[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 134 (Wednesday, July 14, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 37843-37847]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-17936]
[[Page 37843]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
36 CFR Part 251
RIN 0596-AB59
Land Uses; Appeal of Decisions Relating to Occupancy and Use of
National Forest System Lands; Mediation of Grazing Disputes
AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule amends regulations governing Forest Service
administrative appeal regulations pertaining to occupancy and use of
National Forest System lands to offer mediation of certain grazing
permit disputes in those States that have USDA certified mediation
programs. This action is authorized by the Federal Crop Insurance
Reform and Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994. The
intended effect is to incorporate mediation for certain grazing
disputes into established agency dispute resolution procedures.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective August 13, 1999.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Berwyn L. Brown, Range Management Staff, Forest Service, (202) 205-
1457.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 502 of the Agricultural
Credit Act of 1987 (7 U.S.C. 5101, et seq.) (hereafter, the 1987 Act),
the Department of Agriculture offers a mediation program that provides
borrowers and creditors an opportunity to resolve disputes prior to
bankruptcy or litigation. The 1987 Act authorizes the Department of
Agriculture to help States develop and participate in certified
mediation programs.
Section 282 of Title II of the Federal Crop Insurance Reform and
Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (hereafter, the
1994 amendments) amended the 1987 Act to expand the number and type of
issues available for mediation under a State's mediation program. One
of the issues subject to mediation in the 1994 amendments concerned
grazing on National Forest System lands.
Under the Secretary's rangeland regulations at 36 CFR 222.4, the
Chief of the Forest Service may cancel a permit when one or more of the
following conditions exist:
When a permittee refuses to accept modification of the terms and
conditions of an existing permit (Sec. 222.4(a)(2)(i));
When a permittee refuses or fails to comply with eligibility or
qualification requirements (Sec. 222.4(a)(2)(ii));
When a permittee fails to restock the allotted range after the full
extent of approved personal convenience non-use has been exhausted
(Sec. 222.4(a)(2)(iv)); and
When a permittee fails to pay grazing fees within established time
limits (Sec. 222.4(a)(2)(v)).
The provisions of this section also authorize the Chief to cancel
or suspend a permit when one or more of the following conditions exist:
When a permittee fails to pay grazing fees within established time
limits (Sec. 222.4(a)(3));
When a permittee does not comply with provisions and requirements
in the grazing permit or the regulations of the Secretary of
Agriculture on which the permit is based (Sec. 222.4(a)(4));
When a permittee knowingly and willfully makes a false statement or
representation in the grazing application or amendments thereto
(Sec. 222.4(a)(5)); and
When a permittee is convicted for failing to comply with Federal
laws or regulations or State laws relating to protection if air, water,
soil and vegetation, fish and wildlife, and other environmental values
when exercising the grazing use authorized by the permit
(Sec. 222.4(a)(6)).
These cancellation of suspension actions are generally referred to
as ``permit enforcement actions'' and may be appealed under part 251,
subpart C, of Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations, which
pertain generally to enforcement actions by an authorized officer
regarding written instruments authorizing occupancy and use of National
Forest System lands. Since only holders of such authorization may
appeal under 36 CFR part 251, subpart C, it is this rule that the
Forest Service has amended to incorporate a mechanism for the mediation
of certain grazing disputes, as required by the 1994 amendments.
Section 501 of the 1987 Act, as amended, specifies that, in order
to be certified, States shall provide for confidential mediation
sessions. This statutory requirement necessitates a rule of rather
narrow parameters. The types of decisions subject to mediation under
this final rule are not subject to public disclosure and, therefore,
can be mediated in confidence, since they relate to grazing permits and
involve only the Deciding Officer or designee, the holder of a term
grazing permit who seeks relief from a written decision to cancel or
suspend a permit, and, in some circumstances, the holder's creditors.
Holders of other written authorizations to occupy and use National
Forest System lands who may appeal written decisions of Forest Service
line officers (Sec. 251.86) will not be affected by this final rule.
Response to Comments
A proposed rule was published for public review and comment in the
Federal Register on February 27, 1998 (63 FR 9987). Thirteen comments
were received from six groups and individuals representing private
organizations, agricultural mediation programs, State agencies, and
private citizens.
No comments were received on Sec. 251.84, Obtaining notice;
Sec. 251.90, Content of notice of appeal; Sec. 251.91, Stays;
Sec. 251.92, Dismissal; Sec. 251.93, Resolution of issues; Sec. 251.94,
Responsive statement; Sec. 251.103(e), Records; or Sec. 251.103(g)
Exparte communication. Therefore, these sections are not discussed
further and are adopted as proposed.
A summary of major comments received on Sec. 251.103 and the agency
response follows:
Section 251.103 Mediation of Term Grazing Permit Disputes
Decisions subject to mediation. Proposed paragraph (a) of
Sec. 251.103 stated that in those States with Department of Agriculture
certified mediation programs, any holder of a term grazing permit may
request mediation as part of an administrative appeal when a Deciding
Officer issues a decision to suspend or cancel a term grazing permit,
in whole or in part, in accordance with 36 CFR
222.4(a)(2)(i),(ii)(iv),(v) and (a)(3)-(a)(6).
Comment. Several reviewers said that mediation should be available
for any appealable decision including allotment management plans and
annual operating plans. One reviewer suggested the regulation be left
as broad as possible to allow for medication of any issues that may
arise that could best be resolved through mediation.
Response. The opportunity for medication is already available, but
not mandated, under Forest Service administrative appeal regulation
Sec. 215.16(a) for resolution of NEPA-based decisions such as those
leading to the preparation of allotment management plans. Also Forest
Service administrative appeal regulations at Sec. 251.93 provide for
mediation of disputes which may arise from Forest Service decisions
about authorized use. While it is true that section 282(a) of the
[[Page 37844]]
1994 amendments expanded the issues covered under State mediation
programs to include ``Grazing on National Forest System lands,'' these
mediation sessions must be confidential. The reviewers of the proposed
rule for mediation of grazing disputes did not provide any compelling
arguments to support the notion that the statute requires a rule which
encompasses all grazing decisions on National Forest System lands. The
Department has determined that the confidentiality requirement
necessitates a rule that limits mediation to permit enforcement actions
involving the Forest Service and the holder of a term grazing permit.
In these cases, the subject of the mediation is the decision by the
authorized officer to impose a sanction upon the permittee resulting
from a violation of the permit terms and conditions.
Parties. Proposed paragraph (b) of Sec. 251.103 stated that the
parties who may participate in mediation of term grazing permit
disputes would be limited to the State certified mediator, the Deciding
Officer or designee, the permittee who has requested mediation,
creditors of the permittee, and, potentially, legal counsel
representing the permittee and the Deciding Officer.
Comment. Several respondents urged the Forest Service to expand the
category of parties eligible to participate in mediation to include
technical experts, State agency personnel, and other Forest Service
personnel. One respondent recommended that the permit holder and
Deciding Officer have the authority to expand or limit participants.
Another respondent stated the holder should be able to invite any party
to support them. One respondent stated mediation should include
representatives from the affected State fish and wildlife agency and
local non-governmental conservation groups. Two respondents wanted the
Deciding Officer, and not a designee, to participate in mediation to
ensure consistency.
Response. The input of third parties would have no bearing on the
outcome of mediation since the scope of the mediation is narrowly
focused on a permittee's violation of permit conditions, which led to
suspension or cancellation of their permit. Third parties have no cause
or reason to participate in a mediation of a term permit dispute
between a permittee and the Government. Also as stated in the preamble
of the proposed rule, broader participation in mediation would pose a
risk to maintaining the required confidentiality.
Given the nature of Forest Service business and scheduling
difficulties due to a reduce workforce, the Department has determined
that a designee of the Deciding Officer who made the decision could
represent the Forest Service in mediation of term grazing permit
disputes. Although, the Department agrees that it is desirable to have
the Deciding Officer participate in mediation, there likely will be
times when Deciding Officer participation will not be possible.
Furthermore, the decision that is the subject of the mediation,
although made by the Deciding Officer, is still a Forest Service action
and a designee should be able to adequately represent the agency in the
mediation of the dispute. Therefore, the provision in the proposed rule
at Sec. 251.103(b)(2) is retained without revision in the final rule.
The Forest Service plans to issue Service-wide direction to require the
Deciding Officer to participate in mediation when available.
Timeframe. Proposed paragraph (c) of Sec. 251.103 stated that when
an appellant simultaneously requested mediation at the time an appeal
is filed, the Reviewing Officer shall immediately notify, by certified
mail, all parties to the appeal that, in order to allow for mediation,
the appeal is suspended for 30 calendar days. Proposed paragraph (c)
also proposed that if an agreement has not been reached at the end of
30 calendar days but it appears to the Deciding Officer that a mediated
agreement may soon be reached, the Reviewing Officer may extend the
period for mediation an additional 15 calendar days.
Comment. Several respondents encouraged the Forest Service to
increase the timeframe for mediation to 60 to 90 days instead of the 30
to 45 day timeframe set forth in the proposed rule. One respondent
requested the addition of a provision to extend the timeframe for
mediation beyond 90 days to gather new information.
Response. The decision to limit mediation to 45 days was intended
to provide the opportunity for meaningful mediation, while, at the same
time, ensure that the Agency's administrative review process would be
completed in a timely manner. In the event that mediation was
unsuccessful, the 45-day timeframe would minimize the potential for
delays and damage to National Forest System lands and resources.
However, based on the comments received and experience gathered by the
agency through experimenting with mediation of cancellation and
suspension actions during the preparation of the proposed rule, the
request to provide additional time for the mediation process seems
reasonable and offers increased scheduling flexibility and more time
for pre-mediation preparation and the actual mediation. Since the
issues associated with suspension and cancellation actions are limited
and narrowly focused, the agency does not agree that a provision to
extend beyond 60 calendar days is warranted. Therefore, the Department
has revised the provision in the proposed rule at Sec. 251.103(c) to
suspend the appeal for 45 calendar days with an option to extend the
period an additional 15 calendar days, if the Deciding Officer believes
a mediated resolution to the dispute is imminent. Even after the
termination of this time period, discussions intended to resolve the
dispute without proceeding with an administrative appeal may continue
under 36 CFR 251.93.
Confidentiality. Proposed paragraph (d) specifies that mediation
sessions must be confidential and that the terms of a final mediated
agreement are subject to public disclosure.
Comment. Reviewers supported confidential mediation sessions
between the Forest Service and individual term grazing permit holders;
however, several reviewers expressed concern over what information
would be included in a ``public disclosure of the terms'' of a mediated
agreement.
Response. The Department agrees that clarification of the
information being disclosed is needed. Background material used in
mediation would not be included in a mediated agreement. Therefore, the
proposed rule at Sec. 251.103(d) has been revised to clarify that only
the final agreement signed by both the Forest Service official and the
permit holder is subject to public disclosure.
Cost. Paragraph (f) of Sec. 251.103 proposed that the United States
Government shall cover only the incurred expenses of its own employees
in mediation sessions.
Comment. Reviewers requested changing the proposed cost provision
to include dividing the cost for services provided under State
certified programs equally between the State, permittee, and the Forest
Service or dividing the cost evenly between the Forest Service and the
permittee. Primary reasons given by reviewers for the Government to pay
additional costs include: (1) While the Department of Agriculture does
administer and distribute the mediation grant funds, the funds
themselves are provided by Congress through a separate line item
appropriation. Thus, the certified mediation programs are not being
funded by ``agency'' funds; (2) Each
[[Page 37845]]
party to the mediation must be treated equally, including sharing the
cost of mediation; otherwise, there is a perception it is part of the
Forest Service system and, as such, the outcome will have a bias toward
the Service; (3) All other Department of Agriculture agencies
participating in the program are paying fees in those States that
charge them; (4) Without the Forest Service paying a share of the costs
States will be forced to request augmented Department of Agriculture
mediation grants to maintain the effectiveness of the program currently
established; and (5) Wyoming statutes specifically provide that parties
in the mediation process shall share the costs of mediation equally.
Response. After fully considering these comments the Department
does not agree that there are compelling arguments to warrant the
Government incurring additional responsibility for the cost of
mediation because:
(1) The issue of the cost of mediation is not that funds are
provided through a line item appropriation but rather that the
Department already provides a large share of the funding for State
mediation program operating expenses.
(2) The system for allocating the costs of the mediation among the
parties should have no bearing on whether the parties will be treated
equally. Mediators are specifically trained to serve as a neutral third
party with no bias toward either side of the dispute. Although State
mediation programs are certified by the Secretary of Agriculture, the
mediators are State, not Federal, officials. Furthermore, in light of
the fact that the Department of Agriculture already finances a
substantial percentage of state mediation programs, additional payments
by the Forest Service to cover a portion of the cost of the mediation
may create a perception that the system is biased towards the agency.
(3) Regardless of how other agencies of the Department of
Agriculture address this issue, it is the Forest Service position that
it does not currently have sufficient funds in its rangeland management
budget to comply with its basic land management planning and permit
responsibilities and also cover state mediation expenses.
(4) The Department would not object to the States seeking
additional funding to cover the cost of grazing permit dispute
mediation expenses through an increased grant from the Department.
(5) States vary widely in their policies for funding of State
certified mediation programs. To the extent that State laws conflict
with these regulations, these regulations would prevail.
Other Comments
Comment. Some reviewers indicated that mediation is relatively
unknown to most people and that a definition of mediation in the
regulation would be helpful to explain what it is and how it works.
Response. Mediation is not a term of art, but a common term with a
common meaning; therefore, the term ``mediation'' does not need to be
defined in the Code of Federal Regulations. However, since Sec. 251.84
requires the Deciding Officer to give written notice of the opportunity
for mediation in the notice of appeal when the action suspends or
cancels a term grazing permit pursuant to 36 CFR 222.4(a)(2)(ii), (iv)
and (a)(3) through (a)(6), the Department agrees that describing the
mediation process is a good idea. The Forest Service plans to issue
national direction instructing the Deciding Officer to include a
description of the mediation process in the written notice of adverse
action per Sec. 251.84.
Comment. Several respondents requested that mediation be made
available to all permit uses on Forest Service lands, instead of
limited to only term grazing permit disputes, according to proposed
Sec. 251.103.
Response. The opportunities for informal resolution of disputes,
including use of mediation, involving other permitted uses of National
Forest System lands, is already available under Forest Service
administrative appeal regulations. This final rule is limited to
implementing the Agricultural Credit Act of 1987, as amended, and,
therefore, requires a rule of narrow parameters. Thus, the expansion of
mediation to permit disputes, other than grazing permit suspension or
cancellation, is not appropriate under this rulemaking.
Comment. Two respondents requested that the regulation allow the
permittee and the Deciding Officer to form technical review teams to
gather resource information and to provide technical expertise for
making sound management decisions.
Response. Because the scope of the mediation is limited to certain
types of permit enforcement actions, it is unclear what benefit, if
any, would result from authorizing the formation of technical review
teams to advise the permittee and the Deciding Officer. In addition,
staffing these teams could be costly and time consuming for the
parties. Therefore, since the benefits of a technical review team would
be minimal, at best, while the costs are substantial, the final rule
does not provide for such teams to be involved in the mediation
process, either directly or indirectly.
The full text of revisions to 36 CFR part 251, subpart C, is set
out at the end of this notice.
Regulatory Impact
This final rule has been reviewed under USDA procedures and
Executive Order 12866 on Regulatory Planning and Review. It has been
determined that this is not a significant rule. This rule will not have
an annual effect of $100 million or more on the economy nor will it
adversely affect productivity, competition, jobs, the environment,
public health or safety, or State or local governments. This rule will
not interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency nor
raise new legal or policy issues. Finally, this action will not alter
the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan
programs or the rights and obligations of recipients of such programs.
Accordingly, this final rule is not subject to Office of Management and
Budget review under Executive Order 12866.
Moreover, this final rule has been considered under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), and it is hereby certified that
this action will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities as defined by that Act. The final
rule does not compel small entities to do anything. Election of
mediation of grazing disputes is strictly voluntary at the option of an
individual permittee. The requirements of the final rule are the
minimum necessary to protect the public interest, are not
administratively burdensome or costly to meet, and are well within the
capability of individuals and small entities to perform.
Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the Public
This final rule does not contain any new recordkeeping or reporting
requirements or other new information collection requirements as
defined in 5 CFR part 1320 and, therefore, imposes no paperwork burden
on the public. Accordingly, the review provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and implementing
regulations at 5 CFR part 1320 do not apply.
Environmental Impact
This final rule would establish uniform direction to allow for
mediation of certain types of grazing disputes. Section 31.1b of Forest
Service Handbook 1909.15 (57 FR 43180, September 18, 1992) excludes
from documentation in an environmental
[[Page 37846]]
assessment or impact statement ``rules, regulations, or policies to
establish Service-wide administrative procedures, program processes, or
instructions.'' The agency's assessment is that this final rule falls
within this category of actions and that no extraordinary circumstances
exist which would require preparation of an environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement.
Civil Justice Reform Act
This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988,
Civil Justice reform. By adopting this final rule (1) all State and
local laws and regulations that are in conflict with this final rule or
which would 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.
No Taking Implications
This final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles
and criteria contained in Executive Order 12630, and it has been
determined that the rule does not pose the risk of a taking of
Constitutionally protected private property.
Unfunded Mandates Reform
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 this
final rule on State, local, and tribal governments and the private
sector. This final rule does not compel the expenditure of $100 million
or more by any State, local, or tribal governments or anyone in the
private sector. Therefore, a statement under section 202 of the Act is
not required.
Therefore, after notice and consideration of comments received and
for the reasons noted in the preamble, the Secretary of Agriculture is
adopting the final rule for implementing section 282 of Title II of the
Federal Crop and Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture
Reorganization Act of 1994.
List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 251
Electric power, Mineral resources, National forests, Rights-of-way,
and Water resources.
Therefore, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, subpart C of
part 251 of title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
PART 251--LAND USES
Subpart C--Appeal of Decisions Relating to Occupancy and Use of
National Forest System Lands
1. Revise the authority citation for subpart C to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 5101-5106; 16 U.S.C. 472, 551.
2. Amend Sec. 251.84 by designating the existing text as paragraph
(a) and by adding a paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 251.84 Obtaining notice.
* * * * *
(b) In States with Department of Agriculture certified mediation
programs, a Deciding Officer shall also give written notice of the
opportunity for the affected term grazing permit holder to request
mediation of decisions to suspend or cancel term grazing permits, in
whole or in part, pursuant to 36 CFR 222.4(a)(2)(i), (ii), (iv), (v)
and (a)(3) through (a)(6). Such notice must inform the permit holder
that, if mediation is desired, the permit holder must request mediation
as part of the filing of an appeal.
3. Amend Sec. 251.90 by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 251.90 Content of notice of appeal.
* * * * *
(c) An appellant may also include one or more of the following in a
notice of appeal: a request for oral presentation (Sec. 251.97); a
request for stay of implementation of the decision pending decision on
the appeal (Sec. 251.91); or, in those States with a Department of
Agriculture certified mediation program, a request for mediation of
grazing permit cancellation or suspensions pursuant to Sec. 251.103.
4. Amend Sec. 251.91 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 251.91 Stays.
(a) A decision may be implemented during the appeal process, unless
the Reviewing Officer grants a stay or unless a term grazing permit
holder appeals a decision and simultaneously requests mediation
pursuant to Sec. 251.103. In the case of mediation requests, a stay is
granted automatically upon receipt of the notice of appeal for the
duration of the mediation period as provided in Sec. 251.103.
* * * * *
5. Amend Sec. 251.92 by adding a new paragraph (a)(8) and by
revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 251.92 Dismissal.
(a) * * *
(8) A mediated agreement is reached (Sec. 251.103).
* * * * *
(c) A Reviewing Officer's dismissal decision is subject to
discretionary review at the next administrative level as provided for
in Sec. 251.87(d), except when a dismissal decision results from
withdrawal of an appeal by an appellant, withdrawal of the initial
decision by the Deciding Officer, or a mediated resolution of the
dispute.
6. Amend Sec. 251.93 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 251.93 Resolution of issues.
* * * * *
(b) When decisions are appealed, the Deciding Officer may discuss
the appeal with the appellant(s) and intervenor(s) together or
separately to narrow issues, agree on facts, and explore opportunities
to resolve the issues by means other than review and decision on the
appeal, including mediation pursuant to Sec. 251.103. At the request of
the Deciding Officer, the Reviewing Officer may extend the time period
to allow for meaningful negotiations, except for appeals under review
at the discretionary level. In the event of mediation of a grazing
dispute under Sec. 251.103, the Reviewing Officer may extend the time
for mediation only as provided in Sec. 251.103.
* * * * *
7. Amend Sec. 251.94 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 251.94 Responsive statement.
* * * * *
(b) Timeframe. Unless the Reviewing Officer has granted an
extension or dismissed the appeal, or unless mediation has been
requested under this subpart, the Deciding Officer shall prepare a
responsive statement and send it to the Reviewing Officer and all
parties to the appeal within 30 days of receipt of the notice of
appeal. Where mediation occurs but fails to resolve the issues, the
Deciding Officer shall prepare a responsive statement and send it to
the Reviewing Officer and all parties to the appeal within 30 days of
the reinstatement of the appeal timeframes (Sec. 251.103(c)).
* * * * *
8. Add a new Sec. 251.103 to subpart C to read as follows:
Sec. 251.103 Mediation of term grazing permit disputes.
(a) Decisions subject to mediation. In those States with Department
of Agriculture certified mediation programs, any holder of a term
grazing permit may request mediation, if a Deciding Officer issues a
decision to
[[Page 37847]]
suspend or cancel a term grazing permit, in whole or in part, as
authorized by 36 CFR 222.4 (a)(2)(i), (ii), (iv), (v), and (a)(3)
through (a)(6).
(b) Parties. Notwithstanding the provisions addressing parties to
an appeal at Sec. 251.86, only the following may participate in
mediation of term grazing permit disputes under this section:
(1) A mediator authorized to mediate under a Department of
Agriculture State certified mediation program:
(2) The Deciding Officer who made the decision being mediated, or
designee;
(3) The holder whose term grazing permit is the subject of the
Deciding Officer's decision and who has requested mediation in the
notice of appeal;
(4) The holder's creditors, if applicable; and
(5) Legal counsel, if applicable. The Forest Service will have
legal counsel participate only if the permittee choose to have legal
counsel.
(c) Timeframe. When an appellant simultaneously requests mediation
at the time an appeal is filed (Sec. 251.84), the Reviewing Officer
shall immediately notify, by certified mail, all parties to the appeal
that, in order to allow for mediation, the appeal is suspended for 45
calendar days from the date of the Reviewing Officer's notice. If
agreement has not been reached at the end of 45 calendar days, but it
appears to the Deciding Officer that a mediated agreement may soon be
reached, the Reviewing Officer may notify, by certified mail, all
parties to the appeal that the period for mediation is extended for a
period of up to 15 calendar days from the end of the 45-day appeal
suspension period. If a mediated agreement cannot be reached under the
specified timeframes, the Reviewing Officer shall immediately notify,
by certified mail, all parties to the appeal that mediation was
unsuccessful, that the stay granted during mediation is lifted, and
that the timeframes and procedures applicable to an appeal
(Sec. 251.89) are reinstated as of the date of such notice.
(d) Confidentiality. Mediation sessions shall be confidential;
moreover, dispute resolution communications, as defined in 5 U.S.C.
571(5), shall be confidential. However, the final agreement signed by
the Forest Service official and the permit holder is subject to public
disclosure.
(e) Records. Notes taken or factual material received during
mediation sessions are not to be entered as part of the appeal record.
(f) Cost. The United States Government shall cover only incurred
expenses of its own employees in mediation sessions.
(g) Exparte communication. Except to request a time extension or
communicate the results of mediation pursuant to paragraph (d) of this
section, the Deciding Officer, or designee, shall not discuss mediation
and/or appeal matters with the Reviewing Officer.
Dated: June 27, 1999.
Anne Kennedy,
Deputy Under Secretary, Natural Resources and Environment.
[FR Doc. 99-17936 Filed 7-13-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
