[Federal Register: December 16, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 241)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 77011-77015]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr16de02-22]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of Hearings and Appeals
43 CFR Part 4
Bureau of Land Management
43 CFR Parts 4100 and 5000
RIN 1090-AA83
Special Rules Applicable to Public Land Hearings and Appeals;
Grazing Administration--Exclusive of Alaska, Administrative Remedies;
Grazing Administration--Effect of Wildfire Management Decisions;
Administration of Forest Management Decisions
AGENCY: Office of Hearings and Appeals; Bureau of Land Management,
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) is proposing to amend
its existing regulations governing hearings and appeals to simplify
proof of service, to codify who has a right of appeal, and to expedite
its review of wildfire management decisions. The Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) is adding regulations to make its wildfire management
decisions effective immediately and to expedite review of those
decisions. The amendments and additions to both OHA and BLM regulations
are needed to clarify and expedite administrative review procedures.
DATES: You should submit your comments by February 14, 2003. The
Department of the Interior will not necessarily consider comments
postmarked or received by messenger after the above date.
ADDRESSES: Mail: Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals, Department
of the Interior, 801 N. Quincy Street, Suite 300, Arlington, VA 22203,
Attn: RIN 1090-AA83. Personal or messenger delivery: 801 N. Quincy
Street, Suite 300, Arlington, VA 22203. Direct internet response:
http://www.blm.gov/nhp/news/regulatory/index.html. Internet e-mail:
WOComment@blm.gov (Include ``Attn: AA83'').
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Will A. Irwin, Administrative Judge,
Interior Board of Land Appeals, U.S. Department of the Interior, 801 N.
Quincy Street, Suite 300, Arlington, VA 22203, Phone: 703-235-3750, or
Michael H. Schwartz, Group Manager, Regulatory Affairs, Bureau of Land
Management, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street, NW, Room
401 LS, Washington, DC 20240, Phone: 202-452-5198. Persons who use a
telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may contact either
individual by calling the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at
(800) 877-8339, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Public Comment Procedures
II. Background
III. Review Under Procedural Statutes and Executive Orders
I. Public Comment Procedures
A. How Do I Comment on the Proposed Rule?
If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments by any one of
several methods.
[sbull] You may mail comments to Director, Office of Hearings and
Appeals, Department of the Interior, 801 N. Quincy Street, Suite 300,
Arlington, VA 22203, Attn: RIN 1090-AA83.
[sbull] You may deliver comments to 801 N. Quincy Street, Suite
300, Arlington, VA 22203.
[sbull] You may comment via the Internet by accessing our automated
commenting system located at www.blm.gov/nhp/news/regulatory/index.html
and following the instructions there.
[sbull] You may also comment via e-mail to WOComment@blm.gov. We
intend this address for use by those who want to keep their electronic
comments confidential and for those who are unable, for whatever
reason, to use the Internet site. Please submit e-mail comments as an
ASCII file avoiding the use of special characters and any form of
encryption. Please also include ``Attn: AA83'' and your name and return
address in your e-mail message.
If you do not receive a confirmation that we have received your
electronic message, contact us directly at (202) 452-5030.
Please make your comments on the proposed rule as specific as
possible, confine them to issues pertinent to the proposed rule, and
explain the reason for any changes you recommend. Where possible, your
comments should reference the specific section or paragraph of the
proposal that you are addressing.
The Department of the Interior may not necessarily consider or
include in the Administrative Record for the final rule comments that
we receive after the
[[Page 77012]]
close of the comment period (see DATES) or comments delivered to an
address other than those listed above (see ADDRESSES).
B. May I Review Comments Submitted by Others?
Comments, including names and street addresses of respondents, will
be available for public review at the address listed under ``
ADDRESSES: Personal or messenger delivery'' during regular business
hours (7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m.), Monday through Friday, except holidays.
Individual respondents may request confidentiality, either in a
letter or e-mail, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law.
If you wish to withhold your name or address, except for the city or
town, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment
letter or e-mail. We will make all submissions from organizations or
businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as
representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available
for public inspection in their entirety.
II. Background
The changes included in this proposal are important because BLM
must provide a way to implement fire management decisions on both
rangelands and forest lands with a minimum of delay. On August 22,
2002, President Bush released the Administration's Healthy Forests
Initiative. The Initiative responds to the current threat of
catastrophic wildfires posed by unnaturally dense and unhealthy forests
and rangelands. One component of the Initiative directs Agriculture
Secretary Ann Veneman, Interior Secretary Gale Norton, and Council on
Environmental Quality Chairman James Connaughton to improve regulatory
processes to ensure more timely decisions, greater efficiency, and
better results in reducing the risk of catastrophic wildfires by
restoring forest and rangeland health. The regulations proposed today
are part of the Initiative.
The experience of recent fire seasons strongly suggests that the
faster BLM is able to take action to reduce future threats of wildland
fires, the more likely BLM can safeguard public and firefighter health
and safety, protect property, and improve environmental baseline
conditions in the wildland-urban interface and other priority areas.
This recent experience shows that wildfire management decisions are by
their nature urgent, both to speed recovery from past fires and thereby
prevent erosion, water pollution, and other harmful legacies that they
have caused, and to prevent or reduce catastrophic wildfires in
upcoming dry seasons. Therefore, this rule proposes to make these
decisions effective immediately.
A. Standing to Appeal
OHA proposes to codify its decisions on who has a right to appeal a
decision. The regulation at 43 CFR 4.410 provides that ``[a]ny party to
a case who is adversely affected by a decision of the Bureau of Land
Management or of an administrative law judge shall have a right of
appeal to the Board.'' Both ``party to a case'' and ``adversely
affected'' have been discussed in several Board decisions, e.g., San
Juan Coal Co., 155 IBLA 389, 393 (2001); Legal and Safety Employer
Research, Inc., 154 IBLA 167, 171-72 (2001); and Powder River Basin
Resource Council, 124 IBLA 83, 89 (1992). Those decisions define a
``party to a case'' as one who has taken the action that is the subject
of the BLM decision on appeal, is the object of that decision, or has
participated in the process leading to the decision, e.g., by filing
comments on an environmental analysis or filing a protest of the
proposed decision. They define ``adversely affected'' as requiring a
legally cognizable interest that would be harmed by the BLM decision.
OHA proposes to add provisions to section 4.410 to reflect these
decisions. A ``legally cognizable interest'' is a commonly used term in
IBLA decisions. Whether one has such an interest depends on the facts
of the particular case. In general, a property or economic interest in
the land involved in BLM's decision would suffice, as would use of the
land for earning a livelihood or for recreation. On the other hand,
one's general concern about the subject matter of the decision or the
interest of a person who uses the land in trespass, without claim or
color of right, would not afford a right of appeal. The rule also
proposes to provide, consistent with IBLA precedent, that a party may
only raise issues on appeal that it raised with the agency whose
decision it is appealing. See, for example, Henry A. Alker, 62 IBLA
211, 212 (1982); Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 128 IBLA 52, 59
(1993).
B. Effectiveness of BLM Wildfire Management Decisions
BLM is proposing to add section 4190.1 and amend section 5003.1.
The former addition provides that fire management decisions affecting
rangelands will become effective immediately. Current regulations are
silent. The latter change provides that fire management decisions
affecting forest management will become effective immediately. In both
sections, we have included language stating that IBLA will promptly
issue a decision on the merits of any appeal, since the BLM decision
will not be subject to the automatic stay of 43 CFR 4.21(a).
(Alternatively, because BLM wildfire management decisions would be in
full force and effect, they would be final agency actions subject to
immediate judicial review. 5 U.S.C. 704 (2000); Darby v. Cisneros, 113
S.Ct. 2539, 2547-48 (1993).) These changes would apply only to fire
management decisions, not to other decisions relating to grazing or
timber sales.
The proposed rule identifies the following as items that wildfire
decisions are likely to include:
(1) fuel reduction or fuel treatment such as prescribed burns and
mechanical, chemical, and biological thinning methods; and
(2) projects to stabilize and rehabilitate lands affected by
wildfire.
We specifically request comment as to whether the list is
appropriate, requires modification, or should be expanded.
These proposed regulations refer to a requirement that IBLA will
issue a decision on the merits of an appeal of a wildfire management
decision within the time limits specified in 43 CFR 4.416. That new
regulation would require a decision within 60 days after all pleadings
have been filed by the parties.
C. Proof of Service
In the Department's experience, the existing regulations requiring
proof of service of documents filed with ALJs and IBLA are unnecessary.
For appeals to IBLA, 43 CFR 4.413(a) requires that service of a notice
of appeal and of written arguments must be made on adverse parties and
the appropriate office of the Office of the Solicitor ``in the manner
prescribed in Sec. 4.401(c),'' that is, by delivering the copy
personally or by sending the document by registered or certified mail,
return receipt requested. 43 CFR 4.401(c)(1). Similar provisions apply
to proceedings before ALJs, e.g., 43 CFR 4.422(c)(1).
The regulations at 43 CFR 4.401(c)(2) and 4.422(c)(2) require that
service be proved by a written statement of the person who made service
(for personal delivery) or by a Postal Service return receipt (for
service by mail). These regulations were adopted in 1971. In the
meantime, many courts have adopted rules that provide that a
``certificate of service'' or ``affidavit of service'' may be
substituted for proof of service of documents that must be served. For
[[Page 77013]]
example, Rule 5.3 of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia provides: ``Proof of service * * * shall show the date and
manner of service, and may be by certificate of an attorney of record
or other proof satisfactory to the Court.'' There is no need to be more
formal or burdensome in administrative proceedings. We therefore
propose to amend sections 4.401(c)(2), 4.422(c)(2), and 4.450-5 to
provide that a certificate of service is adequate proof of service.
III. Review Under Procedural Statutes and Executive Orders
A. Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Order 12866). Under
the criteria in Executive Order 12866, this document is not a
significant rule. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed
this rule under Executive Order 12866.
1. This rule will not have an annual economic effect of $100
million or more or adversely affect in a material way an economic
sector, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health
or safety, or other units of government or communities. A cost-benefit
and economic analysis is not required. These amended regulations will
have virtually no effect on the economy because they merely simplify
proof of service, codify who has a right of appeal, make BLM wildfire
management decisions effective immediately, and expedite review of
those decisions.
2. This rule will not create inconsistencies with or interfere with
other agencies' actions. This rule amends existing regulations of the
Office of Hearings and Appeals and the Bureau of Land Management so
that they will continue to be consistent with each other.
3. This rule will not alter the budgetary effects of entitlements,
grants, user fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of
their recipients. These proposed regulations have to do only with the
procedures for hearings and appeals of BLM land management decisions,
not with entitlements, grants, user fees, loan programs, or the rights
and obligations of their recipients. These proposed regulations merely
simplify proof of service, codify who has a right of appeal, make BLM
wildfire management decisions effective immediately, and expedite
review of those decisions.
4. This rule does not raise novel legal or policy issues. These
proposed regulations merely simplify proof of service, codify who has a
right of appeal, make BLM wildfire management decisions effective
immediately, and expedite review of those decisions.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Department of the Interior
certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic effect on
a substantial number of small entities as defined under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Simplifying proof of service,
codifying who has a right of appeal, making BLM wildfire management
decisions effective immediately, and expediting review of those
decisions will have no appreciable effect on small entities. A Small
Entity Compliance Guide is not required.
C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule is
not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act.
1. This rule would not have an annual effect on the economy of $100
million or more. Simplifying proof of service, codifying who has a
right of appeal, making BLM wildfire management decisions effective
immediately, and expediting review of those decisions should have no
effect on the economy.
2. This rule will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for
consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, local government
agencies, or geographic regions. Simplifying proof of service,
codifying who has a right of appeal, making BLM wildfire management
decisions effective immediately, and expediting review of those
decisions will not affect costs or prices for citizens, individual
industries, government agencies, or geographic regions.
3. This rule would not have significant adverse effects on
competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the
ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based
enterprises. Simplifying proof of service, codifying who has a right of
appeal, making BLM wildfire management decisions effective immediately,
and expediting review of those decisions will have no effects, adverse
or beneficial, on competition, employment, investment, productivity,
innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with
foreign-based enterprises.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. In accordance with the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.):
1. This rule would not have a significant or unique effect on
State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. Small
government entities rarely appeal BLM wildfire management decisions.
Simplifying proof of service, codifying who has a right of appeal,
making BLM wildfire management decisions effective immediately, and
expediting review of those decisions will neither uniquely nor
significantly affect these governments. A statement containing the
information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1531
et seq. is not required.
2. This rule would not produce an unfunded Federal mandate of $100
million or more on State, local, or tribal governments or the private
sector in any year, i.e., it is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
E. Takings (Executive Order 12630). In accordance with Executive
Order 12630, the rule would not have significant takings implications.
A takings implication assessment is not required. These amendments to
existing regulations that will simplify proof of service, codify who
has a right of appeal, make BLM wildfire management decisions effective
immediately, and expedite review of those decisions will have no effect
on property rights.
F. Federalism (Executive Order 13132). In accordance with Executive
Order 13132, these proposed regulations do not have sufficient
federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism
Assessment. There is no foreseeable effect on states from simplifying
proof of service, codifying who has a right of appeal, making BLM
wildfire management decisions effective immediately, and expediting
review of those decisions. A Federalism Assessment is not required.
G. Civil Justice Reform (Executive Order 12988). In accordance with
Executive Order 12988, the Office of the Solicitor has determined that
this rule would not unduly burden the judicial system and meets the
requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. This rule,
because it merely simplifies proof of service, codifies who has a right
of appeal, makes BLM wildfire management decisions effective
immediately, and expedites review of those decisions will not burden
either administrative or judicial tribunals.
H. Paperwork Reduction Act. These regulations do not require an
information collection from 10 or more parties, and a submission under
the Paperwork Reduction Act is not required. An OMB form 83-I has not
been prepared and has not been approved by the Office of Policy
Analysis. These proposed regulations simplify proof of service, codify
who has a right of appeal, make BLM wildfire management decisions
effective immediately, and expedite review of those decisions. They do
not require the public to provide information.
[[Page 77014]]
I. National Environmental Policy Act. The Department has analyzed
this rule in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ) regulations, 40 CFR Part 1500, and the Department Manual (DM).
CEQ regulations, at 40 CFR 1508.4, define a ``categorical exclusion''
as a category of actions that the Department has determined ordinarily
do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the
human environment. The regulations further direct each department to
adopt NEPA procedures, including categorical exclusions. 40 CFR 1507.3.
The Department has determined that the proposed rule is categorically
excluded from further environmental analysis under NEPA in accordance
with 516 DM 2, Appendix 1, which categorically excludes: ``[p]olicies,
directives, regulations and guidelines of an administrative, financial,
legal, technical or procedural nature.'' In addition, the Department
has determined that none of the exceptions to categorical exclusions,
listed in 516 DM 2, Appendix 2, applies to the proposed rule. The
proposed rule is an administrative and procedural rule, relating to the
timing of the effectiveness of BLM wildfire management decisions and
the Department's administrative appeals process. The rule would not
change the requirement that projects must comply with NEPA. Therefore,
an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under
NEPA is not required.
J. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian
Tribal Governments. As required by Executive Order 13175 and 512 DM 2,
the Department of the Interior has evaluated potential effects of the
proposed rule on Federally recognized Indian tribes and has determined
that there are no potential effects. The proposed rule would not affect
Indian trust resources; it simplifies proof of service, codifies who
has a right of appeal, makes BLM wildfire management decisions
effective immediately, and expedites review of those decisions.
K. Effects on the Nation's Energy Supply (Executive Order 13211).
In accordance with Executive Order 13211, this proposed rule would not
have a significant effect on the nation's energy supply, distribution,
or use. Simplifying proof of service, codifying who has a right of
appeal, making BLM wildfire management decisions effective immediately,
and expediting review of those decisions will not affect energy supply
or consumption.
L. Clarity of this Regulation. Executive Order 12866 requires each
agency to write regulations that are easy to understand, including
answers to the following: (1) Are the requirements in the rule clearly
stated? (2) Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that
interferes with its clarity? (3) Does the format of the rule (grouping
and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or
reduce its clarity? (4) Would the rule be easier to understand if it
were divided into more (but shorter) sections? (A ``section'' appears
in bold type and is preceded by the symbol ``Sec. '' and a renumbered
heading; for example, Sec. 4.21 General provisions.) (5) Is the
description of the rule in the Supplementary Information section of the
preamble helpful in understanding the proposed rule? (6) What else
could we do to make the rule easier to understand? Please send a copy
of any comments that concern how we could make this rule easier to
understand to: Office of Regulatory Affairs, Department of the
Interior, Room 7229, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240. You may
also e-mail the comments to this address: Exsec@ios.doi.gov.
M. Author. The principal author of this proposed rule is Will A.
Irwin, Administrative Judge, Interior Board of Land Appeals, assisted
by Michael Hickey and Amy Sosin, Office of the Solicitor, and Michael
H. Schwartz, Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior.
List of Subjects
43 CFR Part 4
Administrative practice and procedure, Grazing lands, Public lands.
43 CFR Part 4100
Administrative practice and procedure, Grazing lands, Livestock,
Penalties, Range management, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
43 CFR Part 5000
Administrative practice and procedure, Forests and forest products,
Public lands.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, part 4, subpart E, and
subpart 5003 of Title 43 of the Code of Federal Regulations are
proposed to be amended, and subpart 4190 of Title 43 of the Code of
Federal Regulations is proposed to be added, as set forth below:
Dated: December 10, 2002.
Robert S. More,
Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals.
Dated: December 10, 2002.
Rebecca W. Watson,
Assistant Secretary of the Interior.
43 CFR Subtitle A--Office of the Secretary of the Interior
PART 4--[AMENDED]
Subpart E--Special Rules Applicable to Public Land Hearings and
Appeals
1. The authority for 43 CFR Part 4, Subpart E, continues to read:
Authority: Sections 4.470 to 4.478 also issued under authority
of sec. 2, 48 Stat. 1270; 43 U.S.C. 315a.
2. In Sec. 4.401, revise paragraph (c)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 4.401 Documents.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) A party or its representative must sign a written statement at
the conclusion of any document that a party must serve under the
regulations in this part certifying that service has been or will be
made in accordance with the applicable rules and specifying the date
and manner of such service.
* * * * *
3. In Sec. 4.410, redesignate paragraph (b) as (e) and add
paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 4.410 Who may appeal.
* * * * *
(b) A party to a case, as set forth in paragraph (a) of this
section, is one who has taken action that is the subject of the
decision on appeal, is the object of that decision, or has otherwise
participated in the process leading to the decision under appeal, e.g.,
by filing a mining claim or application for use of public lands, by
commenting on an environmental document, or by filing a protest to a
proposed action.
(c) To the extent applicable, a party to a case, as set forth in
paragraph (a) of this section, may raise on appeal only those issues
raised in its prior participation.
(d) A party to a case is adversely affected, as set forth in
paragraph (a) of this section, when that party has a legally cognizable
interest, and the decision on appeal has caused, or will cause, injury
to that interest.
* * * * *
4. Section 4.416 is added to read as follows:
[[Page 77015]]
Sec. 4.416 Appeals of wildfire management decisions.
The Interior Board of Land Appeals must decide appeals from BLM
decisions under Sec. 4190.1 and Sec. 5003.1(b) of this title within
60 days after all pleadings have been filed.
5. In Sec. 4.422, revise paragraph (c)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 4.422 Documents.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) A party or its representative must sign a written statement at
the conclusion of any document that the party must serve under the
regulations in this part certifying that service has been or will be
made in accordance with the applicable rules and specifying the date
and manner of such service.
* * * * *
6. In Sec. 4.450-5, revise the introductory paragraph to read as
follows:
Sec. 4.450-5 Service.
The complaint must be served upon every contestee in the manner
provided in Sec. 4.422(c)(1). Proof of service must be made in the
manner provided in Sec. 4.422(c)(2). In certain circumstances, service
may be made by publication as provided in paragraph (b)(1) of this
section. When the contest is against the heirs of a deceased entryman,
the notice must be served on each heir. If the person to be personally
served is an infant or a person who has been legally adjudged of
unsound mind, service of notice must be made by delivering a copy of
the notice to the legal guardian or committee, if there is one, of such
infant or person of unsound mind. If there is no guardian or committee,
then service must be by delivering a copy of the notice to the person
having the infant or person of unsound mind in charge.
* * * * *
43 CFR Chapter II--Bureau of Land Management, Department of the
Interior
PART 4100--GRAZING ADMINISTRATION--EXCLUSIVE OF ALASKA
7. The authority citation for part 4100 continues to read:
Authority: 43 U.S.C. 315, 315a-315r, 1181d, 1740.
8. Add subpart 4190, consisting of Sec. 4190.1, to read as follows:
Subpart 4190--Effect of wildfire management decisions
Sec. 4190.1 Effect of wildfire management decisions.
(a) Notwithstanding the provisions of 43 CFR 4.21, BLM rangeland
wildfire management decisions are in immediate full force and effect.
Wildfire management includes but is not limited to:
(1) Fuel reduction or fuel treatment such as prescribed burns and
mechanical, chemical, and biological thinning methods; and
(2) Projects to stabilize and rehabilitate lands affected by
wildfire.
(b) The Interior Board of Land Appeals will issue a decision on the
merits of an appeal of a wildfire management decision under paragraph
(a) of this section within the time limits prescribed in 43 CFR 4.416.
PART 5000--ADMINISTRATION OF FOREST MANAGEMENT DECISIONS
9. The authority citation for part 5000 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 43 U.S.C. 1181(a); 43 U.S.C. 1701; 30 U.S.C. 601 et
seq;
Subpart 5003-Administrative Remedies
10. Revise Sec. 5003.1 to read as follows:
Sec. 5003.1 Effect of decisions.
(a) Filing a notice of appeal under part 4 of this title does not
automatically suspend the effect of a decision governing or relating to
forest management as described under Sec. Sec. 5003.2 and 5003.3.
(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of 43 CFR 4.21, BLM wildfire
management decisions made under this part and parts 5400 through 5510
of this chapter are in immediate full force and effect. Wildfire
management includes but is not limited to:
(1) Fuel reduction or fuel treatment such as prescribed burns and
mechanical, chemical, and biological thinning methods; and
(2) Projects to stabilize and rehabilitate lands affected by
wildfire.
(c) The Interior Board of Land Appeals will issue a decision on the
merits of an appeal of a wildfire management decision under paragraph
(b) of this section within the time limits prescribed in 43 CFR 4.416.
[FR Doc. 02-31575 Filed 12-11-02; 3:00 pm]
BILLING CODE 4310-79-P