorized use in violation of section 4140.1(b)(1) and to provide
criteria by which an authorized officer may conclude that a nonwillful
violation may be treated as ``incidental.'' In general, the revisions
to subpart 4150 are intended to reinforce that unauthorized grazing use
must be appropriately documented. Such reinforcement is necessary to
respond to findings made by the GAO in its 2016 report that such
documentation was not consistently prepared.\7\ At the same time, it is
appropriate to treat certain categories of violations more informally.
The BLM proposes that where the authorized officer concludes that the
unauthorized use occurred through no fault of the livestock operator;
the forage consumed as a result of the unauthorized use is
insignificant; public lands have not been damaged; and the livestock
operator promptly corrects the violation, the violation should be
considered ``nonwillful and incidental'' and may be resolved with less
formality than other, more serious violations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ United States Government Accountability Office, Report to
the Committee on Natural Resources, House of Representatives,
Unauthorized Grazing: Actions Needed to Improve Tracking and
Deterrence Efforts (July 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 4150.2 Notice and Order To Remove
The BLM is proposing to revise section 4150.2 to reinforce that all
violations must be documented in a written notice of unauthorized use
and order to remove livestock. Consistent with the proposed revisions
to section 4150.1, discussed above, the BLM is also proposing to relax
that requirement in the case of nonwillful violations that meet the
newly articulated criteria for being considered incidental. The BLM is
also proposing to revise section 4150.2 to explicitly provide that an
operator may contest with the BLM the characterization of a violation
as willful.
Section 4150.3 Settlement
The BLM is proposing to revise section 4150.3 to align with
revisions in section 4150.1 and 4150.2. The operative regulations
already had an allowance for nonmonetary settlement in the kind of
cases that now, under the proposed rule, would be characterized as
incidental. The proposed rule further provides that the authorized
officer may, at his or her discretion, exempt a nonwillful violation
from the settlement process altogether if the authorized officer finds,
to his or her satisfaction, that the livestock operator promptly
corrected the violation. The remaining proposed revisions are
ministerial in nature.
Section 4150.4-1 Notice of Intent to Impound
The BLM is proposing a minor addition to section 4150.4-1 to
require that notices of intent to impound be posted to a BLM or
Department website, if available.
Section 4160.1 Proposed Decisions
The BLM is proposing to revise paragraph (a) of section 4160.1 to
modernize and make more efficient the process for issuing proposed
decisions. Under the proposed rule, the BLM

[[Page 26864]]

would be able to use more modern modes of service when notifying
affected applicants, permittees, their agents, and lien holders of a
proposed decision. The BLM proposes to allow service by registered or
certified mail, personal delivery, delivery service (to physical
addresses), and electronic mail (in cases where the person to be served
consents in writing to electronic service). The proposed rule would
also eliminate the requirement that proposed decisions be sent beyond
the identified participants (i.e., to the interested public as well).
Instead, under the proposed rule, proposed decisions would be posted to
a BLM website, and it would be the responsibility of the interested
public to keep abreast of BLM management of the grazing allotments in
which they have an interest. This change acknowledges significant
changes in modes of communication since the existing regulation was
promulgated, including the rise of internet communication and the
increased transparency and availability of information that the
internet affords. Moreover, this change would align the BLM's process
with that of other programs and agencies and streamline the process for
issuing grazing decisions and bring that process more in line with the
process for other types of land use authorization decisions that the
BLM makes. It also would facilitate a more orderly protest process, as
described below in the discussion of proposed changes to section
4160.2.
The BLM is proposing to revise paragraph (c) of section 4160.1 to
expand the categories of decisions which the authorized officer may, at
his or her discretion, issue as final decisions without first issuing a
proposed decision. The BLM would continue to be authorized to issue
final decisions, without first issuing a proposed decision, under
section 4110.3-3(a)(2)(ii) (section 4110.3-3(b) under the operative
rule) to close allotments and modify authorized use in exigent
circumstances and under section 4150.2(e) (section 4150.2(d) under the
operative rule) to issue temporary grazing closures. The proposed rule
would also allow the BLM to issue the following categories of decisions
as final decisions, without first issuing a proposed decision:
decisions under section 4130.6-3 to issue a trailing permit; decisions
under section 4170.1-2 to cancel active use that a permittee has failed
to use; decisions issuing permits where public land is 15 percent of
less of the allotment; decisions issuing permits for fewer than 50
AUMs; decisions issuing permits to which the categorical exclusion
established by section 402(h)(1) of FLPMA (43 U.S.C. 1752(h)(1))
applies; decisions issuing permits in cases where the terms and
conditions are not changing, there is no interested public associated
with the allotment, and the permittee is the only party receiving the
decision; decisions to authorize a range improvement in cases where
there is no interested public associated with the allotment and the
permittee is the only party receiving the decision; decisions issuing
permits that adjust the number of livestock, while making no other
changes, to account for a change in the percentage of public land
within an allotment; decisions under section 4110.2-3(i)(1) to issue a
grazing permit following a preference transfer that has the same terms
and conditions, including expiration date, as the predecessor permit;
decisions under section 4110.2-3(i)(3) to continue under a new permit,
following a preference transfer, the terms and conditions of the
predecessor permit, consistent with section 402(c)(2) of FLPMA (43
U.S.C. 1752(c)(2)); and decisions issuing permits to account for a
change to the name or configuration of an allotment or to correct the
legal description of allotment boundaries, while making no other
changes.
The BLM is specifically soliciting comment as to whether there are
additional categories of decisions that would be appropriate to exclude
from the requirement to first issue a proposed decision.
Section 4160.2 Protests
The BLM is proposing to revise section 4160.2 to simplify the
timing of protests. Under the operative rule, every person who receives
a proposed decision has 15 days from the point of receipt to register
any protest to the proposed decision. This has led to confusion as
different recipients may have different deadlines to respond, and it
has proven difficult for the BLM to always know when those deadlines
are in all cases. The proposed rule would provide for a single deadline
for protest tied to the date that the proposed decision is issued--
i.e., when it is sent to the parties required to be served and when
(under the proposed changes to section 4160.1) it is posted to a BLM
website. To account for the time involved in delivering the proposed
decision and identifying proposed decisions posted online, the BLM is
proposing to expand the period for registering a protest from 15 days
to 20 days.
Section 4160.3 Final Decisions
The BLM is proposing minor revisions to paragraph (b) in section
4160.3 to align the provision for service in that section with the
proposed changes in section 4160.1 to the mode and acceptable methods
of service of proposed decisions.
The BLM is also proposing a new paragraph (c) to replace existing
paragraphs (c) through (f). The proposed paragraph tracks language
included in previous iterations of the grazing regulations and would
provide that, consistent with the applicable provisions of 43 CFR part
4, which governs administrative appeals to the Office of Hearings and
Appeals generally, final decisions may be appealed within 30 days of
issuance, during which time the final decision is not in effect. As an
exception to that rule, proposed paragraph (c) allows the authorized
officer to determine that a final decision should be effective
immediately, notwithstanding the general rule under 43 CFR part 4 that
decisions only go into effect after 30 days. Proposed paragraph (c)
further provides that an appeal will have the effect of suspending the
final decision until the appeal is resolved. No separate petition for
stay would be required. The proposed paragraph then provides that, as
under the current regulations, permittees who were granted grazing use
in the preceding year would be entitled to continue that use during the
pendency of the appeal and the attendant suspension of the final
decision. Finally, proposed paragraph (c) allows for an exception to
the general rule that an appeal suspends the effect of the final
decision for cases where, if required for the protection of range
resource values, the authorized officer determines and documents that
the decision should be issued in full force and effect. In such cases,
the final decision is not suspended during an appeal. The BLM
anticipates that many of the provisions of proposed paragraph (c) will
operate similarly to the equivalent provisions in the existing
regulation. The proposed revisions are intended to streamline and
simplify the regulatory language and, in particular, the process for
securing a stay of the effect of a final decision being appealed by
providing for the automatic suspension, in most cases, of final
decisions if and when appealed.
Section 4160.4 Appeals
The BLM is proposing ministerial edits to section 4160.4 to revise
cross-references to 43 CFR part 4, which was itself recently revised.
The proposed

[[Page 26865]]

edits would provide a cross-reference only to the part number and would
eliminate the summary of what part 4 provides to avoid having those
cross-references and that summary go out of date again in the future.
Section 4170.1-2 Failure To Use
The BLM is proposing to revise section 4170.1-2 to make clear that
approved temporary nonuse will not be held against the permittee when
the BLM evaluates whether that permittee has been making substantial
use of their authorization to graze. Although the BLM has never
enforced section 4170.1-2 in a manner that punished operators for
taking approved temporary nonuse, the uncertainty caused by the
ambiguity in the operative version of this section has led some
operators to avoid seeking and receiving approval even where temporary
nonuse is a good option for either the operator's own business
circumstances or for protection of forage and other resources. The
remaining edits proposed to section 4170.1-2 are ministerial in nature.

Subpart 4180--Fundamentals of Rangeland Health and Standards and
Guidelines for Grazing Administration

The BLM is proposing to eliminate subpart 4180 from the grazing
regulations and replace it with the part 1700 regulations proposed in
this rule. Although the concepts of land health are born out of the
congressional direction in PRIA to protect rangelands, threats to land
health are not limited to livestock grazing. Other uses of the public
lands, including their management for wild horse herds, may contribute
to those lands failing to achieve and maintain the fundamentals of land
health. But by focusing assessment of those fundamentals within the
grazing program and, effectively, tying land health evaluation to the
grazing permitting process, without other allowance for addressing
concerns, it is grazing permittees who have carried a disproportionate
burden of management to foster land health. For more detailed
discussion of this rationale and of the operation of the newly proposed
regulations, see the discussion of the proposed part 1700 regulations,
supra.
Section 4190.1 Effect of Wildfire Management Decisions
The BLM is proposing to revise section 4190.1 to add targeted
grazing to the list of examples of appropriate fuel reduction and fuel
treatment activities.

III. Severability

The provisions of the proposed rule should be considered
separately. If any portion of the rule were stayed or invalidated by a
reviewing court, the remaining elements would continue to provide the
BLM with important and independently effective tools to manage
livestock grazing on the public lands. Hence, if a court prevents any
provision of this proposed rule from taking effect, that should not
affect the other parts of the proposed rule. The remaining provisions
would remain in force.

IV. Procedural Matters

Regulatory Planning and Review Under Executive Order 12866

Section 6(a) of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 requires agencies to
submit ``significant regulatory actions'' to the Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for review. OIRA has determined that this
proposed regulatory action constitutes a ``significant regulatory
action'' under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, this action was
submitted to OIRA for review under E.O. 12866. The BLM is required to
conduct an economic analysis in accordance with section 6(a)(3)(B) of
E.O. 12866. The BLM has complied with this directive in this document.

Review Under Executive Orders 14154 and 14192

The BLM has examined this proposed rulemaking and has determined
that it is consistent with the policies and directives outlined in E.O.
14154, Unleashing American Energy, and E.O. 14192, Unleashing
Prosperity Through Deregulation. This proposed rule is an E.O. 14192
deregulatory action.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (as amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996; 5 U.S.C.
601 et seq.), whenever a Federal agency is required to publish a notice
of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make
available for public comment an initial regulatory flexibility analysis
that describes the reasons why the action is being considered, a
statement of the objectives and legal basis for the proposed rule, an
estimate of the number of small entities the proposed rule will apply
to, a description of reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and an
identification of overlapping rules and laws. 5 U.S.C. 603(b). The
reasons, objectives, and legal basis for the proposed rule are
described above. The Proposed Rule is expected to reduce time and
operational costs for small entities who hold permits to graze on BLM
lands, though there may be some costs to small entities, particularly
related to understanding the regulatory changes and adjusting to
aggregate billing.
To estimate the number of small businesses that may be affected by
the Proposed Rule, the BLM relied on data from the USDA Census of
Agriculture for the Beef Cattle Ranching and Farming (NAICS 112111),
Sheep Farming (NAICS 112410) and Goat Farming (NAICS 112420)
industries. It is likely that at least some of these operations are a
component of a larger business enterprise. In total, the BLM estimates
112,512 small businesses in the grazing sectors operate in states with
BLM grazing. To identify small organizations and small government
jurisdictions, the BLM searched grazing permit operators for key terms
that may signal permits held by organizations or governments. There are
roughly 40 government entities and 44 not-for-profit organizations that
hold grazing authorizations.
As detailed in the IRFA, there are four types of impacts that will
generate benefits or costs for small entities: rule familiarization,
changes in billing for small permits, improved efficiency of decisions,
and the surcharge exemption for beginning ranchers. All businesses
operating on BLM lands may incur an estimated one-time cost associated
with rule familiarization, and unquantified recurring benefits from
improved efficiency of decisions. Only those businesses that operate on
BLM lands and hold small authorizations will be affected by changes in
billing for small permits. The estimated net effect on these businesses
is either a $43 benefit per bill or a $72 cost per bill, depending on
the discount rate used. The improved efficiency of decisions is
expected to benefit small ranching operations but the impacts are
unquantified. Finally, the surcharge exemption is expected to benefit a
limited number of operations where a beginning rancher intending to
take over the business is grazing livestock under a permit in his or
her mentor's name.
The BLM has estimated the potential economic impacts to small
entities using best available information. Based on this analysis, the
BLM does not expect the proposed rule to have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities. However, the BLM solicits
comments from affected small entities on the Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis. Comments with

[[Page 26866]]

additional information that could improve the analysis are most
helpful.

Review Under Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

This proposed rule would not impose an unfunded mandate on State,
local, or tribal governments, or the private sector of more than $100
million per year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect
on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector as there
is no direct implementation of action as a result of this rule. A
statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is not required.

Review Under Governmental Actions and Interference With
Constitutionally Protected Property Right--Takings E.O. 12630

This proposed rule would not effect a taking of private property or
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630 as the
rule only applies to livestock grazing on public lands. A takings
implication assessment is not required.

Review Under E.O. 13132

Under the criteria in section 1 of Executive Order 13132, this rule
would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the
preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. This rule, while
it would promulgate regulations at a national level and across multiple
western states, would not affect the distribution of power within a
State or propose to change the relationship between the national
government and the States. Therefore, a federalism summary impact
statement is not required.

Review Under E.O. 12988

This rule complies with the requirements of Executive Order 12988.
Specifically, this rule:
(a) Meets the criteria of section 3(a) requiring that all
regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and be
written to minimize litigation; and
(b) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all
regulations be written in clear language and contain clear legal
standards.

Review Under E.O. 13211 of Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

Under Executive Order 13211, agencies are required to prepare and
submit a Statement of Energy Effects to the Administrator of OIRA for
those matters identified as significant energy actions. This statement
is to include a detailed statement of ``any adverse effects on energy
supply, distribution, or use (including a shortfall in supply, price
increases, and increased use of foreign supplies) should the proposal
be implemented'' and ``reasonable alternatives to the action with
adverse energy effects and the expected effects of such alternatives on
energy supply, distribution, and use.''
Section 4(b) of E.O. 13211 defines a ``significant energy action''
as ``any action by an agency (normally published in the Federal
Register) that promulgates or is expected to lead to the promulgation
of a final rule or regulation, including notices of inquiry, advance
notices of proposed rulemaking, and notices of proposed rulemaking:
(1)(i) that is a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866 or any
successor order, and (ii) is likely to have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy; or (2) that is
designated by OIRA as a significant energy action.''
This proposed rule, if finalized as proposed, is not expected to
have a significant effect on the Nation's energy supply.

Review Under E.O. 13175

The Department strives to strengthen its government-to-government
relationship with Indian tribes through a commitment to consultation
with Indian tribes and recognition of their right to self-governance
and tribal sovereignty. We have evaluated this rule under the criteria
in Executive Order 13175 and the Department of the Interior's manual at
512 DM 2, 512 DM 4 and 512 DM 6, and we acknowledge our responsibility
to communicate meaningfully with federally recognized Tribes and Alaska
Native Corporations on a government-to-government basis. Through this
notice we invite Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations to participate
in government-to-government consultation on this proposed rule.
Consultation may be arranged by contacting the individual listed in the
``For Further Information Contact'' section above and may take the form
of an in-person meeting or via teleconference or virtual web meeting.
In addition, we will send communication via electronic mail to all 574
federally recognized Indian Tribes and to approximately 200 Alaska
Native Corporations soliciting their input as to whether or not they
would like the BLM to consult with them on the proposed changes to the
regulations at 43 CFR part 4100, Grazing Administration--Exclusive of
Alaska and to notify them of the opportunity to participate in an
informational webinar. The opportunity for government-to-government
consultation will remain open for the duration of the rulemaking, and
the BLM welcomes Tribal input at any time before the final rule is
issued. Tribes may be particularly interested in sections 4100
``Authority'' and 4120.5-2 ``Cooperation with state, county, Tribal and
Federal agencies and governments.''

Paperwork Reduction Act

The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521) generally
provides that an agency may not conduct or sponsor and, not
withstanding any other provision of law, a person is not required to
respond to a collection of information, unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number. Collections of information include any
request or requirement to obtain, maintain, retain, or report
information to an agency, or disclose information to a third party or
to the public (44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c)). OMB has approved
the existing information-collection requirements contained in 43 CFR
part 4100 under OMB control number 1004-0041. This proposed rule would
revise information-collection requirements that are subject to review
by OMB under the PRA.

Proposed Revised Information Collections

43 CFR 4130.2(a) and Form 4130-1: The BLM is proposing to revise
paragraph (a) of section 4130.2 to more simply identify the key
components of a grazing permit--the permitted use, including active and
suspended use, and the terms and conditions of the permit. The BLM is
also proposing to limit grazing permits to operations involving
``production-oriented'' livestock. Form 4130-1 would be revised to
capture these changes to the way information is included in a grazing
permit. Form 4130-1b would be revised to require applicants to certify
that they are engaged in a production-oriented livestock business.
43 CFR 4130.7 and Form 4130-1b: The BLM is proposing to revise
section 4130.7 to expand the category of ranchers who may work with a
permittee to learn the business and begin their own. Accordingly, the
section of Form 4130-1b on ownership and control of livestock would be
revised to include grandchildren of grazing permittees and beginning
ranchers as among those that may graze public lands subject to a permit
held by someone else.

[[Page 26867]]

The proposed rule would not change the estimated public reporting
burdens for these forms because the changes do not result in new or
different information being submitted with a grazing permit
application, only the scope of the questions presented on the two
impacted forms would change. The other forms under this OMB Control
Number would remain unchanged.

Renewal of OMB Control Number 1004-0041

OMB Control Number 1004-0041 is currently scheduled to expire on
November 30, 2026. Contemporaneous with this rulemaking process, the
BLM plans to request that OMB renew this OMB Control Number for an
additional three (3) years. As part of our continuing effort to reduce
paperwork and respondent burdens, we invite the public and other
Federal agencies to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing
collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our
information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting
burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection
requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. We
are especially interested in public comments addressing the following:
(1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the
proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether
the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection
of information, including the validity of the methodology and
assumptions used;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and
(4) How the agency might minimize the burden of the collection of
information on those who are to respond, including the use of
appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological
collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g.,
permitting electronic submission of response.
The annual estimated total burdens for OMB Control Number 1004-
0041, along with an abstract of this information collection, are
provided below.
Title of Collection: Authorizing Grazing Use (43 CFR subparts 4110
and 4130).
OMB Control Number: 1004-0041.
Form Numbers: 4130-1, 4130-1a, 4130-1b, 4130-3a, 4130-4, and 4130-
5.
Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection of
information.
Respondents/Affected Public: Any U.S. citizen or validly licensed
business may apply for a BLM grazing permit or lease.
Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain a benefit.
Frequency of Collection: On occasion and annual.
Estimated Completion Time per Response: Varies from 10 to 35
minutes, depending on activity.
Number of Respondents: 18,010.
Annual Responses: 33,810.
Annual Burden Hours: 7,855.
Annual Burden Cost: $30,000.
Abstract: The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 (43 U.S.C. 315) and the
Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701)
authorize the BLM to administer the livestock grazing program
consistent with land use plans, multiple use objectives, sustained
yield, environmental values, economic considerations, and other
factors. Maintaining accurate records of permittee qualifications for a
grazing permit, base property used in conjunction with public lands,
and the actual use made by livestock authorized to graze on the public
lands, is an important and integral part of the program administration
and grazing management. The regulations at 43 CFR 4110.1 and 43 CFR
4110.2 require application and notice to the BLM to transfer grazing
preference and to apply for a permit in conjunction with a preference
transfer. The regulations at 43 CFR 4130.1 require existing permittees
to apply to the BLM for changes in their authorized grazing. The
regulations at 43 CFR 4130.3-2(d) allow the BLM to require permittees
operating under a grazing permit to submit an actual grazing use report
within 15 days after completing their annual grazing use, or as
otherwise specified in the permit. The regulations at 43 CFR 4130.6-1
allow the BLM to enter into ``exchange-of-use'' agreements with
applicants who own or control lands that are unfenced and intermingled
with public lands within an allotment. The BLM requires applicants and
permittees to submit the required information on Forms 4130-1, 4130-1a,
4130-1b, 4130-3a, 4130-4, and 4130-5.

Comments on Proposed Information-Collections in Proposed Rule

The complete information collection request that has been submitted
to OMB for this proposed rule is available at <a href="http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain">www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain</a>. Find this information collection by selecting ``Currently
under Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search
function. If you want to comment on the information-collection
requirements of this proposed rule, please send your comments and
suggestions on this information-collection by the date indicated in the
DATES and ADDRESSES sections as previously described.

Comments on Proposed Renewal of OMB Control Number 1004-0041

If you only want to comment on the proposed renewal of this OMB
Control Number, send your written comments by email to Darrin King, BLM
Information Collections Officer, at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3c7e707163746d636c6e7d637f5351515952484f7c5e5051125b534a">[email&#160;protected]</a>. Please
refer to OMB Control Number 1004-0041 in the subject line of your
comments. Please do not send comments on the proposed rule to the above
email address. Comments on the proposed rule should be provided as
indicated in the DATES and ADDRESSES sections as previously described.

National Environmental Policy Act

The BLM intends to apply the categorical exclusion (CE) identified
in the Department's NEPA regulations at 43 CFR 46.210(i) to comply with
NEPA. This CE covers policies, directives, regulations, and guidelines
that are of an administrative, financial, legal, technical, or
procedural nature or whose environmental effects are too broad,
speculative, or conjectural to lend themselves to meaningful analysis
and will later be subject to the NEPA process, either collectively or
case-by-case. The proposed rule is administrative and procedural in
nature. It sets out the processes for evaluating and approving grazing
authorizations under the TGA and would establish a new process for
evaluating and responding to land health conditions on public lands.
Where and at what levels grazing will occur is ultimately determined by
planning decisions and individual permitting decisions, and this rule
would not dictate the outcome of any of those decisions, which would be
subject to NEPA on a case-by-case basis. Similarly, the rule obliges
the BLM in some circumstances to take ``appropriate action'' to address
concerns associated with land health. What constitutes appropriate
action, its timing, and its environmental effects will all turn on the
particular facts and circumstances present when and where that
obligation is triggered. Before taking ``appropriate action,'' the BLM
would analyze the environmental effects of doing so under NEPA.
Finally, the BLM expects that the proposed rule would not implicate
any of the extraordinary circumstances listed in 43 CFR 46.215. The BLM
plans to document the applicability of the CE

[[Page 26868]]

concurrently with development of the final rule.

List of Subjects

43 CFR Part 4

Administrative practice and procedure, Claims.

43 CFR Part 1700

Fundamentals of Land Health, Standards, Assessment and Evaluation.

43 CFR Part 4100

Administrative practices and procedure, Grazing lands, Livestock,
Penalties, Range management, and Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

Lanny Erdos,
Director, Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation and Enforcement
Exercising Authority of the Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals
Management.
Accordingly, for the reasons set out in the preamble, the
Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management and Office of
Hearings and Appeals propose to amend 43 CFR parts 4, 1700, and 4100 as
set forth below:

PART 4--DEPARTMENT HEARINGS AND APPEALS PROCEDURES

0
1. Amend the authority citation for part 4 by revising it to read as
follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301, 503-504, 554-559, 704; 25 U.S.C. 9,
372-374, 410, 2201 et seq.; 43 U.S.C. 315h, 1201, 1457; Pub. L. 99-
264, 100 Stat. 61, as amended.

Subpart C--Rules Applicable to Proceedings Before the Departmental
Cases Hearings Division

0
2. Amend Sec. 4.170 by, in paragraph (b), removing ``(a)'' from the
cross-reference to Sec. 4160.3(a), and by removing paragraph (g).
0
3. Add a new Sec. 4.171 to read as follows:

Sec. 4.171 Effect of decision pending appeal; exhaustion and finality

(a) Effect of decision pending appeal. Except as otherwise provided
by statute or other pertinent regulation:
(1) A BLM grazing decision will not be effective during the time in
which a person or entity adversely affected by the grazing decision may
file an appeal under 43 CFR 4160.3 unless the decision is placed into
full force and effect by the BLM officer.
(2) An appeal will suspend the effect of the grazing decision
pending final action on the appeal unless the decision is placed into
full force and effect by the BLM officer.
(b) Full force and effect decision. A grazing decision may be
placed into full force and effect as follows:
(1) The authorized BLM officer may provide that the grazing
decision will be in full force and effect upon issuance or on a date
established in the decision, and the grazing decision will remain in
effect pending final action on the appeal unless the ALJ grants a stay
pursuant to Sec. 4.172.
(2) The ALJ may provide that the grazing decision will be in full
force and effect pending a decision or order on the merits if a written
motion, supported by clear and convincing evidence, demonstrates that:
(i) Resources on the public lands require immediate protection due
to changed circumstances that occurred after the filing of the notice
of appeal; and
(ii) The immediate and irreparable harm to the United States due to
resource deterioration associated with the continued suspension of the
grazing decision exceeds the harm to the Appellant associated with
placing the decision into full force and effect.
(3) The ALJ may provide in the decision or order on the merits that
the grazing decision will be in full force and effect pending any
further appeals, and the grazing decision will remain in effect pending
final action on the appeal unless the IBLA grants a stay pursuant to
Sec. 4.405.
(c) Exhaustion and finality of grazing decision. To ensure
exhaustion of administrative remedies, a grazing decision will not be
considered final and subject to judicial review under 5 U.S.C. 704
unless it has been made effective pending a decision on appeal in the
manner provided in this section.
0
4. Redesignate Sec. 4.171 as Sec. 4.172 and revise paragraph (a) to
read as follows:
(a) Standards and procedures for obtaining a stay. An appellant
under Sec. 4.170 may petition for a stay of a grazing decision placed
into full force and effect by an authorized BLM officer by filing the
petition for a stay with DCHD concurrently with the notice of appeal.
Filings must be made in accordance with Sec. Sec. 4.102 and 4.103.
Except as otherwise provided by statute or other pertinent regulation,
the following requirements apply:
(1) * * *
(2) * * *
(3) * * *
* * *
0
5. Redesignate Sec. 4.172 as Sec. 4.173.
0
6. Redesignate Sec. 4.173 as Sec. 4.174.
0
7. Remove Sec. 4.174.
0
8. Revise Sec. 4.175 to read as follows:
* * *
(b) Judicial Review. A BLM grazing decision may only be challenged
in Federal court under 5 U.S.C. 704 if administrative remedies have
been exhausted and the decision has become final and effective in
accordance with Sec. 4.171(c). Exhaustion does not require an appeal
of a denial of a petition for a stay.
0
9. Add part 1700 to read as follows:

PART 1700--FUNDAMENTALS OF LAND HEALTH AND STANDARDS FOR PROGRAM
ADMINSTRATION

Sec.
1700.1 Fundamentals of land health.
1700.2 Standards.
1700.3 Rapid landscape-scale condition assessment.
1700.4 Land health evaluation and causal factor determination.

Authority: 43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.

PART 1700--FUNDAMENTALS OF LAND HEALTH AND STANDARDS FOR PROGRAM
ADMINSTRATION

Sec. 1700.1 Fundamentals of land health.

The Bureau of Land Management shall manage lands across all program
areas in such a manner as to facilitate achievement of the following
conditions:
(a) Watersheds are in, or are making significant progress toward,
properly functioning physical condition, including their upland,
riparian-wetland, and aquatic components; soil and plant conditions
support infiltration, soil moisture storage, and the release of water
that are in balance with climate and landform; watershed, riparian-
wetland, and hydrologic processes maintain or improve water quality,
water quantity, and timing and duration of flow.
(b) Ecological processes, including the hydrologic cycle, nutrient
cycle, and energy flow, are maintained, or there is significant
progress toward their attainment, in order to support healthy biotic
populations and communities.
(c) Habitats are, or are making significant progress toward being,
restored or maintained for Federal threatened and endangered, Federal
candidate, and other special status species.

Sec. 1700.2 Standards.

(a) The Bureau of Land Management will, as appropriate, develop,
amend, and maintain State or regional standards to measure and evaluate
achievement of the fundamentals described in Sec. 1700.1. At a
minimum, State or regional standards will address the following, where
relevant to the State or region in which the standards will apply:
(1) Maintaining or promoting adequate amounts of vegetative ground

[[Page 26869]]

cover, including standing plant material and litter, to support
infiltration, maintain soil moisture storage, and stabilize soils;
(2) Maintaining or promoting subsurface soil conditions that
support permeability rates appropriate to climate and soils;
(3) Maintaining, improving or restoring riparian-wetland functions
including energy dissipation, sediment capture, groundwater recharge,
and stream bank stability;
(4) Maintaining or promoting stream channel morphology (e.g.,
gradient, width/depth ratio, channel roughness and sinuosity) and
functions appropriate to climate and landform;
(5) Maintaining or promoting the appropriate kinds and amounts of
soil organisms, plants and animals to support the hydrologic cycle,
nutrient cycle, and energy flow;
(6) Promoting the opportunity for reproductive establishment of
appropriate plant species when climatic conditions and space allow;
(7) Restoring, maintaining or enhancing habitats to assist in the
recovery of Federal threatened and endangered species;
(8) Maintaining or promoting the processes that minimize non-point
sources of water quality pollution;
(9) Maintaining or promoting the physical and biological conditions
to sustain native plant populations and communities;
(10) Emphasizing native species in the support of ecological
function; and
(11) Incorporating the use of non-invasive, non-native plant
species only in those situations in which native species are not
available in sufficient quantities or are incapable of maintaining or
achieving properly functioning conditions and biological health, or a
site has passed an ecological threshold and cannot be returned to a
functioning native state.
(b) State or regional standards developed by the Bureau of Land
Management may not be implemented prior to their approval by the Bureau
of Land Management Director.
(c) Existing standards at the time of promulgation of this part
that relate to water quality or air quality shall be rescinded within
30 days of promulgation of this subpart unless relevant to paragraph
(a)(8) of this section.
(d) Existing standards at the time of promulgation of this part
that refer to ``grazing'' will be expanded to include all programs,
unless inherently specific to grazing management (e.g., a standard that
provides that grazing on designated ephemeral (annual and perennial)
rangeland is allowed to occur only if reliable estimates of production
have been made).

Sec. 1700.3 Rapid landscape-scale condition assessment.

(a) Rapid landscape-scale condition assessments assess and
synthesize information on the condition of soil, water, habitats, and
ecological processes that are relevant to the fundamentals of land
health identified in Sec. 1700.1.
(b) When conducting rapid landscape-scale condition assessments,
the Bureau of Land Management must:
(1) Compile and analyze condition and trend data relevant to each
land health standard, including remote sensing products, field-based
data, and other data gathered through inventory, assessment, and
monitoring activities;
(2) Incorporate consistent analytical approaches, quantitative
indicators, and benchmarks where practicable;
(3) Complete the assessment with available data within six (6)
months of initiating the assessment process; and
(4) Update the assessment at least once every 10 years.
(c) When authorized officers inventory, assess, and monitor
conditions on public lands, they shall employ the following, as
appropriate:
(1) Interdisciplinary monitoring plans for providing data relevant
to decision makers;
(2) Standardized field protocols and indicators to allow data
comparisons through space and time in support of multiple management
decisions;
(3) Appropriate sample designs to minimize bias and maximize
applicability of collected data;
(4) Integration with remote sensing products to optimize sampling
and calibrate continuous map products; and
(5) Data management and stewardship to ensure data quality,
accessibility, and use.

Sec. 1700.4 Land health evaluation and causal factor determination.

(a) Land health evaluations evaluate whether public lands are
achieving, making significant progress toward achieving, or not
achieving land health standards. To conduct land health evaluations,
authorized officers must:
(1) Rely on data and information from rapid landscape-scale
condition assessments (Sec. 1700.3);
(2) Consider multiple lines of evidence to evaluate achievement of
each standard;
(3) Identify trends toward or away from desired conditions tied to
ecological potential through analysis of high-quality information
available over relevant time periods and spatial scales;
(4) Document the rationale and findings as to whether each land
health standard is achieved or significant progress is being made
towards its achievement; and
(5) Complete land health evaluations within the minimum amount of
time necessary to document achievement of standards, but not more than
90 days from initiating the evaluation.
(b) If the authorized officer finds that resource conditions are
achieving or making significant progress toward achieving land health
standards, no additional analysis under 1700.4 is needed.
(c) If the authorized officer finds that resource conditions are
not achieving or making significant progress toward achieving land
health standards, a written causal factor determination to identify the
significant causal factor or factors for nonachievement must be
prepared as soon as practicable but no later than--
(1) 6 months after completion of the land health evaluation; or
(2) If additional time is needed to gather additional information
through additional assessment and evaluation under paragraph (d)(2) of
this section, 1 year after completion of the land health evaluation.
(d) Causal factor determinations use available data to identify
significant causal factors and describe contributing causal factors or
conditions leading to non-achievement of standards.
(1) If the authorized officer determines sufficient information
exists to identify and address the significant causal factors
preventing resources from achieving or making significant progress
towards achieving land health standards, no additional information is
required.
(2) If the authorized officer determines insufficient information
exists to identify and address the significant causal factors
preventing resources from achieving or making significant progress
towards achieving land health standards, additional information,
assessment, and evaluation may be needed at finer scale.
(e) The authorized officer must take appropriate action or actions
to facilitate achievement of land health standards within two years of
completing a causal factor determination, unless otherwise specified in
the land use plan, or unless the significant causal factors identified
are outside of Bureau of Land Management control (e.g., lack of
streamflow due to dewatering on connected lands not administered by the
Bureau of Land Management). Taking appropriate action means
implementing an action or actions that

[[Page 26870]]

are expected to result in significant progress toward achieving land
health standards. Appropriate action must be consistent with applicable
law, regulation, and the governing land use plan and its management
objectives, such as where an area is managed for recreation or is
degraded land prioritized for development. Appropriate actions may
include, but are not limited to:
(1) Developing a monitoring schedule with specific objectives to
allow progress to be made toward standards, with defined points at
which monitoring must inform management decisions, and with an emphasis
on collecting the minimum amount of monitoring data necessary to
determine if progress is being made or if a standard has been met due
to a change in management;
(2) Imposition of relevant terms, conditions or stipulations for
new or renewed permits, leases, and other use authorizations;
(3) Development and implementation of activity plans;
(4) Implementation of adaptive management actions; and
(5) Control of unauthorized use.
(f) Upon determining that significant causal factors other than
current management practices are preventing achievement of land health
standards, but are not outside of Bureau of Land Management control
(e.g., presence of invasive species), the authorized officer shall
identify and prioritize appropriate actions that may result in
significant progress toward achievement of land health standards.
(g) Appropriate action need not include cancelation or modification
of a current authorized use that is determined to be a significant
causal factor, provided that the use conforms to the governing land use
plan and the permittee is in compliance with the terms, conditions or
stipulations of the land use authorization.
(h) Authorized officers will report annually to the Bureau of Land
Management Director on the results of land health evaluations and
causal factor determinations and actions taken to address areas not
achieving or making progress toward achieving land health standards.
(i) The Bureau of Land Management will maintain and annually update
a publicly available record of the results of land health evaluations,
causal factor determinations, and management actions taken to
facilitate progress toward achieving land health standards.
0
10. Revise Part 4100 to read as follows:

PART 4100--GRAZING ADMINISTRATION--EXCLUSIVE OF ALASKA

Subpart 4100--Grazing Administration--Exclusive of Alaska; General
Sec.
4100.0-1 Purpose.
4100.0-2 Objectives.
4100.0-3 Authority.
4100.0-5 Definitions.
4100.0-7 Cross reference.
4100.0-8 Land use plans.
4100.0-9 Information collection.
Subpart 4110--Qualifications and Preference
Sec.
4110.1 Mandatory qualifications.
4110.1-1 Acquired lands.
4110.2 Grazing preference.
4110.2-1 Base property.
4110.2-2 Specifying permitted use.
4110.2-3 Transfer of grazing preference.
4110.2-4 Allotments.
4110.3 Changes in permitted use.
4110.3-1 Increasing active use.
4110.3-2 Decreasing active use.
4110.3-3 Implementing changes in active use.
4110.4 Changes in public land acreage.
4110.4-1 Additional land acreage.
4110.4-2 Decrease in land acreage.
4110.5 Interest of Member of Congress.
Subpart 4120--Grazing Management
Sec.
4120.1 [Reserved]
4120.2 Allotment management plans.
4120.3 Range improvements.
4120.3-1 Conditions for range improvements.
4120.3-2 Cooperative range improvement agreements.
4120.3-3 Range improvement permits.
4120.3-4 Standards, design and stipulations.
4120.3-5 Assignment of range improvements.
4120.3-6 Removal and compensation for loss of range improvements.
4120.3-7 Contributions.
4120.3-8 Range improvement fund.
4120.3-9 Water rights for the purpose of livestock grazing on public
lands.
4120.4 Special rules.
4120.5 Cooperation.
4120.5-1 Cooperation in management.
4120.5-2 Cooperation with state, county, Tribal and Federal agencies
and governments.
Subpart 4130--Authorizing Grazing Use
Sec.
4130.1 Applications.
4130.1-1 Filing applications.
4130.1-2 Conflicting applications.
4130.2 Grazing permits.
4130.3 Terms and conditions.
4130.3-1 Mandatory terms and conditions.
4130.3-2 Other terms and conditions.
4130.3-3 Modification of permits.
4130.4 Authorization of temporary changes in grazing use within the
terms and conditions of permits, including temporary nonuse.
4130.5 [Reserved]
4130.6 Other grazing authorizations.
4130.6-1 Exchange-of-use grazing agreements.
4130.6-2 Nonrenewable grazing permits.
4130.6-3 Trailing permits.
4130.6-4 [Reserved]
4130.7 Ownership and identification of livestock.
4130.8 Fees.
4130.8-1 Payment of fees.
4130.8-2 Refunds.
4130.8-3 Service charge.
4130.9 Pledge of permits as security for loans.
Subpart 4140--Prohibited Acts
Sec.
4140.1 Acts prohibited on public lands.
Subpart 4150--Unauthorized Grazing Use
Sec.
4150.1 Violations.
4150.2 Notice and order to remove.
4150.3 Settlement.
4150.4 Impoundment and disposal.
4150.4-1 Notice of intent to impound.
4150.4-2 Impoundment.
4150.4-3 Notice of public sale.
4150.4-4 Redemption.
4150.4-5 Sale.
Subpart 4160--Administrative Remedies
Sec.
4160.1 Proposed decisions.
4160.2 Protests.
4160.3 Final decisions.
4160.4 Appeals
Subpart 4170--Penalties
Sec.
4170.1 Civil penalties.
4170.1-1 Penalty for violations.
4170.1-2 Failure to use.
4170.2 Penal provisions.
4170.2-1 Penal provisions under the Taylor Grazing Act.
4170.2-2 Penal provisions under the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act.
Subpart 4180--[Reserved]
Subpart 4190--Effect of Wildfire Management Decisions
Sec.
4190.1 Effect of wildfire management decisions.

Authority: 43 U.S.C. 315, 315a-315r, 1181d, and 1740.

PART 4100--GRAZING ADMINISTRATION--EXCLUSIVE OF ALASKA

Subpart 4100--Grazing Administration--Exclusive of Alaska; General

Sec. 4100.0-1 Purpose.

The purpose is to provide uniform guidance for administration of
grazing on the public lands exclusive of Alaska.

[[Page 26871]]

Sec. 4100.0-2 Objectives.

The objectives of these regulations are to promote healthy
sustainable rangeland ecosystems; to promote the orderly use,
improvement and development of the public lands; to establish efficient
and effective administration of grazing of public rangelands; and to
provide for the sustainability of the western livestock industry and
communities that are dependent upon productive, healthy public
rangelands. These objectives shall be realized in a manner consistent
with land use plans, multiple use, sustained yield, environmental
values, and economic and other objectives set by relevant law and
policy.

Sec. 4100.0-3 Authority.

(a) The Taylor Grazing Act of June 28, 1934 as amended (43 U.S.C.
315 et seq.);
(b) The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C.
1701 et seq.) as amended by the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of
1978 (PL 95-514) and the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (PL 113-291);
(c) Executive orders that transfer land acquired under the
Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act of July 22, 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C.
1012), to the Secretary and authorize administration under the Taylor
Grazing Act.
(d) Section 4 of the Oregon and California Railroad Act of August
28, 1937 (43 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.);
(e) The Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 (43 U.S.C. 1901
et seq.); and
(f) Public land orders, Executive orders, and agreements that
authorize the Secretary to administer livestock grazing on specified
lands and in grazing districts under the Taylor Grazing Act or other
authority as specified.

Sec. 4100.0-5 Definitions.

Whenever used in this part, unless the context otherwise requires,
the following definitions apply:
The Act means the Taylor Grazing Act of June 28, 1934, as amended
(43 U.S.C. 315, 315a-315r).
Active use means that portion of the permitted use within an
allotment that is:
(1) Available for livestock grazing use under a permit;
(2) Not approved for temporary nonuse under Sec. 4130.4 of this
part; and
(3) Not in suspension.
Activity plan means a plan for managing a resource use or value to
achieve specific objectives. For example, an allotment management plan
is an activity plan for managing livestock grazing use to improve or
maintain rangeland conditions.
Actual use means where, how many, what kind or class of livestock,
and how long livestock graze on an allotment, or on a portion or
pasture of an allotment.
Actual use report means a report of the actual livestock grazing
use submitted by the permittee.
Affiliate means an entity or person that controls, is controlled
by, or is under common control with, an applicant or permittee. The
term ``control'' means having any relationship which gives an entity or
person authority directly or indirectly to determine the manner in
which an applicant or permittee conducts grazing operations.
Allotment means an area of land designated and managed for grazing
of livestock.
Allotment management plan (AMP) means a documented program
developed as an activity plan, consistent with the definition at 43
U.S.C. 1702(k), or its functional equivalent, such as a grazing
management plan that incorporates flexibility, monitoring and
objectives or other components and that focuses on, and contains the
necessary instructions for, the management of livestock grazing on
specified public lands to meet resource condition, sustained yield,
multiple use, economic and other objectives.
Animal unit month (AUM) means a month's use and occupancy of range
by one (1) cow, bull, steer, heifer, bison, horse (ancillary to
livestock production), burro, or mule, or by five (5) sheep or goats.
Annual rangelands means those areas identified in the land use
plan, activity plan, or decision of the authorized officer in which
livestock forage production is primarily attributable to annual plants
and varies greatly from year to year.
Authorized officer means any person authorized by the Secretary to
administer regulations in this part.
Base property means: (1) Land that contains livestock operation
facilities capable of serving as a base of operations for the livestock
use of public lands, (2) land that has the capability to produce crops
or forage that can be used to support authorized livestock for a
specified period of the year, or (3) water that is suitable for
consumption by livestock and is available and accessible, to the
authorized livestock when the public lands are used for livestock
grazing.
Beginning rancher (mentee) means anyone who has not (1) owned,
controlled, or operated a farm or ranch for a period of more than 10
years or (2) previously held a grazing permit, and may include, without
limitation, children and grandchildren of grazing permittees.
Canceled or cancellation means a permanent termination of a grazing
permit and grazing preference or other grazing authorization, in whole
or in part.
Carrying capacity means the measurement of how much forage is
available on a unit of land.
Class of livestock means ages and/or sex groups of a kind of
livestock.
Consultation, cooperation, and coordination means interaction for
the purpose of obtaining advice, or exchanging opinions on issues,
plans, or management actions.
Control means being responsible for and providing care and
management of base property and/or livestock.
District means the specific area of public lands administered by a
District Manager.
Ephemeral rangelands means areas of the Hot Desert Biome (Region)
that typically have very low carrying capacity, yet can produce short-
lived, abundant forage in response to favorable climatic conditions.
Ephemeral rangelands do not produce sufficient forage to allocate for
livestock grazing on a sustained yield basis, yet may periodically
produce forage suitable for livestock grazing for short periods of
time.
Grazing district means the specific area within which the public
lands are administered under section 3 of the Act. Public lands outside
grazing district boundaries are administered under section 15 of the
Act.
Grazing fee year means the year used for billing purposes, which
begins on March 1, of a given year and ends on the last day of February
of the following year.
Grazing authorization means any document that authorizes grazing
use on BLM-administered lands. Such documents include grazing permits
(including both permits issued under section 3 of the Act and leases
issued under section 15 of the Act), trailing permits, and exchange-of-
use grazing agreements.
Grazing permit means a document that authorizes grazing use of the
public lands under section 3 or section 15 of the Act. A grazing permit
specifies permitted use and the terms and conditions under which
permittees make grazing use during the term of the permit. Permits
should specify total AUMs, including active and suspended AUMs.

[[Page 26872]]

Grazing preference or preference means a superior or priority
position against others for the purpose of receiving or renewing a
grazing permit. This priority is attached to base property owned or
controlled by the permittee.
Interested public means an individual, group or organization that
has an interest in the management of livestock grazing on a particular
allotment and has either submitted a written request to the authorized
officer to be provided an opportunity to be involved in the decision-
making process for the management of livestock grazing on that
allotment or has submitted written comments to the authorized officer
regarding the management of livestock grazing on that allotment.
Land use plan means a resource management plan, developed under the
provisions of 43 CFR part 1600, or a management framework plan. These
plans are developed through public participation in accordance with the
provisions of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43
U.S.C 1701 et seq.) and establish management direction for resource
uses of public lands.
Monitoring means the observation and orderly collection of data
over an appropriate time period to evaluate:
(1) Effects of management actions; and
(2) Effectiveness of actions in meeting management objectives such
as land health.
Permitted use means the forage allocated for grazing by production-
oriented livestock in an allotment under a permit and is expressed in
AUMs. Permitted use includes active use and suspended use AUMs.
Prescribed grazing means the controlled harvest of vegetation with
grazing or browsing animals with the intent to achieve specific
ecological, economic, and management objectives. Targeted grazing is a
form of prescribed grazing.
Production-oriented livestock means animals when they are being
used as part of an operation to provide output for various purposes,
such as meat, milk, fiber, or other products and any animals when they
are being used to assist with management of other animals in connection
with such operations (e.g., horses that are used to assist with cattle
management).
Public lands means any land and interest in land outside of Alaska
owned by the United States and administered by the Secretary of the
Interior through the Bureau of Land Management, except lands held for
the benefit of Indians.
Range improvement means an authorized physical modification or
treatment which is designed to improve production of forage; change
vegetation composition; control patterns of use; provide water;
stabilize soil and water conditions; or restore, protect and improve
the health of rangeland ecosystems to benefit production-oriented
livestock, wild horses and burros, and fish and wildlife. The term
includes, but is not limited to, structures, treatment projects (i.e.,
prescribed fire), and use of mechanical devices or modifications
achieved through mechanical means (i.e., interseeding, pitting).
Secretary means the Secretary of the Interior or his or her
authorized officer.
Service area means the area that can be properly grazed by
livestock watering at a certain water base property.
State Director means the State Director, Bureau of Land Management,
or his or her authorized representative, of a specific state.
Stocking rate means the number of specific kinds and classes of
animals grazing land over a specific time period per acre. Stocking
rate is usually expressed in AUMs/acre.
Supplemental feed means a feed or nutritional supplement which
augments the forage available from the public lands and is provided to
improve livestock nutrition or rangeland management.
Suspension or suspended use means the temporary withholding from
active use, through a decision issued by the authorized officer or by
agreement, of part or all of the permitted use specified in a grazing
permit until specified objectives or actions have been met.
Sustained yield means the achievement and maintenance in perpetuity
of a high-level annual or regular periodic output of the various
renewable resources of the public lands consistent with multiple use.
Targeted grazing means using livestock as a tool to create
strategic linear fuel breaks, to reduce fine fuel height and fuel
loading, and to maintain fine fuels reduction for a specified period
under Sec. 4190.1(a)(1) of this part, or to address other resource
issues such as control of undesirable plant species.
Temporary nonrenewable or TNR means a type of gazing authorization
that authorizes additional forage temporarily available for livestock
grazing. Examples where a TNR authorization may be issued include: (1)
in a vacant allotment without a current grazing authorization where
forage is temporarily available; (2) in an allotment with a current
grazing authorization where additional forage is temporarily available
above active use; (3) in an allotment with a current grazing
authorization where forage is available as result of temporary nonuse.
In all circumstances the current permittee, if any, will be consulted
before use by an additional permittee is authorized.
Temporary nonuse means that portion of active use that the
authorized officer authorizes to not be used temporarily, in response
to an application made by the permittee.
Terms and conditions means requirements described in Sec. 4130.3-1
and Sec. 4130.3-2, which are included in a grazing authorization. All
terms and conditions must be followed.
Trend means the measurable direction of change over time, either
toward or away from desired management objectives.
Unauthorized leasing and subleasing means--
(1) The lease or sublease of a Federal grazing permit, associated
with the lease or sublease of base property, to another party without a
required transfer approved by the authorized officer;
(2) The lease or sublease of a Federal grazing permit to another
party without the assignment of the associated base property;
(3) Allowing another party, other than sons, daughters, and
grandchildren of the grazing permittee or beginning ranchers meeting
the requirements of Sec. 4130.7(f), to graze on public lands livestock
that are not owned or controlled by the permittee; or
(4) Allowing another party, other than sons, daughters, and
grandchildren of the grazing permittee or beginning ranchers meeting
the requirements of Sec. 4130.7(f), to graze livestock on public lands
under a pasturing agreement without the approval of the authorized
officer.
Utilization means the portion of the current year's growth that has
been removed during a specified period. The term is also used to refer
to the pattern of such use. See Technical Reference 1734-3 or
subsequent updates.

Sec. 4100.0-7 Cross reference.

The regulations at part 1600 of this chapter govern the development
of land use plans; the regulations at part 1700 of this chapter govern
land health; the regulations at part 1780, subpart 1784 of this chapter
govern advisory committees; and the regulations at subparts B and E of
part 4 of this title govern appeals and hearings.

Sec. 4100.0-8 Land use plans.

The authorized officer shall manage production-oriented livestock
grazing on public lands under the principles of multiple use and
sustained yield, and in

[[Page 26873]]

accordance with applicable land use plans and statutory authority. Land
use plans shall establish allowable resource uses (either singly or in
combination), areas of use, and resource condition goals and objectives
to be obtained. The plans also set forth program constraints and
general management practices needed to achieve management objectives.
Livestock grazing activities and management actions approved by the
authorized officer shall be in conformance with the land use plan as
defined at 43 CFR 1601.0-5(b).

Sec. 4100.0-9 Information collection.

The information collection requirements contained in Group 4100
have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget under 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The information is collected to enable the
authorized officer to determine whether to approve an application to
utilize public lands for grazing.

Subpart 4110--Qualifications and Preference

Sec. 4110.1 Mandatory qualifications.

(a) Except as provided under Sec. Sec. 4110.1-1, 4130.2(d)(4)(a),
and 4130.6-3, to qualify for grazing use on the public lands an
applicant must own or control land or water base property, be engaged
in a production-oriented livestock business, and be:
(1) A citizen of the United States or have properly filed a valid
declaration of intention to become a citizen or a valid petition for
naturalization who has reached the age at which they are legally
considered an adult (age of majority); or
(2) A group or association authorized to conduct business in the
State in which the grazing use is sought, all members of which are
qualified under paragraph (a) of this section; or
(3) A corporation authorized to conduct business in the State in
which the grazing use is sought.
(b) The authorized officer must determine whether applicants for
the renewal of permits or issuance of permits that authorize use of new
or transferred preference, and any affiliates, have a satisfactory
record of performance. The authorized officer will not renew or issue a
permit unless the applicant and all affiliates have a satisfactory
record of performance and meet the requirements in Sec. 4110.1(a).
(1) Renewal of permit.
(i) The authorized officer will find the applicant for renewal of a
grazing permit, and any affiliate, to have a satisfactory record of
performance if the authorized officer determines the applicant and
affiliates to be in substantial compliance with the terms and
conditions of the existing Federal grazing permit for which renewal is
sought, and with the rules and regulations applicable to the permit.
(ii) The authorized officer may take into consideration
circumstances beyond the control of the applicant or affiliate in
determining whether the applicant and affiliates are in substantial
compliance with permit terms and conditions and applicable rules and
regulations.
(2) New permit. Applicants for new permits, and any affiliates,
shall be deemed not to have a record of satisfactory performance when--
(i) The applicant or affiliate has had any Federal grazing permit
cancelled for violation of the permit within the 36 calendar months
immediately preceding the date of application; or
(ii) The applicant or affiliate has had any State grazing permit,
for lands within the grazing allotment for which a Federal permit is
sought, cancelled for violation of the permit within the 36 calendar
months immediately preceding the date of application; or
(iii) The applicant or affiliate is barred from holding a Federal
grazing permit by order of a court of competent jurisdiction.
(c) In determining whether affiliation exists, the authorized
officer shall consider all appropriate factors, including, but not
limited to, common ownership, common management, identity of interests
among family members, and contractual relationships.
(d) Applicants shall submit an application and any other relevant
information requested by the authorized officer in order to determine
that all qualifications have been met.

Sec. 4110.1-1 Acquired lands.

Where lands have been acquired by the Bureau of Land Management
through purchase, exchange, Act of Congress or Executive Order, and an
agreement or the terms of the act or Executive Order provide that the
Bureau of Land Management shall honor existing grazing authorizations,
such authorizations are governed by the terms and conditions in effect
at the time of acquisition by the Bureau of Land Management, and are
not subject to the requirements of Sec. 4110.1.

Sec. 4110.2 Grazing preference.

Sec. 4110.2-1 Base property.

(a) The authorized officer shall find land or water owned or
controlled by an applicant to be base property (see Sec. 4100.0-5) if:
(1) It is capable of serving as a base of operation for livestock
use of public lands within a grazing district; or
(2) It is contiguous land, or, when no applicant owns or controls
contiguous land, noncontiguous land that is capable of being used in
conjunction with a livestock operation which would utilize public lands
outside a grazing district.
(b) An applicant shall provide a legal description, or plat, of the
base property and shall certify to the authorized officer that this
base property meets the requirements under paragraph (a) of this
section. A permittee's interest in water previously recognized as base
property on public land shall be deemed sufficient in meeting the
requirement that the applicant control base property. Where such waters
become unusable and are replaced by newly constructed or reconstructed
water developments that are the subject of a range improvement permit
or cooperative range improvement agreement, the permittee's interest in
the replacement water shall be deemed sufficient in meeting the
requirement that the applicant control base property.
(c) If a permittee loses ownership or control of all or part of
his/her base property, the permit, to the extent it was based upon such
lost property, shall terminate immediately without further notice from
the authorized officer. However, if, prior to losing ownership or
control of the base property, the permittee requests, in writing, that
the permit be extended to the end of the grazing season or grazing
year, the termination date may be extended as determined by the
authorized officer after consultation with the new owner. When a permit
terminates because of a loss of ownership or control of a base
property, the grazing preference shall remain with the base property
and be available through application and transfer procedures at 43 CFR
4110.2-3, to the new owner or person in control of that base property.
(d) Applicants who own or control base property contiguous to or
cornering upon public land outside a grazing district where such public
land consists of an isolated or disconnected tract embracing 760 acres
or less shall, for a period of 90 days after the tract has been offered
for lease under section 15 of the Act, have a preference right to lease
the whole tract under section 15 of the Act.

Sec. 4110.2-2 Specifying permitted use.

(a) All grazing permits will specify permitted use where the
authorized officer authorizes grazing by production-oriented livestock
based upon forage availability, except for permits for identified
ephemeral or

[[Page 26874]]

annual rangelands. Permitted use includes active use and any suspended
use. Active use will be based upon the amount of forage available for
livestock grazing as established in the land use plan, activity plan,
or subsequent decision of the authorized officer under Sec. 4110.3-3
and may be expressed as a limit. Permitted use is granted to holders of
grazing preference and shall be specified in all grazing permits.
(b) The specified permitted use shall attach to the base property
supporting the grazing permit based on:
(1) The relative acreage of land base property controlled by the
permittee, or
(2) The amount of livestock forage production within the service
area of water base property.

Sec. 4110.2-3 Transfer of grazing preference.

(a) Transfers of grazing preference in whole or in part are subject
to the following requirements:
(1) The transferee shall meet all qualifications and requirements
of Sec. Sec. 4110.1, 4110.2-1, 4110.2-2 and 4130.1-1.
(2) The transfer applications under paragraphs (b) and (c) of this
section shall evidence assignment of interest and obligation in range
improvements authorized on public lands under Sec. 4120.3 and
maintained in conjunction with the transferred preference (see Sec.
4120.3-5). The terms and conditions of the cooperative range
improvement agreements and range improvement permits are binding on the
transferee.
(3) The transferee shall accept the terms and conditions of the
terminating grazing permit (see Sec. 4130.2) with such modifications
as he or she may request which are approved by the authorized officer
or with such modifications as may be required by the authorized
officer.
(4) The transferee shall file an application for a grazing permit
to the extent of the transferred preference simultaneously with filing
a transfer application under paragraph (b) or (c) of this section.
(b) If base property is sold or leased, the transferee shall within
90 days of the date of sale or lease file with the authorized officer a
properly executed transfer application showing the base property to
which the grazing preference is attached and identifying the permitted
use being transferred.
(c) If a grazing preference is being transferred from one base
property to another base property, the transferor shall own or control
the base property from which the grazing preference is being
transferred and file with the authorized officer a properly completed
transfer application for approval. No transfer will be allowed without
the written consent of the owner(s), and any person or entity holding
an encumbrance of the base property from which the transfer is to be
made.
(d) At the date of approval of a transfer, the existing grazing
permit shall terminate automatically and without notice to the extent
of the transfer unless covered under Sec. 4110.2-1(c).
(e) If an unqualified transferee acquires rights in base property
through operation of law or testamentary disposition, such transfer
will not affect the grazing preference or any outstanding grazing
permit, or preclude the issuance or renewal of a grazing permit based
on such property for a period of 2 years after the transfer. However,
such a transferee shall qualify under paragraph (a) of this section
within the 2-year period or the grazing preference shall be subject to
cancellation. The authorized officer may grant extensions of the 2-year
period where there are delays solely attributable to probate
proceedings.
(f) Transfers shall be for a minimum of 5 years unless a shorter
term is determined by the authorized officer to be consistent with
management and resource condition objectives.
(g) Failure of either the transferee or the transferor to comply
with the regulations of this section may result in rejection of the
transfer application or cancellation of grazing preference.
(h) Issuance of a grazing permit with the same terms and conditions
for the remaining length of time of the permit due to a preference
transfer, when the only change is the name on the authorization, is not
subject to the provisions of subpart 4160.
(i) Following a preference transfer, the authorized officer may:
(1) Rely on expiring permit--Issue to the transferee a grazing
permit with the same terms and conditions as the transferor's
terminated permit for the remaining term of that permit. When the
authorized officer issues a permit under this paragraph (1), it is
presumed that the officer may, to the extent appropriate and consistent
with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C.
4321 et seq.), make a determination of NEPA adequacy in support of the
permit decision.
(2) Issue a new permit--Issue to the transferee a grazing permit
with appropriate terms and conditions for a term not to exceed 10
years. When the authorized officer issues a permit under this paragraph
(2), the authorized officer should rely on previous documentation of
NEPA compliance to the extent appropriate and consistent with NEPA.
(3) Continue expiring permit under 43 U.S.C. 1752(c)(2)--Continue
under a new permit the terms and conditions of the transferor's
terminated permit until such time as any environmental analysis
required under NEPA or other applicable laws is completed.

Sec. 4110.2-4 Allotments.

After consultation, cooperation, and coordination with the affected
grazing permittees and the state having lands or responsibility for
managing resources within the area, the authorized officer may
designate and adjust grazing allotment boundaries. The authorized
officer may combine or divide allotments, through an agreement or by
decision, when necessary for the proper and efficient management of
public rangelands.

Sec. 4110.3 Changes in permitted use.

(a) The authorized officer shall periodically review the permitted
use specified in a grazing permit and shall make changes in the
permitted use as needed to:
(1) Manage, maintain or improve rangeland health or productivity;
(2) Assist, if necessary, in making progress toward restoring
riparian ecosystems to properly functioning conditions; or
(3) Conform with land use plans or activity plans.
(b) The authorized officer will support these changes with site-
specific analysis from monitoring, documented field observations,
ecological site inventory or other data acceptable to the authorized
officer.

Sec. 4110.3-1 Increasing active use.

Additional forage for grazing by production-oriented livestock may
be apportioned to applicants found to be qualified under subparts 4110
and 4130 of this part consistent with multiple-use management
objectives.
(a) Additional forage temporarily available for grazing by
production-oriented livestock may be apportioned on a nonrenewable
basis.
(b) Additional forage available on a sustained yield basis for
grazing by production-oriented livestock shall first be apportioned in
satisfaction of suspended permitted use to the permittee(s) authorized
to graze in the allotment in which the forage is available.
(c) Additional forage will be apportioned to qualified applicants
for grazing by production-oriented livestock consistent with multiple-
use objectives.
(d) The authorized officer may apportion additional forage on a

[[Page 26875]]

sustained yield basis as available for grazing by production-oriented
livestock, or extend the season of use, or both in an allotment after
consultation, cooperation, and coordination with the affected
permittees and the state having lands or managing resources within the
area; provided the permittee or other applicant is found to be
qualified under subparts 4110 and 4130 of this part.
(e) Additional forage shall be apportioned in the following
priority:
(1) Permittee(s) in proportion to the amount of their permitted
use, including reinstatement of suspended AUMs; and
(2) Other qualified applicants under Sec. 4130.1-2 of this part.

Sec. 4110.3-2 Decreasing active use.

(a) Active use may be suspended in whole or in part on a temporary
basis due to drought, fire, or other natural causes, or to facilitate
installation, maintenance, or modification of range improvements.
(b) The authorized officer will reduce active use through
suspension or otherwise modify management practices when the site-
specific analysis described in Sec. 4110.3(b) shows active grazing use
is causing an unacceptable level or pattern of utilization, or when use
exceeds the carrying capacity as determined through accepted monitoring
methods.
(c) Where active use is reduced under paragraphs (a) and (b) of
this section it will be held in suspension until the permittee applies
for active use to resume, and the authorized officer approves that
application.

Sec. 4110.3-3 Implementing changes in active use.

(a) After consultation, cooperation, and coordination with the
affected permittee and the state having lands or managing resources
within the area, the authorized officer will implement changes in
active use through a documented agreement or by decision.
(1) Decisions implementing Sec. 4110.3-2 shall be issued pursuant
to Sec. 4160.1, except as provided in paragraphs (a)(2) and (b) of
this section.
(2) After consultation, cooperation, and coordination with affected
permittees and the state having lands or responsible for managing
resources within the area, the authorized officer will close allotments
or portions of allotments to grazing by any kind of livestock or modify
authorized grazing use notwithstanding the other provisions of this
paragraph (a) when the authorized officer determines and documents that
an emergency exists and--
(i) The soil, vegetation, or other resources on the public lands
require immediate protection because of conditions such as drought,
fire, flood, or insect infestation; or
(ii) Continued production-oriented livestock grazing use poses an
imminent likelihood of significant resource damage.
(b) Notices of emergency closure and decisions requiring
modification of authorized grazing use may be effective upon issuance
or on a date specified in the decision. Notwithstanding section
4160.3(c), such decisions will remain in full force and effect pending
the decision on appeal unless the Office of Hearings and Appeals grants
a stay in accordance with part 4 of this title.

Sec. 4110.4 Changes in public land acreage.

Sec. 4110.4-1 Additional land acreage.

When lands outside designated allotments become available for
livestock grazing under the administration of the Bureau of Land
Management, the forage available for livestock shall be made available
to qualified applicants at the discretion of the authorized officer.
Grazing use shall be apportioned under Sec. 4130.1-2 of this title.

Sec. 4110.4-2 Decrease in land acreage.

(a) Where there is a decrease in public land acreage available for
livestock grazing within an allotment:
(1) Grazing permits may be canceled or modified as appropriate to
reflect the changed area of use.
(2) Permitted use may be canceled in whole or in part.
Cancellations determined by the authorized officer to be necessary to
protect the public lands will be apportioned by the authorized officer
based upon the level of available forage and the magnitude of the
change in public land acreage available, or as agreed to among the
authorized users and the authorized officer.
(b) When public lands are disposed of or devoted to a public
purpose which precludes livestock grazing, the permittees shall be
given 2 years' prior notification except in cases of emergency
(national defense requirements in time of war, natural disasters,
national emergency needs, etc.) before their grazing permit and grazing
preference may be canceled. A permittee may unconditionally waive the
2-year prior notification. Such a waiver shall not prejudice the
permittee's right to reasonable compensation for, but not to exceed the
fair market value of, his or her interest in authorized permanent range
improvements located on these public lands (see Sec. 4120.3-6).

Sec. 4110.5 Interest of Member of Congress.

Title 18 U.S.C. 431 through 433 (1970) generally prohibits a Member
of or Delegate to Congress from entering into any contract or agreement
with the United States. Title 41 U.S.C. 22 (1970) generally provides
that in every contract or agreement to be made or entered into, or
accepted by or on behalf of the United States, there shall be inserted
an express condition that no Member of or Delegate to Congress shall be
admitted to any share or part of such contract or agreement, or to any
benefit to arise thereupon. The provisions of these laws are
incorporated herein by reference and apply to all permits and
agreements issued under these regulations.

Subpart 4120--Grazing Management

Sec. 4120.1 [Reserved]

Sec. 4120.2 Allotment management plans.

All permits may incorporate an allotment management plan for
managing livestock grazing. Allotment management plans or other
activity plans intended to serve as the functional equivalent of
allotment management plans may be developed by permittees, other
Federal or state resource management agencies, and the Bureau of Land
Management. When such plans affecting the administration of grazing
allotments are developed, the following provisions apply:
(a) An allotment management plan or other activity plans intended
to serve as the functional equivalent of allotment management plans
shall be prepared in careful and considered consultation, cooperation,
and coordination with affected permittees, landowners involved, and any
state having lands or responsible for managing resources within the
area to be covered by such a plan. The plan shall become effective upon
approval by the authorized officer after complying with applicable laws
and the provisions of subpart 4160 of this part. The plans shall--
(1) Include terms and conditions under Sec. Sec. 4130.3, 4130.3-1,
4130.3-2, and 4130.3-3;
(2) Prescribe the livestock grazing practices necessary to meet
specific resource objectives defined in the allotment management plan
and applicable standards developed under part 1700 of this title; and
(3) Specify the limits of flexibility, to be determined and granted
on the basis of the operator's or operators' demonstrated stewardship,
within which the permittee(s) may adjust operations without prior
approval of the authorized officer; and
(4) Include a monitoring plan to evaluate the effectiveness of

[[Page 26876]]

management actions in achieving the specific resource objectives of the
plan.
(b) Private and state lands may be included in allotment management
plans or the functional equivalent of allotment management plans
dealing with rangeland management with the consent or at the request of
the parties who own or control those lands.
(c) A requirement to conform with completed allotment management
plans or other applicable activity plans intended to serve as the
functional equivalent of allotment management plans shall be
incorporated into the terms and conditions of the grazing permit for
the allotment.
(d) Allotment management plans or the functional equivalent of
allotment management plans may be revised or terminated by the
authorized officer after consultation, cooperation, and coordination
with the affected permittees, landowners involved, and any state having
lands or responsibility for managing resources within the area to be
covered by the plan.

Sec. 4120.3 Range improvements.

Sec. 4120.3-1 Conditions for range improvements.

(a) Range improvements shall be installed, used, maintained, and/or
modified on the public lands, or removed from these lands, in a manner
consistent with multiple-use management.
(b) Prior to installing, using, maintaining, and/or modifying range
improvements on the public lands, permittees shall have entered into a
cooperative range improvement agreement with the Bureau of Land
Management or must have an approved range improvement permit.
(c) The authorized officer, via a written decision, may require a
permittee to maintain and/or modify range improvements on the public
lands under Sec. 4130.3-2 of this title.
(d) The authorized officer may require, via a written decision, a
permittee to install or maintain range improvements on the public lands
in an allotment with two or more permittees and/or to meet the terms
and conditions of any cooperative range improvement agreement or range
improvement permit.
(e) A range improvement permit or cooperative range improvement
agreement does not convey to the permittee or cooperator any right,
title, or interest in any lands or resources held by the United States.
(f) The authorized officer will review proposed range improvement
projects under applicable laws. If the decision following this review
falls under the authority of this part, it will follow the procedures
of subpart 4160 of this part.

Sec. 4120.3-2 Cooperative range improvement agreements.

(a) The Bureau of Land Management may enter into a cooperative
range improvement agreement with a person, organization, or other
government entity for the installation, use, maintenance, and/or
modification of permanent range improvements or rangeland developments
to achieve management or resource condition objectives. The cooperative
range improvement agreement shall specify how the costs of materials or
labor, or both, shall be divided between the United States and
cooperator(s) and must identify operation and maintenance
responsibility.
(b) Subject to valid existing rights, including water rights
permitted or authorized under state law, title to permanent range
improvements such as fences, wells, and pipelines where authorization
is granted after August 21, 1995 shall be in the name of the United
States. The authorization for all new permanent water developments such
as spring developments, wells, reservoirs, stock tanks, and pipelines
shall be through cooperative range improvement agreements. A
permittee's interest in contributed funds, labor, and materials will be
documented by the Bureau of Land Management to ensure proper credit for
the purposes of Sec. Sec. 4120.3-5 and 4120.3-6(c).
(c) The United States shall have title to nonstructural range
improvements such as seeding, spraying, and chaining.
(d) Range improvement work performed by a cooperator or permittee
on the public lands or lands administered by the Bureau of Land
Management does not confer the exclusive right to use the improvement
or the land affected by the range improvement work.

Sec. 4120.3-3 Range improvement permits.

(a) Any permittee may apply for a range improvement permit to
install, use, maintain, and/or modify removable range improvements that
are needed to achieve management objectives for the allotment in which
the permit is held. The permittee shall agree to provide full funding
for construction, installation, modification, or maintenance. Such
range improvement permits are issued at the discretion of the
authorized officer.
(b) The permittee may hold the title to authorized removable range
improvements used as livestock handling facilities such as corrals,
creep feeders, and loading chutes, and to temporary structural
improvements such as troughs for hauled water.
(c) If forage available for livestock is not or will not be used by
the permittee who is authorized for the associated active use, the
authorized officer may issue temporary nonrenewable grazing permits to
other qualified applicants to use it under Sec. Sec. 4130.6-2 and
4130.4(f), or Sec. 4110.3-1(a). Before issuing a temporary
nonrenewable permit, the authorized officer will consult, cooperate,
and coordinate with the current permittee as provided in Sec. 4130.6-
2. If the authorized officer issues such a temporary nonrenewable
permit, the preference permittee must cooperate with the temporary
authorized use of forage by another operator.
(1) A permittee shall be reasonably compensated for the use and
maintenance of improvements and facilities by the operator who has an
authorization for temporary nonrenewable grazing use.
(2) The authorized officer may mediate disputes about reasonable
compensation and, following consultation with the parties to the
dispute, make a determination concerning the fair and reasonable share
of operation and maintenance expenses and compensation for use of
authorized improvements and facilities.
(3) Where a settlement cannot be reached, the authorized officer
shall issue a temporary, nonrenewable grazing authorization including
appropriate terms and conditions and the requirement to compensate the
preference permittee for the fair share of operation and maintenance as
determined by the authorized officer under subpart 4160 of this part.

Sec. 4120.3-4 Standards, design and stipulations.

Range improvement permits and cooperative range improvement
agreements shall specify the standards, design, construction and
maintenance criteria for the range improvements and other additional
conditions and stipulations or modifications deemed necessary by the
authorized officer.

Sec. 4120.3-5 Assignment of range improvements.

The authorized officer shall not approve the transfer of a grazing
preference under Sec. 4110.2-3 of this title or approve use by the
transferee of existing range improvements, unless the transferee has
agreed to compensate the transferor for his/her interest in the
authorized improvements within the allotment as of the date of the
transfer.

[[Page 26877]]

Sec. 4120.3-6 Removal and compensation for loss of range
improvements.

(a) Range improvements shall not be removed from the public lands
without authorization.
(b) The authorized officer may require permittees to remove range
improvements which they own on the public lands if these improvements
are no longer helping to achieve land use plan or allotment goals and
objectives or if they fail to meet the criteria under Sec. 4120.3-4 of
this title.
(c) Whenever a grazing permit is canceled in order to devote the
public lands covered by the permit to another public purpose, including
disposal, the permittee shall receive from the United States reasonable
compensation for the adjusted value of their interest in authorized
permanent improvements placed or constructed by the permittee on the
public lands covered by the canceled permit. The adjusted value is to
be determined by the authorized officer. Compensation shall not exceed
the fair market value of the terminated portion of the permittee's
interest therein. Where a range improvement is authorized by a range
improvement permit, the livestock operator may elect to salvage
materials and perform rehabilitation measures rather than be
compensated for the adjusted value.
(d) Permittees shall be allowed 180 days from the date of
cancellation of a range improvement permit or cooperative range
improvement agreement to salvage material owned by them and perform
rehabilitation measures necessitated by the removal.

Sec. 4120.3-7 Contributions.

The authorized officer may accept contributions of labor, material,
equipment, or money for administration, protection, and improvement of
the public lands necessary to achieve the objectives of this part.

Sec. 4120.3-8 Range improvement fund.

(a) In addition to range developments accomplished through other
resource management funds, authorized range improvements may be secured
through the use of the appropriated range improvement fund. One-half of
the available funds shall be expended in the State and district from
which they were derived. The remaining one-half of the fund shall be
allocated, on a priority basis, by the Secretary for on-the-ground
rehabilitation, protection and improvement of public rangeland
ecosystems.
(b) Funds appropriated for range improvements are to be used for
investment in all forms of improvements that benefit rangeland
resources including riparian area rehabilitation, improvement and
protection, fish and wildlife habitat improvement or protection, soil
and water resource improvement, wild horse and burro habitat management
facilities, vegetation improvement and management, and livestock
grazing management. The funds may be used for activities associated
with on-the-ground improvements including the planning, design, layout,
contracting, modification, maintenance for which the Bureau of Land
Management is responsible, and monitoring and evaluating the
effectiveness of specific range improvement projects.
(c) During the planning of the range development or range
improvement programs, the authorized officer shall consult the affected
permittees.

Sec. 4120.3-9 Water rights for the purpose of livestock grazing on
public lands.

(a) Any right adjudicated to the United States based on state law
to use water on public land for the purpose of livestock watering on
public land shall be acquired, perfected, maintained and administered
under the substantive and procedural laws of the state within which
such land is located. To the extent allowed by the law of the state
within which the land is located, any such water right shall be
acquired, perfected, maintained, and administered in the name of the
United States, including, as necessary, through the use of a joint
ownership arrangement, principal/agent relationship, or any other legal
arrangement allowed or recognized under state law and in coordination,
consultation and cooperation with impacted permittees.
(b) The Bureau of Land Management will not change the purpose of
use, place of use, or place of diversion of a water right acquired,
perfected, maintained or administered under paragraph (a) of this
section except in accordance with state law. The Bureau of Land
Management must give a minimum of 30 days' notice to any grazing
permittees who utilize the subject water for their livestock before
making any such change.

Sec. 4120.4 Special rules.

(a) When a State Director determines that local conditions require
a special rule to achieve improved administration consistent with the
objectives of this part, the Director may approve such rules. The rules
shall be subject to public review and comment, as appropriate, and upon
approval, shall become effective when published in the Federal Register
as final rules. Special rules shall be published in a local newspaper
and electronically posted to an agency website, if available.
(b) Where the Bureau of Land Management administers the grazing use
of other Federal Agency lands, the terms of an appropriate Memorandum
of Understanding or Cooperative Agreement shall apply.

Sec. 4120.5 Cooperation.

Sec. 4120.5-1 Cooperation in management.

The authorized officer shall, to the extent appropriate, cooperate
with Federal, state, Indian tribal and local governmental entities,
institutions, organizations, corporations, associations, and
individuals to achieve the objectives of this part.

Sec. 4120.5-2 Cooperation with state, county, Tribal and Federal
agencies and governments.

Insofar as the programs and responsibilities of other agencies and
units of government involve grazing upon the public lands and other
lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, or the livestock
which graze thereon, the Bureau of Land Management will cooperate, to
the extent consistent with applicable laws of the United States, with
the involved agencies and government entities. The authorized officer
shall cooperate with state, county, and Federal agencies in the
administration of laws and regulations relating to livestock, livestock
diseases, sanitation, and noxious weeds including--
(a) State cattle and sheep sanitary or brand boards in control of
stray and unbranded livestock, to the extent such cooperation does not
conflict with the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act of 1971 (16
U.S.C. 1331 et seq.); and
(b) County or other local weed control districts in analyzing
noxious weed problems and developing control programs for areas of the
public lands and other lands administered by the Bureau of Land
Management.

Subpart 4130--Authorizing Grazing Use

Sec. 4130.1 Applications.

Sec. 4130.1-1 Filing applications.

Applications for grazing permits (active use and nonuse) and other
grazing authorizations shall be filed with the authorized officer at
the local Bureau of Land Management office having jurisdiction over the
public lands involved.

Sec. 4130.1-2 Conflicting applications.

When more than one qualified applicant applies for livestock
grazing

[[Page 26878]]

use of the same public lands and/or where additional forage for
livestock or additional acreage becomes available, the authorized
officer may authorize grazing use of such land or forage on the basis
of Sec. 4110.3-1 of this title or any of the following factors:
(a) Historical use of the public lands (see Sec. 4130.2(e));
(b) General needs of the applicant's livestock operations;
(c) The applicant's access to grazing of such public lands;
(d) Topography;
(e) Other land use requirements unique to the situation;
(f) The applicant's demonstrated ability to manage production-
oriented livestock to meet resource management objectives; and
(g) The applicant's and affiliate's history of compliance with the
terms and conditions of grazing permits of the Bureau of Land
Management and any other Federal or state agency, including any record
of suspensions or cancellations of grazing use for violations of terms
and conditions of agency grazing rules. Where unresolved violations of
terms and conditions of agency grazing rules exist, the applicant may
be requested to provide additional information.

Sec. 4130.2 Grazing permits.

(a) Term grazing permits authorize grazing by production-oriented
livestock on the public lands that are designated in land use plans as
available for livestock grazing. Permits must specify the permitted
use, including active and suspended use. These grazing permits must
also specify terms and conditions pursuant to Sec. Sec. 4130.3,
4130.3-1, and 4130.3-2.
(b) Following the receipt of a complete application, the authorized
officer will consult, cooperate and coordinate with affected
permittees, and the state having lands or responsibility for managing
resources within the area before issuing or renewing grazing permits,
except as provided for in the amendments to section 402 of the Federal
Land Policy and Management Act by the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck''
McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (PL 113-
291).
(c) Grazing permits convey no right, title, or interest held by the
United States in any lands or resources.
(d) The term of grazing permits authorizing grazing by production-
oriented livestock on the public lands and other lands under the
administration of the Bureau of Land Management shall be 10 years
unless--
(1) The land is being considered for disposal;
(2) The land will be devoted to a public purpose which precludes
grazing prior to the end of 10 years;
(3) The authorized officer determines that a shorter term is
consistent with management and resource condition objectives. If such a
determination is made, a base property lease may be approved for not
less than the term of the Federal permit. The Federal permit will not
exceed the term of a base property lease; or
(4) The authorized officer determines that authorizing a short-
term, renewable permit is appropriate under the following
circumstances:
(i) The primary objective of authorized grazing use is the
management of vegetation to meet resource objectives other than the
production of livestock forage, such as prescribed or targeted grazing
to manipulate the vegetation composition and structure (e.g., fuel
reduction), control undesirable vegetation, or re-establish desired
vegetation communities, and such use is in conformance with the
requirements of this part; or
(ii) The primary purpose of grazing use by production-oriented
livestock is for scientific research or administrative studies.
(e) Permittees holding expiring grazing permits shall be given
preference (i.e., first priority) for new permits if:
(1) The lands for which the permit is issued remain available for
production-oriented livestock grazing;
(2) The permittee is in compliance with the rules and regulations
and the terms and conditions in the permit; and
(3) The permittee accepts the terms and conditions to be included
by the authorized officer in the new permit.
(f) The authorized officer will not offer, grant or renew grazing
permits when the applicants, including permittees seeking renewal,
refuse to accept the proposed terms and conditions of a permit.
(g) Permits may incorporate the percentage of public land livestock
use as provided in Sec. 4130.3-2(f).
(h) Provisions explaining how grazing permits or authorizations may
be granted for grazing use on state, county or private land leased by
the Bureau of Land Management under ``The Pierce Act'' and located
within grazing districts are explained in 43 CFR part 4600.
(i) The Bureau of Land Management will determine the priority and
timing for completing each required environmental analysis to support
the renewal of a grazing permit based on (1) the standards for the
grazing allotment or permit; and (2) the available funding for the
environmental analysis.

Sec. 4130.3 Terms and conditions.

Livestock grazing permits shall contain terms and conditions
determined by the authorized officer to be appropriate to achieve
management and resource condition objectives for the public lands and
other lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management.

Sec. 4130.3-1 Mandatory terms and conditions.

(a) In every grazing permit, the authorized officer shall specify
the kind and number of livestock, the period(s) of use, the
allotment(s) to be used, and the permitted use, in animal unit months.
The active use shall not at any time during the specified grazing
season exceed the carrying capacity of the allotment as determined from
a carrying capacity analysis using approved methodologies.
(b) All permits shall be made subject to cancellation, suspension,
or modification for any violation of these regulations or of any term
or condition of the permit.

Sec. 4130.3-2 Other terms and conditions.

The authorized officer may specify in grazing permits other terms
and conditions which will assist in achieving management objectives,
provide for proper range management or assist in the orderly
administration of the public rangelands. These may include but are not
limited to:
(a) The class of livestock that will graze on an allotment;
(b) The breed or class of livestock in allotments within which two
or more permittees are authorized to graze;
(c) Authorization to use and directions for placement of
supplemental feed, including salt or nutritional supplements, for
improved livestock and rangeland management on the public lands;
(d) A requirement that permittees operating under a grazing permit
submit within 15 days after completing their annual grazing use, or as
otherwise specified in the permit, the actual use made;
(e) Provision for livestock grazing temporarily to be delayed,
discontinued or modified to allow for the reproduction, establishment,
or restoration of vigor of plants, provide for the improvement of
riparian areas to achieve proper functioning condition or for the
protection of other rangeland resources and values consistent with

[[Page 26879]]

objectives of applicable land use plans, or prevent compaction of wet
soils, such as where delay of spring turnout is required because of
weather conditions or lack of plant growth;
(f) The percentage of public land use determined by the proportion
of livestock forage available on public lands within the allotment
compared to the total amount available from both public lands and those
owned or controlled by the permittee;
(g) A statement disclosing the requirement that permittees shall
provide reasonable administrative access across private and leased
lands to the Bureau of Land Management for the orderly management of
grazing activities within the allotment; and
(h) Specification of the limits of flexibility within which the
permittee(s) may adjust operations without prior approval of the
authorized officer.

Sec. 4130.3-3 Modification of permits.

The authorized officer may modify terms and conditions of the
permit when the active use or related management practices are not
meeting the land use plan, allotment management plan or other activity
plan, or management objectives, or are not in conformance with the
standards established and maintained under part 1700 of this title. Any
such modification will be documented in a written decision prepared
under subpart 4160 of this part. Before issuing a decision to modify
terms and conditions, but after the receipt of a complete application,
where one is required, the authorized officer will consult, cooperate
and coordinate with the affected permittees and the state having lands
or responsibility for managing resources within the area. To the extent
practical, the authorized officer will provide the affected permittees
and the state having lands or responsibility for managing resources
within the affected area an opportunity to review, comment and give
input during the preparation of reports that evaluate monitoring and
other data that are used as a basis for making decisions to increase or
decrease grazing use, or to change the terms and conditions of a
permit.

Sec. 4130.4 Authorization of temporary changes in grazing use within
the terms

[…truncated; see source link]

View on FederalRegister.gov →Plain-text source

Indexed from Federal Register on May 12, 2026.

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.