Administrative Site Leases

Issuing agencies

Abstract

The United States Department of Agriculture (Department), Forest Service (Forest Service or Agency), this final rule will exempt administrative site leases from the regulations for special uses. The purpose of this deregulatory action is to better align Forest Service leasing activities with how leases are commonly legally defined to improve the feasibility of partnering with private developers and local municipalities for leasing and redeveloping administrative sites.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 210 (Monday, November 2, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 210 (Monday, November 2, 2026)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 68887-68890]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-22296]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

36 CFR Part 251

RIN 0596-AD68


Administrative Site Leases

AGENCY: Forest Service, Agriculture (USDA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The United States Department of Agriculture (Department), 
Forest Service (Forest Service or Agency), this final rule will exempt 
administrative site leases from the regulations for special uses. The 
purpose of this deregulatory action is to better align Forest Service 
leasing activities with how leases are commonly legally defined to 
improve the feasibility of partnering with private developers and local 
municipalities for leasing and redeveloping administrative sites.

DATES: The final rule is effective December 2, 2026.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew Fountain, Sales and Leasing 
Program Manager, 202-205-1464 or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1875796c6c707d6f367e776d766c79717629586d6b7c79367f776e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="bfd2decbcbd7dac891d9d0cad1cbded6d18effcaccdbde91d8d0c9">[email&#160;protected]</span></a>. 
Individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability 
may call 711 to reach the Telecommunications Relay Service, then 
provide the phone number of the person named as a point of contact for 
further information.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background and Need

    Administrative sites are land or property controlled by the Forest 
Service used or acquired for administrative purposes. The 2018 Farm 
Bill provides that the Secretary of Agriculture may lease an 
administrative site that is under the Secretary's jurisdiction under 
Public Law 115-334 Sec. 8623. The Forest Service Facility Realignment 
and Enhancement Act of 2005 (FSFREA), Public Law 109-54, also provides 
that the Forest Service may dispose of administrative sites by sale, 
lease, exchange, and other methods. The Administrative Site Leasing 
Program, which includes leasing administrative sites under both the 
Farm Bill and FSFREA authorities, was initially considered a special 
use authorization. This prevents the Agency from issuing leases that 
function as they are commonly legally defined, and the terms of the 
existing special use framework can discourage partnerships and 
investment. For example, special use authorization regulatory 
requirements, constrain the use of the leasehold interest as collateral 
for loans, limits assignment and transfer of the lease, and provides 
for unilateral termination of the authorization by the Forest Service. 
These requirements limit financing options and negatively impact the 
marketability of leasing projects.
    Exempting administrative site leasing from special use regulation 
requirements will remove regulatory constraints incompatible with 
standard real estate leasing practices and reflect the unique statutory 
basis and long-term real property nature of these leases. Without this 
regulatory change, agency partners will continue to face challenges in 
obtaining the financing needed to pursue affordable housing and other 
projects under these authorities.
    This final rule is intended to provide a consistent regulatory 
treatment of administrative site leases under both FSFREA and the 2018 
Farm Bill by removing those leases from the special-use framework. 
Existing special use authorizations for administrative site leasing may 
remain in effect under their original terms or, at the authorized 
officer's discretion, be replaced, upon mutual agreement with the 
lessee, by a lease issued under the applicable statutory authority 
after satisfaction of all applicable requirements.
    This final rule removes administrative site leasing authorized 
under section 8623 of the 2018 Farm Bill and FSFREA from the scope of 
36 CFR part 251, subpart B. This change is expected to increase 
flexibility in how leasing projects are administered by separating 
incompatible processes that are unnecessary, irrelevant, or do not add 
value, while retaining processes necessary for legal sufficiency and 
public accountability. Additional programmatic guidance on 
administrative site leases can be found in Forest Service Manual 2750.

Summary of Comments and Responses

    On May 6, 2026, the Forest Service published a proposed rule in the 
Federal Register (91 FR 24494) to exempt administrative site leases 
from the special use requirements in 36 CFR 251 to ensure compatible 
business practices are possible under the Administrative Site Leasing 
program. The agency received 25 comments; 8 were supportive of the 
proposed change and 17 were not. Comments were received from local 
governments, housing and public finance organizations, the general 
public and one Tribe. Several commenters supported the rule, 
emphasizing the need for affordable workforce housing in high-cost 
communities and explaining that current special-use requirements make 
financing difficult or impracticable for many projects. Those who 
opposed the proposed change, including the Osage Nation's Historic 
Preservation Office, generally expressed concern that the rule could 
facilitate privatization or disposal of National Forest System lands. 
The Department does not agree that the rule has that effect. The rule 
does not authorize land sales, change existing land-disposal authority, 
or exempt administrative-site leasing projects from National Historic 
Preservation Act (NHPA), Archaeological Resources Protection Act 
(ARPA), National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), public notice, local-
government consultation, or other applicable statutory requirements.
    After reviewing all comments, the Department is adopting the 
proposed rule without change. The Department does not believe the 
concerns raised by commenters warrant changes to the rule text because 
the rule addresses only the regulatory treatment of administrative-site 
leases and does not alter statutory requirements or other legal 
requirements independent of subpart B that apply to future 
administrative-site leasing decisions.
    A summary of substantive comments and responses is provided below.
    Comment: Some commenters, especially those in housing finance, 
public finance, and local governments, support the rule because it 
could help address the need for affordable workforce housing, 
especially in high-cost communities. The current special

[[Page 68888]]

use regulatory requirements often make financing difficult or 
impracticable. One commenter said their firm had reviewed multiple 
housing projects over five years, but lenders refused financing each 
time because the lease could not serve as loan collateral, the lease 
could not be assigned in case of default, and the Forest Service could 
end the lease unilaterally under the current regulatory framework.
    Response: These are the type of financing and transferability 
concerns the Department intends to address through this de-regulatory 
action. The Department recognizes that the current regulatory framework 
limits the Forest Service's flexibility to structure administrative-
site leases in a manner consistent with the underlying leasing 
authorities and to address community needs, including affordable 
housing.
    Comment: Some commenters who did not support the rule, including 
the Osage Nation's Historic Preservation Office, expressed concern that 
the rule could facilitate privatization or disposal of National Forest 
System lands, including sales to private developers. Some of these 
commenters also said that allowing leased ``public'' lands and 
buildings to be used as collateral for loans would expose them to 
repossession and transfer without Federal oversight. Some commenters 
said that exempting administrative site leases from subpart B would 
enable Federal property to be conveyed to private entities, undermining 
public ownership protections.
    Response: The rule does not authorize land sales or change any 
existing land-disposal authority. It addresses the regulatory treatment 
of administrative site leases by exempting them from subpart B and is 
intended to improve the Forest Service's ability to partner to 
redevelop administrative sites. Use of a leasehold interest as 
collateral would not convey or encumber title to the underlying 
National Forest System land. Any collateral, assignment, transfer, 
default, or lender step-in provisions would be governed by and subject 
to the lease terms and the applicable statutory authority, including 
any terms, conditions, bonding, reservations, or approvals necessary to 
protect the public interest and Federal ownership.
    Comment: A subset of commenters objected to this rule because they 
believe exempting administrative site leases from the special use 
framework in 36 CFR part 251 would result in reduced project 
monitoring, environmental compliance, and public involvement. The 
letter from the Osage Nation also cited concerns about compliance with 
the NHPA, the ARPA, and the Native American Graves Protection and 
Repatriation Act (NAGPRA).
    Response: The rule does not exempt administrative site leasing 
projects from NHPA, ARPA, NAGPRA or other applicable statutory 
requirements. Section 8623 of the 2018 Farm Bill provides that National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) applies to leases issued under that 
authority and includes requirements for consultation with local 
government officials and public notice before an administrative site is 
made available for lease. Exempting administrative site leases from 
subpart B means that procedures and terms required solely by subpart B, 
including its proposal-processing and lease-administration provisions, 
will no longer apply to these leases. The Department has determined 
that those requirements need not apply categorically to administrative 
site leases. Administrative site leases will remain subject to the 
applicable statutory authority, other applicable law. As necessary, the 
Forest Service will provide implementing guidance for the proposal 
processing and other administrative procedures and will incorporate 
appropriate monitoring, bonding, default, resource-protection, and 
other requirements into the terms of individual leases.
    Comment: In their letter, the Osage Nation also cited concerns 
specific to Tribes and the Federal government's trust responsibility to 
consult with Tribes. The comment stated that the proposed change would 
make leased administrative sites no longer subject to the Tribal 
consultation mandated by the NHPA or the multitude of laws that protect 
cultural heritage at the national level, and that a special use permit 
ensures Tribal consultation takes place so that lands and properties 
under Federal ownership that contain significant cultural resources and 
historical importance do not lose those protections.
    Response: The Department is committed to respecting Tribal 
sovereignty and upholding Federal Trust responsibilities with Tribes. 
As stated previously, exempting administrative site leases from subpart 
B will not change ownership of Federal lands or facilities. It also 
will not change the need to ensure compliance with all applicable laws, 
including NHPA and NAGPRA. Where an administrative-site lease is an 
undertaking that affects historic properties, the Forest Service will 
comply with NHPA Section 106 and its implementing regulations, 
including applicable consultation with Tribes that attach religious and 
cultural significance to affected historic properties. Where NAGPRA 
applies to planned activities, discoveries, or excavations on Federal 
or Tribal lands, the applicable NAGPRA requirements will continue to 
apply.

Regulatory Certifications

Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 provides that the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management 
and Budget will determine whether a regulatory action is significant as 
defined by E.O. 12866 and will review significant regulatory actions. 
OIRA has determined that this final rule is not significant as defined 
by E.O. 12866. E.O. 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while 
calling for improvements in the Nation's regulatory system to promote 
predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most 
innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. 
The Department has developed the final rule consistent with E.O. 13563.

Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act of 1996 (known as the Congressional Review Act) (5 U.S.C. 
801 et seq.), OIRA has designated this final rule as not a major rule 
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

National Environmental Policy Act

    The final rule is purely administrative in nature, exempting 
administrative site leasing from 36 CFR part 251, subpart B. 
Departmental regulations at 7 CFR 1b.4(c)(20) exclude from 
documentation in an environmental assessment or environmental impact 
statement ``rules, regulations, or policies to establish service wide 
administrative procedures, program processes, or instructions.'' The 
Department's assessment is that this final rule falls within this 
category of actions and that no extraordinary circumstances exist that 
would require preparation of an environmental assessment or 
environmental impact statement.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Department has considered this final rule under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 602 et. seq.). This final rule would not have 
any direct effect on small entities as defined by the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act. This final rule would not impose any additional 
recordkeeping requirements on small entities, would not affect their 
competitive position in relation to large entities, and would not 
affect their cash

[[Page 68889]]

flow, liquidity, or ability to remain in the market. Therefore, the 
Department has determined that this final rule would not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Federalism

    The Department has considered this final rule under the 
requirements of E.O. 13132, Federalism. The Department has determined 
that the final rule conforms to the federalism principles set out in 
this E.O., would not impose any compliance costs on the States; and 
would not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the 
relationship between the Federal government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government. Therefore, the Department has concluded that this final 
rule would not have federalism implications.

Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal 
Governments, requires Federal agencies to consult and coordinate with 
Tribes on a government-to-government basis on policies that have Tribal 
implications, including regulations, legislative comments or proposed 
legislation, and other policy statements or actions that have 
substantial direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes, on the 
relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on 
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
Government and Indian Tribes. This final rule is purely administrative 
in nature. The Department has reviewed this final rule in accordance 
with the requirements of E.O. 13175 and has determined that this final 
rule would not have substantial direct effects on Indian Tribes, on the 
relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on 
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
Government and Indian Tribes. Therefore, consultation and coordination 
with Indian Tribal governments is not required for this final rule.

Family Policymaking Assessment

    Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277), requires Federal agencies to issue a 
Family Policymaking Assessment for a rule that may affect family well-
being. The final rule would have no impact on the autonomy or integrity 
of the family as an institution. Accordingly, the Department has 
concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking 
Assessment for the final rule.

Takings Implications

    The Department has analyzed the final rule in accordance with the 
principles and criteria in E.O. 12630, Governmental Actions and 
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. The 
Department has determined that the final rule would not pose the risk 
of a taking of private property.

Energy Effects

    The Department has reviewed the final rule under E.O. 13211, 
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use. The Department has determined that the final rule 
would not constitute a significant energy action as defined in E.O. 
13211.

Civil Justice Reform

    The Department has analyzed the final rule in accordance with the 
principles and criteria in E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform. Upon 
publication of the final rule, (1) all State and local laws and 
regulations that conflict with the final rule or that impede its full 
implementation would be preempted; (2) no retroactive effect would be 
given to this final rule; and (3) it would not require administrative 
proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging its 
provisions.

Unfunded Mandates

    Pursuant to Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 
U.S.C. 1531-1538), the Department has assessed the effects of the final 
rule on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. 
The final rule would not compel the expenditure of $100 million or 
more, adjusted annually for inflation, in any one year by State, local, 
and Tribal governments in the aggregate or by the private sector. 
Therefore, a statement under section 202 of the Act is not required.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The final rule does not contain any recordkeeping or reporting 
requirements or other information collection requirements as defined in 
5 CFR part 1320 that are not already required by law or not already 
approved for use. However, if implementation of this rule results in 
substantive or material changes to current Forest Service forms or 
collections previously approved under the special uses Information 
Collection Request (ICR), a revised ICR will be submitted to OMB for 
review and approval before the revised information collection is 
implemented.

List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 251

    Land uses.

    Therefore, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Forest 
Service amends chapter II of title 36 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations as follows:

PART 251--LAND USES

Subpart B--Special Uses

0
1. The authority citation for part 251, subpart B, continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 460l-6a, 460l-6d, 472, 497b, 497c, 551, 
580d, 1134, 3210; 30 U.S.C. 185; 43 U.S.C. 1740, 1761-1772.

0
2. Amend Sec.  251.50 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:


Sec.  251.50  Scope.

    (a) All uses of National Forest System lands, improvements, and 
resources, except those authorized by the regulations governing sharing 
use of roads (Sec.  212.9 of this chapter); grazing and livestock use 
(part 222 of this chapter); the sale and disposal of timber and special 
forest products, such as greens, mushrooms, and medicinal plants (part 
223 of this chapter); minerals (part 228 of this chapter); and 
administrative site leases (Pub. L. 115-334, sec. 8623, and Pub. L. 
109-54) are designated ``special uses.'' Before conducting a special 
use, individuals or entities must submit a proposal to the authorized 
officer and must obtain a special use authorization from the authorized 
officer, unless that requirement is waived by paragraphs (c) through 
(e)(3) of this section.
* * * * *

0
3. Amend Sec.  251.51 by revising the definitions of ``Lease'' and 
``Special use authorization'' to read as follows:


Sec.  251.51  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Lease--A type of special use authorization (usually granted for 
uses other than linear rights-of-way) that is used when substantial 
capital investment is required and when conveyance of a conditional and 
transferable interest in National Forest System lands is necessary or 
desirable to serve or facilitate authorized long-term uses, and that 
may be revocable and compensable according to its terms. This 
definition does not apply to administrative site leases covered under 
Public Law 115-334, sec. 8623, and Public Law 109-54.
* * * * *
    Special use authorization--A written permit, term permit, lease, or 
easement

[[Page 68890]]

that authorizes use or occupancy of National Forest System lands and 
specifies the terms and conditions under which the use or occupancy may 
occur. This definition does not apply to administrative site leases 
covered under Public Law 115-334, sec. 8623, and Public Law 109-54.
* * * * *

Michael K. Boren,
Under Secretary, Natural Resources and Environment.
[FR Doc. 2026-22296 Filed 10-30-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3411-15-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>