[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 127 (Friday, June 30, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 40954-40966]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16648]



[[Page 40953]]

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

Part X





Department of the Interior





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



Bureau of Land Management



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



43 CFR Part 2560



Alaska Native Veterans Allotments; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 127 / Friday, June 30, 2000 / Rules 
and Regulations

[[Page 40954]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

43 CFR Part 2560

[WO-350-1410-00-24 1A]
RIN 1004-AD34


Alaska Native Veterans Allotments

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is issuing final 
regulations to allow certain Alaska Native veterans another opportunity 
to apply for a Native allotment under the repealed Native Allotment Act 
of 1906. Congress passed the Alaska Native Veterans Allotment Act in 
1998 which mandates regulations to implement it. This action will 
enable certain Alaska Native veterans who, because of their military 
service, were not able to apply for an allotment during the early 
1970s, to do so now.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 31, 2000.

ADDRESSES: You may send inquiries or suggestions to: Director (630), 
Bureau of Land Management, 1849 C Street, NW, Washington, DC 20240.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Connie Van Horn, Division of 
Conveyance Management, Bureau of Land Management, 222 West Seventh 
Avenue, 13, Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7599; telephone (907) 271-3767; or 
Frank Bruno, Bureau of Land Management, Regulatory Affairs Group (WO-
630), Mail Stop 401, 1620 L Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036; telephone 
(202) 452-0352. To reach Ms. Van Horn or Mr. Bruno, individuals who use 
a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal 
Information Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339, 24 hours a day, seven days 
a week.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background.
II. Final Rule as Adopted.
III. Responses to Comments.
IV. Procedural Matters.

I. Background

What Has BLM Done Since the Proposed Rule Was Published in February?

    Since the proposed rule was published in the February 8, 2000, 
Federal Register (65 FR 6259), BLM has been receiving and analyzing 
public comments, and preparing this final rule. The final rule 
published today is the last stage of the rulemaking process that will 
result in the amendment of 43 CFR part 2560 to add subpart 2568, 
``Alaska Native Allotments for Certain Veterans.''

What Was the Process for Public Comments?

    BLM invited public comment for 60 days and received written 
comments from 65 individuals and groups. In addition, the agency held 
public meetings in five Alaska cities (Anchorage, Juneau, Fairbanks, 
Bethel, and Nome) during the publication period to give participants an 
opportunity to express their views about the proposed rule. The primary 
purpose of these meetings was to gather input from Native entities, in 
keeping with the requirement in Public Law 105-276 that the Secretary 
of the Interior promulgate regulations ``after consultation with Alaska 
Natives groups.'' All the meetings were open to the public and were 
advertised in local newspapers. Participants included both Native and 
non-Native individuals. Oral comments were recorded in writing at each 
meeting; notes of the meetings, as well as all written comments 
submitted to BLM at the meetings, are included in the administrative 
record for this rule.
    Most written comments we received during the 60-day comment period 
addressed more than one section of the proposed rule. Comments are 
addressed on a section-by-section basis in the Response to Comments 
section.

Why Was the Proposed Rule Published?

    The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of December 18, 1971 
(ANCSA; 43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) repealed the Native Allotment Act of 
1906 (34 Stat. 196, as amended, 42 Stat. 415 and 70 Stat. 954, 43 
U.S.C. 270-1 through 270-3 (1970)) on December 18, 1971. During the 
time just before the 1906 Act was repealed, certain Alaska Natives who 
were eligible to apply for allotments were serving in the U.S. military 
and may have missed their opportunity to apply because of their 
military service.
    Section 432 of Public Law 105-276 (43 U.S.C. 1629g) of October 21, 
1998, allows certain Alaska Native veterans a new opportunity to apply 
for allotments under the 1906 Act as it was in effect before its 
repeal. Public Law 105-276 amended ANCSA by adding Section 41, 
requiring the Department of the Interior to create regulations within 
18 months to carry it out.
    Although Public Law 105-276 authorizes allotments under the 1906 
Act as it was in effect before December 18, 1971, this law creates a 
new right that did not exist between the repeal of the 1906 Act and the 
enactment of Public Law 105-276. The requirements of the 1906 Act as it 
existed before December 18, 1971, apply to allotment applicants under 
Public Law 105-276 but there are different and additional requirements 
that Congress added for Native veteran allotments applicants.
    The final rule implements the provisions of the 1906 Act as they 
pertain to Native veteran allotments as well as the specific provisions 
of Public Law 105-276 that are unique to Native veteran allotments.

What is the Best Way To Read This Rulemaking To Understand the New 
Regulation?

    The part you are reading now is called the preamble. It discusses 
the rule that BLM proposed on February 8, 2000, and the comments we 
received from the public about the rule. It explains what changes we 
made in this final rule and why we made them. It also explains why we 
did not make changes the public suggested.
    The ``regulatory text'' is the part that follows the authorization 
of the rulemaking by the Assistant Secretary of the Interior, and 
begins with ``SUBPART 2568-ALASKA NATIVE ALLOTMENTS FOR CERTAIN 
VETERANS.'' This text will become the regulation in the Code of Federal 
Regulations to implement the Alaska Native Veterans allotment program.

II. Final Rule as Adopted

    The final rule is adopted with the changes to the proposed rule 
discussed in the Responses to Comments section. In summary, the final 
rule explains how to apply for an Alaska Native veterans allotment and 
outlines the requirements an applicant must meet to qualify to apply 
for and receive an allotment. The final rule explains requirements of 
the Native Allotment Act of 1906 which applicants must meet as well as 
requirements of Public Law 105-276 that differ from those under the 
1906 law and its regulations in 43 CFR Part 2561.
    The final rule explains:
    1. What types of Federal land can and cannot be conveyed to an 
allotment applicant,
    2. When an applicant may apply for an alternative allotment if the 
original application describes land that cannot be conveyed,
    3. The processing of applications for allotments within Alaska 
Conservation System Units (CSU's), such as National Parks, Wildlife 
Refuges, Wild and Scenic Rivers etc.,
    4. How a personal representative may apply for an allotment on 
behalf of the heirs of certain eligible veterans, and
    5. The intra-agency appeal process of decisions determining 
allotments to be inconsistent with the purposes of a CSU.

[[Page 40955]]

III. Responses to Comments

    In preparing the final rule, BLM carefully analyzed and considered 
all comments received during the 60-day public comment period, both 
written comments and oral comments recorded at the five public meetings 
held throughout Alaska. A discussion of those comments follows. The 
discussion deals with changes we are making to the final rule resulting 
from comments we received. We also cover changes urged by the public 
that we are not making. In both cases we explain the reason(s) for our 
decision.
    Forty-seven of the 65 comments BLM received were about requirements 
in Public Law 105-276 or in the Native Allotment Act of 1906. Some of 
these requirements were included in the proposed rule and some were 
not. In the discussion of the comments we received on specific sections 
of the proposed rule, we have explained when a requirement in the 
regulations is also a legal requirement. In these cases, we also 
explained that BLM does not have authority in its regulations to change 
the requirements of the law that these regulations are intended to 
carry out.
    The comments most often expressed were about land that BLM cannot 
convey to Alaska Native veterans, the military service requirements of 
Public Law 105-276 itself, including eligibility criteria concerning 
deceased veterans, and the requirement for Alaska Native veterans to 
meet the same use and occupancy standards as individuals who filed 
applications under the Native Allotment Act of 1906 before it was 
repealed in 1971. Public Law 105-276 was very specific about what lands 
BLM could convey to Alaska Native veterans and what lands it could not 
convey. The law also required military service during a certain period 
of time and it placed limitations on the eligibility of deceased 
veterans.
    We are making certain changes to the proposed rule where commenters 
said the language was not clear or where additional explanation makes a 
section easier to understand. We are making other changes to make sure 
the rule is consistent from one section to another and to make sure the 
meaning of certain terms is clear.
    The following is a section-by-section discussion of the comments 
BLM received, the suggestions we are adopting and why, and the 
suggestions we are not adopting and the reasons we are not adopting 
them.

Section 2568.30

    Section 2568.30 contains definitions of terms used in the 
regulations. BLM is adding a new definition in the final rule to 
clarify the meaning of the terms ``consistent'' and ``inconsistent'' as 
these terms are applied to the evaluation of allotment applications in 
CSU's. Public Law 105-276 authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to 
convey alternative lands to an applicant who qualifies for an allotment 
in a CSU if the CSU manager determines the allotment is incompatible 
with a purpose for which the CSU was established. The terms 
``compatible'' and ``incompatible'' have very specific meanings under 
other laws. BLM wants to avoid any possible confusion between the terms 
used to describe the unique process for evaluating Native veteran 
allotment applications in CSU's under Public Law 105-276 and other 
processes followed under other laws. We referred in the proposed rule 
to allotments determined to be ``consistent'' and ``inconsistent'' with 
CSU purposes, and we are retaining these terms in the final rule. We 
also said in proposed section 2568.102 that the process for deciding 
whether an allotment is inconsistent with a CSU ``should not be 
confused with any similar process under any other act, including the 
incompatibility process under the National Wildlife Refuge System 
Improvement Act of 1997.'' This statement is especially important 
because in some cases eligible Native veterans will be able to receive 
allotments of land within National Wildlife Refuges and we want to make 
sure there is no confusion about the process that BLM will follow for 
evaluating the applications for those allotments. We are retaining in 
the final rule the same language we included in the proposed rule for 
section 2568.102 and including a new definition in section 2568.30.

Section 2568.50

    Section 2568.50 contains criteria an applicant must meet to be 
eligible for an allotment. We are adding two new paragraphs to this 
section to emphasize two requirements for Alaska Native veterans 
allotments. A new paragraph (b) clarifies that an applicant has to 
establish that he or she used land according to the rules that were in 
effect before December 18, 1971, and that the land is still owned by 
the Federal government. A new paragraph (f) restates the requirement of 
the 1906 Act that an Alaska Native veteran has to be a resident of 
Alaska in order to qualify for an allotment and also states that a 
deceased veteran had to have been a resident of Alaska at the time of 
death.
    BLM received three comments questioning the Alaska residency 
requirement for Native veteran allotments. Some Alaska Native veterans 
who do not now live in Alaska believe it is unfair for veterans to be 
expected to uproot their families and return to Alaska to be eligible 
to receive an allotment.
    The Native Allotment Act of 1906 said that allotments can only be 
granted to Alaska Natives who reside in Alaska. The existing Native 
allotment regulations contain the same residency language as the 1906 
Act (43 CFR 2561.0-3). Public Law 105-276 required allotment applicants 
to comply with the allotment rules that were in effect before December 
18, 1971, and those rules included the requirement that an individual 
had to have been an Alaska resident. BLM has no authority to waive the 
Alaska residency requirement for Native veterans.
    Because we are adding a new paragraph between two existing 
paragraphs in section 2568.50, we are renumbering the remaining 
paragraphs of this section in the final rule. Paragraph (b) in the 
proposed section 2568.50 will be new paragraph (c) in the final rule, 
paragraph (c) in the proposed rule will be new paragraph (d) in the 
final rule, paragraph (d) in the proposed rule will be new paragraph 
(e) in the final rule, and the paragraph concerning the Alaska 
residency requirement will be new paragraph (f).
    Paragraph (b) of the proposed section (new paragraph (c)) stated 
the military service criteria for Native veterans. BLM received 18 
comments objecting to the limitations on time and duration of military 
service. Public Law 105-276 specified that eligible Native veterans had 
to have served in the military between January 1, 1969, and December 
31, 1971, and that they had to have completed six months' service 
between January 1, 1969, and June 2, 1971, or enlisted or been drafted 
after June 2, 1971, but before December 3, 1971. The proposed rule 
reiterated the military service requirements contained in the law.
    The limitation of military service eligibility to the 1969-1971 
period was based on the idea that the veterans who may have missed 
their opportunity to file Native allotment applications, because of 
their military service, were those who served during the years 
immediately before the repeal of the 1906 Native Allotment Act. This 
repeal occurred on December 18, 1971.
    The military service requirements in the rule are identical to the 
requirements in Public Law 105-276. We do not have the authority to 
change this requirement in the regulations. The final rule, in new 
paragraph (c) of section 2568.50, contains the same

[[Page 40956]]

military service requirements as those stated in Public Law 105-276.
    In the proposed rule, paragraph (c) of this section (new paragraph 
(d)) said that an individual must ``not have already received 
conveyance or approval of an allotment.'' It qualified this requirement 
by stating that ``if you received an allotment interest by inheritance, 
devise, gift, or purchase you are not disqualified from applying.'' BLM 
received three comments on this statement, suggesting it be rephrased 
to read ``if you received an allotment interest by inheritance, devise, 
gift, or purchase you are still qualified to apply.'' BLM assumes these 
comments reflect a desire that we state in the affirmative rather than 
the negative, perhaps to make it easier to understand. We are adopting 
this suggested change in the final rule, with a slight modification of 
the proposed wording. The statement in parentheses in new paragraph (d) 
of the final rule, which was paragraph (c) in the proposed rule, will 
read ``However, if you are otherwise qualified to receive an allotment 
under the Alaska Native Veterans Allotment Act, you are still qualified 
even if you received another allotment interest by inheritance, devise, 
gift, or purchase''.

Sections 2568.60-2568.64

    Sections 2568.60 through 2568.64 outline the requirements for a 
personal representative to file an allotment application on behalf of 
the estate of a deceased veteran. BLM received nine comments on the 
limitations on how and when a veteran died. The proposed rule contained 
the same criteria for eligibility that appeared in Public Law 105-276: 
a veteran had to have (1) died in combat between 1969 and 1971; (2) 
died while a prisoner of war between 1969 and 1971; or (3) died later 
as a result of a service connected wound received during that time. All 
those who commented said that it should not matter when a veteran died 
or whether death was connected to military service.
    The criteria in the rule for deceased veterans are identical to the 
criteria in the law itself. BLM cannot change the criteria in the rule 
to be more expansive than the law allows. From the time of the colonial 
government until Public Law 105-276 was passed, claims against the 
government for land were not allowed to be made by deceased persons. 
Congress was well aware of this total prohibition under the public land 
laws when it decided to make one small exception for those Alaska 
Natives who died within a particular period of time as a direct result 
of combat in the Vietnam War. Congress made this provision of the law 
for the benefit of a small group of individuals.
    One commenter suggested that the requirements for the appointment 
of a personal representative are burdensome and unnecessary and that a 
simple affidavit system should be used instead. BLM included the 
sections in the proposed rule concerning personal representatives 
because Public Law 105-276 said a personal representative would apply 
for an allotment on behalf of the estate of an eligible deceased 
veteran. The law does not allow any method for the estate of a deceased 
veteran to apply for allotments except through appointment of a 
personal representative. The same commenter pointed out that the Alaska 
Probate Code requires probates to be initiated within three years of a 
person's death. Although BLM is aware of this time limit, we note that 
there is an exception for determination of heirs.
    BLM does not have the authority nor the expertise to determine the 
heirs of a deceased veteran. It also does not have the authority to 
choose or appoint personal representatives. Often there will be 
numerous heirs or persons claiming to be heirs. BLM cannot know which 
allotment application to process or which parcel of land to convey 
without a formal determination of the estate representative and the 
heirs who will benefit. The lack of a formal representative would cause 
considerable chaos and dramatically slow down the processing of all 
allotment applications.
    We are adding a new provision to section 2568.64 in the final rule. 
As we said in the discussion of section 2568.50 above, we have decided 
to restate the Alaska residency requirement of the Native Allotment Act 
of 1906 as one of the qualifications a Native veteran must meet, and we 
are also adding a statement that a deceased veteran had to have been a 
resident of Alaska at the time of death. We are adding this same 
requirement concerning Alaska residency at the time of death to section 
2568.64 in the final rule so that it is included with the other 
requirements for applications filed on behalf of the estates of 
deceased veterans.

Section 2568.74

    Paragraph 2568.74(a) in the proposed rule required a Native veteran 
to file a Bureau of Indian Affairs form called a Certificate of Indian 
Blood (CIB). BLM received one comment suggesting that a tribal card be 
allowed instead because of the difficulty of obtaining a CIB.
    The 1906 Native Allotment Act required that an allotment applicant 
be an Alaska Native. Under the 1906 Act as it was in effect before 
December 18, 1971, the Bureau of Indian Affairs certified applications 
and verified that an applicant had sufficient Native blood to qualify. 
On the other hand, tribal membership and a tribal card are sometimes 
granted to those who have no Native blood, so issuance of a tribal card 
does not prove that a person is an Alaska Native. All Alaska Native 
veterans must meet the requirements of the 1906 Act, including the 
requirement that an applicant be an Alaska Native. Because of this, and 
because a tribal card is unreliable proof of Native blood, we did not 
change the final rule.
    Proposed section 2568.74(c) required an applicant to file a map 
with the application, and proposed section 2568.74(d) required a legal 
description of the land. Proposed section 2568.74(d) also stated that 
the map will control if there is a discrepancy between the map and the 
legal description. BLM received one comment about situations where 
there is a discrepancy between the parcel as it is located on the 
ground and the map or the legal description. We are responding to this 
comment by adding a sentence to section 2568.74(d) in the final rule to 
clarify that if there is a discrepancy between the map or the legal 
description and the parcel as it is located on the ground, the posted 
location will control.

Section 2568.76

    Section 2568.76 does not require a fee to file an application. In 
the preamble to the proposed rule, we stated that we were not proposing 
an application filing fee, but we asked for comments on whether we 
should and whether such a fee should be refunded if an applicant did 
not receive an allotment. We received seven comments on this issue, all 
opposing an application filing fee because there was never such a fee 
under the 1906 Native Allotment Act while it was in effect. The final 
rule does not include a requirement for a filing fee.

Section 2568.77

    Section 2568.77 requires an applicant to post on the ground the 
land in an allotment application. BLM received five comments on this 
requirement. One commenter suggested that Native veterans are being 
asked to meet different requirements from those imposed on 1906 Native 
Allotment Act applicants. In fact, the existing regulations for 1906 
Act allotments do contain a requirement for posting (43 CFR 2561.1(d)), 
and the application form for 1906 Act allotments requires an applicant 
to state that he or she has posted the lands described in the 
application. The same requirement is in

[[Page 40957]]

the application form for Native veteran allotments.
    Additionally, BLM believes it is essential for an allotment 
applicant to post the lands for which he or she is applying. Posting 
puts others on notice of the allotment claim and the specific lands 
involved, and ensures accurate and efficient examination and survey of 
the claim. The final rule will contain the same posting requirement as 
was contained in the proposed rule.
    Four of the five comments asked BLM to make allowances in the 
regulation for weather conditions when assessing compliance with the 
posting requirement. Although BLM is aware of the difficulties that 
inclement weather will undoubtedly create for applicants, particularly 
at certain times of the year, we do not believe the regulation needs to 
contain language allowing for weather conditions. The regulation states 
the same requirement that was imposed on 1906 Native Allotment Act 
applicants.

Section 2568.79

    The rule limits the number of allotment parcels that may be 
conveyed to a Native veteran to two. This is the same limitation stated 
in Public Law 105-276.
    BLM received three comments suggesting that Native veterans should 
be allowed to choose more than two parcels because applicants under the 
1906 Act were able to. BLM's regulations must conform to Public Law 
105-276. We have no authority to change the parcel limitation stated in 
the law.

Section 2568.90

    Section 2568.90 identifies the types of land that BLM can convey to 
Native veterans.
    Paragraph 2568.90(a)(1) says a Native veteran can receive title 
only to land that is currently owned by the Federal government. BLM 
received three comments suggesting that we allow voluntary title 
recovery of conveyed land for the benefit of Native veteran applicants. 
Public Law 105-276 prohibits this because land reconveyed to BLM 
becomes acquired land, and BLM is prohibited in Public Law 105-276 from 
conveying acquired land to Native veterans. We added a new section, 
2568.95, to the final rule explaining that BLM is prohibited from 
accepting voluntary title recovery for the benefit of Native veterans.
    In this final rule we are correcting proposed 43 CFR 2568.90(a)(3) 
to state that a Native veteran applicant may receive title only to land 
that has not been continuously withdrawn since before his or her sixth 
birthday. Proposed section 2568.90(a)(3) said a Native veteran could 
only receive title to land that has not been continuously withdrawn 
since before his or her fifth birthday. We are making a technical 
correction to this section. BLM has a long-established policy, based on 
administrative case law, of rejecting Native allotment applications 
under the 1906 Act without a hearing if the land described in the 
application has been continuously withdrawn since before the applicants 
sixth birthday. If, however, the applicant was at least six years old 
at the time of the withdrawal BLM gives an opportunity for an 
administrative hearing to determine if he or she meets the use and 
occupancy requirements of the 1906 Act and its regulations.
    We are also making a technical change to reflect that use and 
occupancy had to have begun before December 14, 1968, not before 
December 13, 1968. Proposed section 2568.90(a)(4) said that an 
applicant had to have begun using a parcel of Federal land before 
December 13, 1968. Three commenters questioned the rationale behind 
this date and suggested that use and occupancy should be able to begin 
any time before the repeal of the 1906 Native Allotment Act on December 
18, 1971.
    Public Land Order (PLO) 4582 withdrew unreserved public lands in 
Alaska effective December 14, 1968, from all forms of appropriation and 
disposition under the public land laws. Therefore, no new Native 
allotments could be initiated after PLO 4582 became effective. 
Applications for Native allotments could be processed to conclusion as 
long as occupation began before December 14, 1968. Because of PLO 4582 
BLM can't grant a Native allotment if use and occupancy began after 
December 13, 1968. Public Law 105-276 specifically states, in section 
41(a)(2) ``Allotments may be selected only from lands that were vacant, 
unappropriated, and unreserved on the date when the person eligible for 
the allotment first used and occupied those lands.''
    Section 2568.90(a)(5) explains the use and occupancy criteria 
Native veterans have to meet. BLM received five comments suggesting 
that we eliminate the use and occupancy requirements of the 1906 Native 
Allotment Act for Native veterans or that no greater burden be placed 
on Native veterans than has been imposed in the past on applicants 
under the 1906 Act. Although BLM understands that it may be difficult 
for veterans to show use that began more than 30 years ago, the use and 
occupancy requirements in the rule are the same requirements that 
applicants under the 1906 Native Allotment Act had to meet. Public Law 
105-276 stated that certain Native veterans will be eligible for 
allotments if they ``would have been eligible for an allotment under 
the Act of May 17, 1906 (chapter 2469; 34 Stat. 197), as that Act was 
in effect before December 18, 1971'' (section 41(b)(1)(A) of Public Law 
105-276). Since Public Law 105-276 said that Native veterans must be 
eligible under the 1906 Act we have no authority to eliminate or modify 
the use and occupancy requirement in the final rule. We do not believe 
the rule imposes different use requirements on Native veterans than on 
other 1906 Act applicants.

Section 2568.91

    Section 2568.91 lists the types of land that BLM cannot convey to a 
Native veteran. We received 18 comments objecting to the types of 
Federal lands that are not available. The categories of lands that we 
may not convey which were described in the proposed rule were taken 
directly from Public Law 105-276. BLM understands that there have been 
major changes in Alaska land status in the 30 years since the 1906 
Native Allotment Act was repealed. We also realize that many areas will 
not be available under Public Law 105-276 even if Native veterans can 
show their use and occupancy predated another interest. Congress 
limited the types of land that BLM can convey to Native veterans and 
the language in the proposed rule reflected the limitations in the law 
itself.
    The most common objection we received was that paragraph (b) said 
land selected by the State of Alaska (2568.91(b)) was not available for 
allotment, even when the applicant's use and occupancy predated the 
State selection application. Public Law 105-276 prohibits conveyance to 
a Native veteran of Federal land that is selected by but not yet 
conveyed to the State of Alaska or to a Native corporation under ANCSA. 
BLM included in section 2568.91 the same list of prohibited land that 
appeared in the statute.
    Paragraph (c) in the proposed rule said that land selected by a 
Native corporation under ANCSA is unavailable for conveyance. The 
section went on to explain that a Native corporation may relinquish up 
to 160 acres of its selection to allow a Native veteran to receive an 
allotment as long as this doesn't violate selection rules in 43 CFR 
2650 or cause the corporation to become underselected. BLM included 
this in the proposed rule because several Native corporations were 
willing

[[Page 40958]]

to consider relinquishment of their selections for the benefit of 
Native veterans.
    We interpret the statute to mean that although we can't convey 
selected land to Native veterans, a voluntary relinquishment from a 
Native corporation would remove land from the ``selected'' category and 
would permit conveyance to a Native veteran.
    We did not include a similar relinquishment provision in the 
proposed rule regarding land selected by the State of Alaska. However, 
we believe a similar provision needs to be included in the final rule 
to give the State the opportunity to relinquish a selection thereby 
permitting a Native veteran to receive an allotment. In this final rule 
BLM is including language regarding the State's option to relinquish up 
to 160 acres of a selection to allow a Native veteran to apply for an 
allotment.
    However, any Alaska Native veteran must realize that applying for 
land which BLM cannot convey is very risky. If BLM does not receive and 
approve a relinquishment from a Native corporation or from the State 
before the filing period for allotment applications ends, that veteran 
cannot file an application for an allotment in a different location and 
is not eligible for an alternative allotment. BLM recommends that 
Native veterans consider all the risks before filing an application for 
an allotment on lands that have been selected either by a Native 
corporation or by the State of Alaska.
    We are including a new section 2568.92 concerning the risks 
involved when a Native veteran applies for land that is selected by a 
Native corporation or by the State of Alaska. This new section makes it 
clear that if BLM does not receive and approve a relinquishment from a 
Native corporation or the State before the end of the allotment 
application filing period, the allotment applicant will not be able to 
apply for land in a different location and will not be eligible for an 
alternative allotment.
    To accommodate the addition of a new section 2568.92, section 
2568.92 in the proposed rule will become new section 2568.93 in the 
final rule, proposed section 2568.93 will become new section 2568.94 in 
the final rule, and the section we are adding on BLM's lack of 
authority to accept reconveyance of non-Federal land for Native 
veterans allotments (previously discussed in connection with section 
2568.90) will be new section 2568.95.

Section 2568.94 (Proposed Section 2568.93)

    Section 2568.93 of the proposed rule stated that BLM cannot convey 
an allotment to a Native veteran if the land is valuable for sand or 
gravel. This prohibition was included because Native veterans must 
comply with the requirements for Native allotments that were in effect 
before December 18, 1971. BLM received five comments on the proposed 
rule suggesting that sand and gravel have not been considered 
``valuable minerals'' since the passage of the Common Varieties Act of 
1955.
    The Common Varieties Act of 1955 provided that sand and gravel 
could no longer be disposed of under the Mining Law of 1872, 30 U.S.C. 
21, et seq. Instead, sand and gravel would be subject to disposition 
under other acts such as the Mineral Materials Act, 30 U.S.C. 601. 
Congress had taken similar action in prior years to remove other 
minerals such as oil, gas, coal, potassium, phosphate, and sulphur from 
the operation of the mining laws. These amendments did not change the 
mineral character of such deposits and certainly did not destroy their 
value. In some communities where there has been extensive growth, the 
United States government has received thousands of dollars per acre for 
the sale of sand and gravel since the Common Varieties Act was passed. 
In 1978 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recognized in Chugach 
Natives, Inc. v. Doyon Ltd., et al. (569 F.2d 491) that sand and gravel 
were mineral resources and part of the subsurface estate under ANCSA.
    Lands valuable for sand or gravel were still considered to be 
mineral for purposes of evaluating Native allotment applications until 
1980 when Congress said in section 905(a)(3) of ANILCA, 43 U.S.C. 
1634(a)(3), that such lands were non-mineral. If Congress had 
considered lands valuable for sand and gravel to be non-mineral before 
1980, there would have been no reason to include language in ANILCA 
saying that such lands were non-mineral. Therefore, section 2568.93, 
which becomes new section 2568.94 in the final rule, reflects the same 
prohibition against the conveyance of lands valuable for sand or gravel 
that was contained in the proposed rule.

Sections 2568.100 through 2568.106

    Sections 2568.100 through 2568.106 explain the process a CSU 
manager will follow to determine if an allotment would be consistent 
with CSU purposes. BLM received five comments on this process.

Section 2568.101

    This section states a Native veteran may receive an allotment if 
conveyance of the allotment is not inconsistent with the purposes of 
the CSU. One commenter suggested that a decision of inconsistency 
should only be made by the Secretary of the Interior, not by a CSU 
manager. BLM believes the CSU manager is in the best position to make 
an initial decision of inconsistency based on the resource values of 
the CSU. It is reasonable for the Secretary to delegate this decision 
to CSU managers, and it is standard practice for him to delegate such 
decisions. The Secretary rarely makes such decisions directly, although 
the Secretary has the option to review any decision made within the 
Department if he or she chooses to do so.

43 CFR 2568.103

    Proposed section 2568.103 explained how a land management agency 
will determine whether an allotment would be consistent with the 
purposes of a CSU. The proposed rule said in paragraph (b) that ``You 
or your representative may also accompany, at your expense, the CSU 
representative on any field exam.'' BLM received two comments objecting 
to the language concerning an applicant participating in a field exam 
at his or her own expense. We believe it is important to make sure the 
final rule is consistent with existing regulations and practices under 
the 1906 Native Allotment Act unless the Alaska Native Veterans 
Allotment Act specifically requires something different. In the final 
rule we are adopting the suggestion to delete the words ``at your 
expense'' from the statement in paragraph (b) that the applicant may 
accompany the CSU representative on a field exam.
    The proposed rule also stated, in paragraph (c), that the CSU 
manager would send a written decision and a resource assessment to BLM, 
and a copy of the decision to the applicant. It allowed the applicant 
to request a copy of the resource assessment. One commenter suggested 
that the applicant should be given a copy of the resource assessment 
along with the decision document. BLM agrees and in the final rule we 
are changing this section to specify that the CSU manager will send the 
applicant a copy of the decision and a copy of the resource assessment.

Section 2568.105

    Section 2568.105 in the proposed rule described the situations 
where an allotment could be found to be consistent with a CSU. 
Paragraph (a)

[[Page 40959]]

stated that an allotment may be consistent if ``You locate an allotment 
near land that BLM has conveyed to a Native corporation under ANCSA.'' 
We are modifying section 2568.105(a) in the final rule to make clear 
that an individual's allotment must be one that he or she is qualified 
to receive under the 1906 Native Allotment Act.

Section 2568.106

    This section establishes the criteria a CSU manager will use in 
determining whether an allotment would be inconsistent with the 
purposes of the CSU. One commenter raised concerns about the language 
in proposed section 2568.106 that would allow the CSU manager, when 
considering whether an allotment is inconsistent with CSU purposes, to 
weigh such factors as:
    (1) the possible future uses of the allotment,
    (2) its isolation from existing private property, and
    (3) its possible interference with subsistence activities.

This commenter suggests that Native veteran allotment applicants should 
not be treated differently from applicants under the 1906 Native 
Allotment Act.
    Public Law 105-276 allows the conveyance of land within CSU's to 
Native veterans and gives the Department of the Interior authority to 
determine whether an allotment would be inconsistent with CSU purposes, 
and, if so, to offer alternative lands to the veteran. Because Public 
Law 105-276 mandates these conditions which did not apply to 1906 Act 
applicants, we must carry them out in our regulations. Although Public 
Law 105-276 does not say what factors the Department should consider in 
making a determination of inconsistency, BLM believes it is important 
to give applicants an indication of the criteria we will use to make 
such a determination. Inconsistency determinations will be made on a 
case-by-case basis depending upon the specific resource values and 
purposes of each CSU.

Section 2568.110(c)

    Proposed section 2568.110 identified the types of land that would 
be available for alternative allotments when BLM cannot convey an 
allotment for which a Native veteran qualifies. Paragraph (c) states 
that the applicant may choose an alternative allotment from ``vacant, 
unappropriated, and unreserved land.''
    BLM recognizes that paragraph (c), if strictly construed, would 
make it virtually impossible for an applicant to acquire an alternative 
allotment because of the vast amount of Federal land still withdrawn 
for future classification under section 17(d)(1) of ANCSA, 43 U.S.C. 
1616(d)(1). The final rule adds language stating that for purposes of 
this section, the term ``unreserved'' includes land withdrawn solely 
under the authority of section 17(d)(1) of ANCSA.
    Congress has adopted a similar rule on other occasions in the past. 
One example occurred in section 906(j) of ANILCA, 94 Stat. 2441. The 
State of Alaska could only select unreserved lands as provided by 
section 6(b) of the Alaska Statehood Act, 72 Stat. 339, as amended. 
Section 906(j) of ANILCA said that ``* * *. the following withdrawals, 
classifications or designations shall not, of themselves, remove the 
lands involved from the status of vacant, unappropriated, and 
unreserved lands for the purposes of * * * future State selections * * 
* : (1) withdrawals for classification pursuant to section 17(d)(1) of 
the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act * * *''

Section 2568.113

    BLM is adding a new section 2568.113 to the final rule. It states 
that if the applicant is eligible to choose an alternative allotment, 
he or she need not prove use and occupancy of the land in the 
alternative location. We did this to clarify the requirements an 
applicant must meet when applying for an alternative allotment.
    Section 2568.113 in the proposed rule will become new section 
2568.114 in the final rule and section 2568.114 in the proposed rule 
will become new section 2568.115 in the final rule.

Section 2568.114 (Proposed Section 2568.113)

    As explained previously, the proposed rule contained language 
explaining the procedures and requirements relating to allotments in 
CSU's. Proposed section 2568.113 explained how an applicant would apply 
for an alternative allotment if the CSU manager determined that 
conveyance of an allotment in the original location would be 
inconsistent with the CSU. BLM received one comment suggesting that we 
modify language in proposed section 2568.113 (new section 2568.114) to 
clarify that the CSU manager must evaluate an application for an 
alternative allotment in a CSU to determine if it is consistent with 
CSU purposes in the same manner as the original application is 
evaluated. BLM is adding a sentence in new section 2568.114 in the 
final rule to make clear that the alternative allotment must also not 
be inconsistent with the CSU.

Sections 2568.120-2568.123

    Sections 2568.120 through 123 explain the process for appealing 
inconsistency decisions made by CSU managers.
    One commenter suggested that appeals of inconsistency decisions 
should be made to the Interior Board of Land Appeals in the same manner 
as other Native allotment decisions. As we explained in the preamble to 
the proposed rule, we believe that the individual agencies are best 
equipped to quickly make these decisions and that land managers can 
make sound decisions based on their in-depth knowledge of the resources 
in the CSU's.

Comments on Subjects Not Included in the Proposed Rule

    Some of the comments BLM received were related to Native veterans 
allotments or to Alaska Native Allotments in general but did not 
pertain to any language that appeared in the proposed rule itself.

Legislative Approval

    BLM received two comments suggesting that we should allow the 
legislative approval provision of Section 905 of ANILCA, 43 U.S.C. 
1634(a), to apply to Native veterans allotments. Since ANILCA was 
enacted in 1980, it does not apply to Native veterans allotments. 
Public Law 105-276 said that veterans allotments must meet the 
requirements of the 1906 Native Allotment Act as it was in effect 
before December 18, 1971.
    Additionally, Congress recognized that legislative approval does 
not apply to Native veterans allotments because legislation was 
recently introduced that would amend Public Law 105-276 to provide for 
it. This final rule does not contain any language relating to 
legislative approval of Native veterans allotments because Public Law 
105-276 contains no authority for such approval.

Monetary Compensation

    BLM received one comment suggesting that monetary compensation be 
offered instead of an allotment of land, especially since Public Law 
105-276 limited the types of Federal land that can be conveyed.
    Public Law 105-276 does not contain any provision for monetary 
compensation in lieu of an allotment of land. BLM has no authority to 
include such a provision in its regulations.

[[Page 40960]]

IV. Procedural Matters

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    These final regulations are not a significant regulatory action and 
are not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under 
Executive Order 12866. These final regulations will not have an effect 
of $100 million or more on the economy. They will not adversely affect 
in a material way the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the 
environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal 
governments or communities. These final regulations will not create a 
serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or 
planned by another agency. These final regulations do not alter the 
budgetary effects of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs 
or the rights or obligations of their recipients; nor do they raise 
novel legal or policy issues. The effect of these final regulations 
will be on a limited number of individuals who are qualified to apply 
for allotments and on the Interior Department agencies responsible for 
administering the allotment program. The allotment application period 
is limited by law to 18 months, and existing staff of responsible 
agencies will process applications following most of the same rules 
that are currently in effect for allotment applications under the 1906 
Native Allotment Act.

National Environmental Policy Act

    Section 910 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act 
(ANILCA) of December 2, 1980 , 43 U.S.C. 1638, made conveyances, 
regulations, and other actions which lead to the issuance of 
conveyances to Natives under ANCSA exempt from NEPA compliance 
requirements. Since Congress made the Alaska Native Veterans Allotment 
Act a part of ANCSA, NEPA does not apply.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Congress enacted the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, to ensure that Government regulations do not 
unnecessarily or disproportionately burden small entities. The RFA 
requires a regulatory flexibility analysis if a rule would have a 
significant economic impact, either detrimental or beneficial, on a 
substantial number of small entities. This final rule will apply only 
to certain Alaska Native veterans eligible to apply for allotments. 
This rule applies only to Alaska Native veterans as individuals. 
Therefore, the Department of the Interior certifies that this document 
will not have any significant impacts on small entities under the RFA.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA)

    These final regulations are not a ``major rule'' as defined at 5 
U.S.C. 804(2). This final rule does not meet any of the criteria for a 
``major rule'' under the definition contained in SBREFA. The final rule 
will result in some costs to allotment applicants, and to the 
Department of the Interior to implement the allotment program over the 
next several years. It will not result in major cost or price increases 
for consumers, industries, or regions, and the cost increases for 
government agencies will be small. This final rule will have no 
significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, 
productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to 
compete with foreign-based enterprises. The total annual effect on the 
economy will be far below $100 million. Based on Department of Veterans 
Affairs data, BLM estimates that about 1,100 individuals with at least 
one quarter Alaska Native blood meet the military service criteria in 
the Alaska Native Veterans law and may be eligible to apply for 
allotments. If each applicant were to choose the maximum number of land 
parcels allowed (2), the total number of parcels involved would be 
2,200. BLM estimates the cost of processing an application for a single 
allotment parcel does not exceed $25,000, including the cost of 
adjudication, examination, survey, and conveyance. This estimate is 
based on the average cost of processing allotment applications 
originally filed under the Alaska Native Allotment Act of 1906. The 
total cost to process 2,200 parcels would be $55 million over the life 
of the program, which is the statutory 18-month application period and 
as many additional years as necessary to complete all applications. In 
no case would these costs approximate the $100 million annual impact 
threshold.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    These final regulations do not impose an unfunded mandate on State, 
local, or tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 
million per year; nor do these final regulations have a significant or 
unique effect on State, local, or tribal governments or the private 
sector. The only mandate imposed on State governments will be for the 
State court appointment of personal representatives in cases involving 
the estates of certain deceased applicants, but this mandate will cost 
far below $100 million per year. These final regulations impose no 
mandate on local or tribal governments or the private sector. Program 
costs will fall primarily on the Department of the Interior. Therefore, 
BLM is not required to prepare a statement containing the information 
required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with 
Constitutionally Protected Property Rights (Takings)

    The final rule does not represent a government action capable of 
interfering with constitutionally protected property rights. The final 
rule will allow BLM to convey Federal land only under certain 
circumstances, and land containing other applications or entries is 
specifically forbidden by law from being conveyed to Native veterans. 
Even if a Native veteran could show use and occupancy of land before 
another application or entry was made, the Native would have no vested 
property right until he or she filed an application for an allotment 
under section 41 of ANCSA. No existing applications or entries or other 
private property interests will be affected by this proposed rule. 
Therefore, the Department of the Interior has determined that the rule 
will not cause a taking of private property or require further 
discussion of takings implications under this Executive Order.

Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    The final rule will not have a substantial direct effect on the 
States, on the relationship between the national government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government. The final rule will give the State the 
authority to voluntarily relinquish up to 160 acres of a selection so 
that a Native veteran can apply for an allotment, but the State is not 
required to relinquish. Voluntary relinquishments will have no effect 
on the State's ability to reach its full acreage entitlement from the 
Federal government. Native veterans will not be able to apply for land 
already owned by the State, even if they can show that they used and 
occupied the land before the State applied for it. Allotments conveyed 
under section 41 of ANCSA are not taxable, just as allotments conveyed 
under the 1906 Act are not taxable, so there will be no effect on State 
or local property tax revenue. Therefore, in accordance with Executive 
Order 12612, BLM has determined that

[[Page 40961]]

this final rule does not have sufficient Federalism implications to 
warrant preparation of a Federalism Assessment. Representatives of the 
State of Alaska and the BLM Alaska have had general discussions on the 
content of the statute and the final regulations. Representatives of 
the State of Alaska recognize that lands conveyed to the State are 
prohibited from land availability under this statute and that the State 
may relinquish, but is not required to relinquish, a selection to allow 
a Native veteran to file an allotment application.

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform

    Under Executive Order 12988, the Office of the Solicitor has 
determined that this final rule would not unduly burden the judicial 
system and that it meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) 
of the Order.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This final rule contains information collection requirements 
covered under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 
U.S.C 3501 et seq. All information requirements pertain to an 
application form whereby Alaska veterans may apply for the benefits 
described in this final rule. OMB reviewed and approved an information 
collection package for the application form. Because all the 
information requirements are contained in the application form and 
covered by that information collection package, BLM has not prepared a 
separate information collection package for these regulations.
    The information BLM asks for in the form identified in section 
2568.73 will be collected through the allotment application form 
``Alaska Native Veteran Allotment Application,'' under OMB form number 
1004-0191. BLM will require individual Alaska Native veterans who apply 
for allotments under section 41 of ANCSA or, in the case of certain 
deceased veterans, the personal representatives of their estates to 
comply with the information collection requirement.
    Specific information to be collected is as follows:
    Name, address, date of birth, telephone number, dates of military 
service, branch of service, legal description of land for which veteran 
or representative is applying, dates of occupancy of land, description 
and value of improvements on land, and specific uses of land.
    BLM estimates the total number of respondents will be approximately 
1,100 and the burden on new respondents will be approximately 30,800 
hours. These estimates apply to the entire 18-month application period. 
For a 12-month period this works out to 732 applicants and 20,496 
hours. The estimate of the number of respondents is based on computer 
data from the Department of Veterans Affairs concerning Alaska Native 
veterans with at least one quarter Alaska Native blood who served in 
the U.S. military between January 1, 1969, and December 31, 1971. This 
data was further screened to identify those persons who meet the 6 
months' service requirement in section 41 of ANCSA. BLM derived the 
total estimated burden hours by multiplying the number of potential 
respondents by an estimate of the 28 hours required to complete the 
application form and obtain the other documentation required by the 
form. The majority of questions on the form require brief answers, many 
of them simply ``yes'' or ``no.'' Only two questions require narrative 
responses and in both cases responses are not required from all 
applicants.

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

    In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, 
``Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal 
Governments'' (59 FR 22951) and 512 DM 2 we consulted with tribes as 
follows:
    Section 41 of ANCSA, which authorizes Native allotments for certain 
veterans, specifically requires that the Department of the Interior 
promulgate these regulations ``after consultation with Alaska Natives 
groups.'' BLM has consulted with the Bureau of Indian Affairs 
throughout the process of this rulemaking and has held public meetings 
to discuss the rule with Native entities, including tribes. Native 
views were solicited very early in the rulemaking process and BLM has 
included all written comments received from tribes and other Native 
entities in the administrative record for this rule. BLM held 
additional meetings with Native groups before these regulations became 
final and considered tribal and other Native views in the final 
rulemaking. Accordingly:
    a. We have consulted with affected tribes.
    b. Consultations were open and candid so that the affected tribes 
could fully evaluate the potential impact of the rule on trust 
resources.
    c. We fully considered tribal views in the final rulemaking.
    d. We consulted with the appropriate bureaus and offices of the 
Department about the potential effects of this rule on tribes. We 
consulted with the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Division of Indian 
Affairs, Office of the Solicitor.

Author

    The principal author of this rule is Connie Van Horn, Division of 
Conveyance Management, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; 
assisted by Frank Bruno of BLM's Regulatory Affairs Group, Bureau of 
Land Management, Washington, DC.

List of Subjects in 43 CFR Part 2560

    Alaska, Homesteads, Indian Lands, Public Lands, Public Lands-Sale, 
and Reporting and Recordkeeping requirements, Alaska Native allotments 
for certain veterans.

    Dated: June 26, 2000.
Sylvia V. Baca,
Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals Management.

PART 2560--[AMENDED]

    Accordingly, BLM amends 43 CFR part 2560 as set forth below:
    1. The authority citation for part 2560 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq., as amended; Section 432 of 
Public Law 105-276; 34 Stat. 197, as amended; 42 Stat. 415; 70 Stat. 
954; 43 U.S.C. 270-1 through 270-3 (1970).

    2. Add subpart 2568 to read as follows:

Subpart 2568--Alaska Native Allotments for Certain Veterans

Purpose

Sec. 2568.10  What Alaska Native allotment benefits are available to 
certain Alaska Native veterans?

Regulatory Authority

Sec. 2568.20  What is the legal authority for these allotments?
Sec. 2568.21  Do other regulations directly apply to these 
regulations?

Definitions

Sec. 2568.30  What terms do I need to know to understand these 
regulations?

Information Collection

Sec. 2568.40  Does BLM have the authority to ask me for the 
information required in these regulations?

Who is Qualified for an Allotment

Sec. 2568.50  What qualifications do I need to be eligible for an 
allotment?

Personal Representatives

Sec. 2568.60  May the personal representatives of eligible deceased 
veterans apply on their behalf?
Sec. 2568.61  What are the requirements for a personal 
representative?

[[Page 40962]]

Sec. 2568.62  Under what circumstances does BLM accept the 
appointment of a personal representative?
Sec. 2568.63   Under what circumstances does BLM reject the 
appointment of a personal representative?
Sec. 2568.64   Are there different requirements for giving an 
allotment to the estate of a deceased veteran?

Applying for an Allotment

Sec. 2568.70   If I am qualified for an allotment, when can I apply?
Sec. 2568.71   Where do I file my application?
Sec. 2568.72   When does BLM consider my application to be filed too 
late?
Sec. 2568.73   Do I need to fill out a special application form?
Sec. 2568.74   What else must I file with my application?
Sec. 2568.75   Must I include a Certificate of Indian Blood as well 
as a Department of Defense verification of qualifying military 
service when I file my application with BLM?
Sec. 2568.76   Do I need to pay any fees when I file my application?
Sec. 2568.77   Do I have to post, on-the-ground, the land in my 
application?
Sec. 2568.78   Will my application segregate the land for which I am 
applying from other applications or land actions?
Sec. 2568.79   Are there any rules about the number and size of 
parcels?
Sec. 2568.80   Does the parcel have to be surveyed before I can 
receive title to it?
Sec. 2568.81   If BLM finds errors in my application, will BLM give 
me a chance to correct them?
Sec. 2568.82   If BLM decides that I have not submitted enough 
information to show qualifying use and occupancy, will it reject my 
application or give me a chance to submit more information?

Available Lands--General

Sec. 2568.90   If I qualify for an allotment, what land may BLM 
convey to me?
Sec. 2568.91   Is there land owned by the Federal government that 
BLM cannot convey to me even if I qualify?
Sec. 2568.92   Is there anything else I should consider if I apply 
for land that is selected by a Native corporation or by the State of 
Alaska?
Sec. 2568.93   Is there a limit to how much water frontage my 
allotment can include?
Sec. 2568.94   Can I receive an allotment of land that is valuable 
for minerals?
Sec. 2568.95   Will BLM try to reacquire land that has been conveyed 
out of Federal ownership so it can convey that land to a Native 
veteran?

Available Lands--Conservation System Units (CSU)

Sec. 2568.100   What is a CSU?
Sec. 2568.101   If the land I used and occupied is within a CSU 
other than a National Wilderness or any part of a National Forest, 
can I receive a title to it?
Sec. 2568.102   Is the process by which the managing agency decides 
whether my allotment is not inconsistent with the CSU the same as 
other such determination processes?
Sec. 2568.103   By what process does the managing agency of a CSU 
decide if my allotment would be consistent with the CSU?
Sec. 2568.104   How will a CSU manager determine if my allotment is 
consistent with the CSU?
Sec. 2568.105   In what situations could a CSU manager likely find 
an allotment to be consistent with the CSU?
Sec. 2568.106   In what situations could a CSU manager generally 
find an allotment to be inconsistent with the purposes of a CSU?

Alternative Allotments

Sec. 2568.110   If I qualify for Federal land in one of the 
categories BLM cannot convey, is there any other way for me to 
receive an allotment?
Sec. 2568.111   What if BLM decides that I qualify for land that is 
in the category of Federal land that BLM cannot convey?
Sec. 2568.112   What do I do if BLM notifies me that I am eligible 
to choose an alternative allotment?
Sec. 2568.113   Do I have to prove that I used and occupied the land 
I've chosen as an alternative allotment?
Sec. 2568.114   How do I apply for an alternative allotment if the 
CSU manager determines my application is inconsistent with a CSU?
Sec. 2568.115   When must I apply for an alternative allotment if 
the CSU manager determines my application is inconsistent with a 
CSU?

Appeals

Sec. 2568.120   What can I do if I disagree with any of the 
decisions that are made about my allotment application?
Sec. 2568.121   If an agency determines my allotment is inconsistent 
with the purposes of a CSU, what can I do if I disagree?
Sec. 2568.122   What then does the CSU manager do with my request 
for reconsideration?
Sec. 2568.123   Can I appeal the CSU Manager's reconsidered decision 
if I disagree with it?

Subpart 2568--Alaska Native Allotments For Certain Veterans

Purpose


Sec. 2568.10  What Alaska Native allotment benefits are available to 
certain Alaska Native veterans?

    Eligible Alaska Native veterans may receive an allotment of one or 
two parcels of Federal land in Alaska totaling no more than 160 acres.

Regulatory Authority


Sec. 2568.20  What is the legal authority for these allotments?

    (a) The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, 43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq. 
(ANCSA), as amended.
    (b) Section 432 of Public Law 105-276, the Appropriations Act for 
the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development 
for fiscal year 1999, which amended ANCSA by adding section 41.
    (c) The Native Allotment Act of 1906, 34 Stat. 197, as amended, 42 
Stat. 415 and 70 Stat. 954, 43 U.S.C. 270-1 through 270-3 (1970).


Sec. 2568.21  Do other regulations directly apply to these regulations?

    Yes. The regulations implementing the Native Allotment Act of 1906, 
43 CFR Subpart 2561, also apply to Alaska Native Veteran Allotments to 
the extent they are not inconsistent with section 41 of ANCSA or other 
provisions in this Subpart.

Definitions


Sec. 2568.30  What terms do I need to know to understand these 
regulations?

    Alaska Native is defined in the Native Allotment Act of 1906 as 
amended by the Act of August 2, 1956, 70 Stat. 954.
    Allotment has the same meaning as in 43 CFR 2561.0-5(b).
    Conservation System Unit has the same meaning as under Sec. 102(4) 
of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of December 2, 
1980, 16 U.S.C. 3102(4).
    Consistent and inconsistent mean compatible and incompatible, 
respectively, in accordance with the guidelines in these regulations in 
Secs. 2568.102 through 2568.106.
    Veteran has the same meaning as in 38 U.S.C. 101, paragraph 2.

Information Collection


Sec. 2568.40  Does BLM have the authority to ask me for the information 
required in these regulations?

    (a) Yes. The Office of Management and Budget has approved, under 44 
U.S.C. 3507, the information collection requirements contained in 
Subpart 2568 and has assigned them clearance number 1004-0191 for Form 
AK-2561-10. BLM uses this information to determine if using the public 
lands is appropriate. You must respond to obtain a benefit.
    (b) BLM estimates that the public reporting burden for this 
information is as follows: 28 hours per response to fill out form AK-
2561-10. These estimates include the time for reviewing instruction, 
searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data 
needed and completing the collection of information.
    (c) Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other 
aspect of this collection to the Information Collection Clearance 
Officer, Bureau of Land Management, 1849 C St. N.W., Mail Stop 401 LS, 
Washington, D.C. 20240.

[[Page 40963]]

Who Is Qualified for an Allotment


Sec. 2568.50  What qualifications do I need to be eligible for an 
allotment?

    To qualify for an allotment you must:
    (a) Have been eligible for an allotment under the Native Allotment 
Act as it was in effect before December 18, 1971; and
    (b) Establish that you used land in accordance with the regulation 
in effect before December 18, 1971, and that the land is still owned by 
the Federal government; and
    (c) Be a veteran who served at least six months between January 1, 
1969, and June 2, 1971, or enlisted or was drafted after June 2, 1971, 
but before December 3, 1971; and
    (d) Not have already received conveyance or approval of an 
allotment. (However, if you are otherwise qualified to receive an 
allotment under the Alaska Native Veterans Allotment Act, you will 
still qualify even if you received another allotment interest by 
inheritance, devise, gift, or purchase); and
    (e) Not have a Native allotment application pending on October 21, 
1998; and
    (f) Reside in the State of Alaska or, in the case of a deceased 
veteran, have been a resident of Alaska at the time of death.

Personal Representatives


Sec. 2568.60  May the personal representatives of eligible deceased 
veterans apply on their behalf?

    Yes. The personal representative may apply for an allotment, for 
the benefit of the deceased veteran's heirs, if, between January 1, 
1969, and December 31, 1971, the deceased veteran:
    (a) Was killed in action,
    (b) Was wounded in action and later died as a direct consequence of 
that wound, as determined and certified by the Department of Veterans 
Affairs, or
    (c) Died while a prisoner of war.


Sec. 2568.61  What are the requirements for a personal representative?

    The person filing the application must present proof of a current 
appointment as personal representative of the estate of the deceased 
veteran by the proper court, or proof that this appointment process has 
begun.


Sec. 2568.62  Under what circumstances does BLM accept the appointment 
of a personal representative?

    BLM will accept an appointment of personal representative made any 
time after an eligible person dies, even if that appointment came 
before enactment of the Alaska Native Veterans Allotment Act.


Sec. 2568.63  Under what circumstances does BLM reject the appointment 
of a personal representative?

    If the appointment process is incomplete at the time of allotment 
application filing, the prospective personal representative must file 
the proof of appointment with BLM within 18 months after the 
application filing deadline or BLM will reject the application.


Sec. 2568.64  Are there different requirements for giving an allotment 
to the estate of a deceased veteran?

    No, the estate of the deceased veteran eligible under Sec. 2568.60 
must meet the same requirements for a Native allotment as other living 
Alaska Native veterans. In addition, a deceased veteran must have been 
a resident of Alaska at the time of death.

Applying for an Allotment


Sec. 2568.70  If I am qualified for an allotment, when can I apply?

    If you are qualified, you can apply between July 31, 2000 and 
January 31, 2002.


Sec. 2568.71  Where do I file my application?

    You must file your application in person or by mail with the BLM 
Alaska State Office in Anchorage, Alaska.


Sec. 2568.72  When does BLM consider my application to be filed too 
late?

    BLM will consider applications to be filed too late if they are:
    (a) Submitted in person after the deadline in section 2568.70, or
    (b) Postmarked after the deadline in section 2568.70.


Sec. 2568.73  Do I need to fill out a special application form?

    Yes. You must complete form no. AK-2561-10, ``Alaska Native Veteran 
Allotment Application.''


Sec. 2568.74  What else must I file with my application?

    You must also file:
    (a) A Certificate of Indian Blood (CIB), which is a Bureau of 
Indian Affairs form,
    (b) A DD Form 214 ``Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active 
Duty'' or other documentation from the Department of Defense (DOD) to 
verify military service, as well as any information on cause of death 
supplied by the Department of Veterans Affairs,
    (c) A map at a scale of 1:63,360 or larger, sufficient to locate 
on-the-ground the land for which you are applying, and
    (d) A legal description of the land for which you are applying. If 
there is a discrepancy between the map and the legal description, the 
map will control. The map must be sufficient to allow BLM to locate the 
parcel on the ground. If there is a discrepancy between the map or 
legal description and the location of the parcel on the ground, the 
location as posted on the ground will control. You must also estimate 
the number of acres in each parcel.


Sec. 2568.75  Must I include a Certificate of Indian Blood as well as a 
Department of Defense verification of qualifying military service when 
I file my application with BLM?

    Yes.
    (a) If the CIB or DOD verification of qualifying military service 
is missing when you file the application, BLM will ask you to provide 
the information within the time specified in a notice. BLM will not 
process the application until you file the necessary documents but will 
consider the application as having been filed on time.
    (b) A personal representative filing on behalf of the estate of a 
deceased veteran must file the Department of Veterans Affairs 
verification of cause of death.


Sec. 2568.76  Do I need to pay any fees when I file my application?

    No. You do not need to pay a fee to file an application.


Sec. 2568.77  Do I have to post, on-the-ground, the land in my 
application?

    (a) Yes. Before you file your application you must post the land by 
marking all corners on the ground with your name and address.
    (b) On land within a CSU, you must get a free special use permit 
from the CSU manager before you erect any signs or markers. The CSU 
manager may establish in the permit a maximum size of any signs or 
markers. If the CSU manager later decides under section 2568.104 that 
your allotment is not consistent with the CSU, you must promptly remove 
the signs or markers unless the CSU manager waives this requirement in 
the special use permit.


Sec. 2568.78  Will my application segregate the land for which I am 
applying from other applications or land actions?

    The filing of an application with a sufficient description to 
identify the lands will segregate those lands. ``Segregation'' has the 
same meaning as in 43 CFR 2091.0-5(b).


Sec. 2568.79  Are there any rules about the number and size of parcels?

    Yes. You may apply for one or two parcels, but if you apply for two 
parcels the two combined cannot total more than 160 acres. You may 
apply for less than 160 acres. Each parcel must be reasonably compact.

[[Page 40964]]

Sec. 2568.80  Does the parcel have to be surveyed before I can receive 
title to it?

    Yes. The land in your application must be surveyed before BLM can 
convey it to you. BLM will survey your allotment at no charge to you, 
or you may obtain a private survey. BLM must approve the survey if it 
is done by a private surveyor.


Sec. 2568.81  If BLM finds errors in my application, will BLM give me a 
chance to correct them?

    Yes. If you file your application during the 18-month filing period 
and BLM finds correctable errors, it will consider the application as 
having been filed on time once you correct them. BLM will send you a 
notice advising you of any correctable errors and give you at least 60 
days to correct them. You must make corrections within the specified 
time or BLM will reject your application.


Sec. 2568.82  If BLM decides that I have not submitted enough 
information to show qualifying use and occupancy, will it reject my 
application or give me a chance to submit more information?

    (a) BLM will not reject your application without giving you an 
opportunity for a hearing to establish the facts of your use.
    (b) If BLM cannot determine from the information you submit that 
you met the use and occupancy requirements of the 1906 Act, it will 
send you a notice saying that you have not submitted enough evidence 
and will give you at least 60 days to file additional information.
    (c) If you do not submit additional evidence by the end of the time 
BLM gives you or if you submit additional evidence but BLM still cannot 
determine that you meet the use and occupancy requirements, the 
following process will occur:
    (1) BLM will issue a formal contest complaint telling you why it 
believes it should reject your application.
    (2) If you answer the complaint and tell BLM you want a hearing, 
BLM will ask an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) of the Interior 
Department, Office of Hearings and Appeals, to preside over a hearing 
to establish the facts of your use and occupancy.
    (3) The ALJ will evaluate all the written evidence and oral 
testimony and issue a decision.
    (4) You can appeal this decision to the Interior Board of Land 
Appeals according to 43 CFR Part 4.

Available Lands--General


Sec. 2568.90  If I qualify for an allotment, what land may BLM convey 
to me?

    You may receive title only to:
    (a) Land that:
    (1) Is currently owned by the Federal government,
    (2) Was vacant, unappropriated, and unreserved when you first began 
to use and occupy it,
    (3) Has not been continuously withdrawn since before your sixth 
birthday,
    (4) You started using before December 14, 1968, the date when 
Public Land Order 4582 withdrew all unreserved public lands in Alaska 
from all forms of appropriation and disposition under the public land 
laws, and
    (5) You prove by a preponderance of the evidence that you used and 
occupied in a substantially continuous and independent manner, at least 
potentially exclusive of others, for five or more years. This 
possession of the land must not be merely intermittent. ``Preponderance 
of evidence'' means evidence which is more convincing than the evidence 
offered in opposition to it; that is, evidence which as a whole shows 
that the fact you are trying to prove is more likely a fact than not.
    (b) Substitute land explained in 43 CFR 2568.110.


Sec. 2568.91  Is there land owned by the Federal government that BLM 
cannot convey to me even if I qualify?

    You cannot receive an allotment containing any of the following:
    (a) A regularly used and recognized campsite that is primarily used 
by someone other than yourself. The campsite area that you cannot 
receive is that which is actually used as a campsite.
    (b) Land presently selected by, but not conveyed to, the State of 
Alaska. The State may relinquish up to 160 acres of its selection to 
allow an eligible Native veteran to receive an allotment;
    (c) Land presently selected by, but not conveyed to, a Native 
corporation as defined in 43 U.S.C. 1602(m). A Native corporation may 
relinquish up to 160 acres of its selection to allow an eligible Native 
veteran to receive an allotment, as long as the remaining ANCSA 
selection comports with the appropriate selection rules in 43 CFR 2650. 
Any such relinquishment must not cause the corporation to become 
underselected. See 43 U.S.C. 1621(j)(2) for a definition of 
underselection;
    (d) Land designated as wilderness by statute;
    (e) Land acquired by the Federal government through gift, purchase, 
or exchange;
    (f) Land containing any development owned or controlled by a unit 
of government, or a person other than yourself;
    (g) Land withdrawn or reserved for national defense, other than the 
National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska;
    (h) National Forest land; or
    (i) Land selected or claimed, but not yet conveyed, under a public 
land law, including but not limited to the following:
    (1) Land within a recorded mining claim;
    (2) Home sites;
    (3) Trade and manufacturing sites;
    (4) Reindeer sites and headquarters sites;
    (5) Cemetery sites.


Sec. 2568.92  Is there anything else I should consider if I apply for 
land that is selected by a Native corporation or by the State of 
Alaska?

    You must realize that applying for land which cannot be conveyed 
because it has been selected by a Native corporation or by the State is 
very risky. If BLM does not receive and approve a relinquishment from a 
Native corporation or the State before the allotment application filing 
period ends, you cannot file an application for an allotment in a 
different location and you will not be eligible for an alternative 
allotment.


Sec. 2568.93  Is there a limit to how much water frontage my allotment 
can include?

    Yes, in some cases. You will normally be limited to a half-mile 
(referred to as 160 rods in the regulations at 43 CFR part 2094) along 
the shore of a navigable water body. If you apply for land that extends 
more than a half-mile, BLM will treat your application as a request to 
waive this limitation. As explained in 43 CFR 2094.2, BLM can waive the 
half-mile limitation if it determines the land is not needed for a 
harborage, wharf, or boat landing area, and that a waiver would not 
harm the public interest.


Sec. 2568.94  Can I receive an allotment of land that is valuable for 
minerals?

    BLM can convey an allotment that is known to be or believed to be 
valuable for coal, oil, or gas, but the ownership of these minerals 
remains with the Federal government. BLM cannot convey to you land 
valuable for other kinds of minerals such as gold, silver, sand or 
gravel. If BLM conveys an allotment that is valuable for coal, oil, or 
gas, the allottee owns all minerals in the land except those expressly 
reserved to the United States in the conveyance.


Sec. 2568.95  Will BLM try to reacquire land that has been conveyed out 
of Federal ownership so it can convey that land to a Native veteran?

    No. The Alaska Native Veterans Allotment Act does not give BLM the

[[Page 40965]]

authority to reacquire former Federal land in order to convey it to a 
Native veteran.

Available Lands--Conservation System Units (CSU)


Sec. 2568.100  What is a CSU?

    A CSU is an Alaska unit of the National Park System, National 
Wildlife Refuge System, National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, 
National Trails System, National Wilderness Preservation System, or a 
National Forest Monument.


Sec. 2568.101  If the land I used and occupied is within a CSU other 
than a National Wilderness or any part of a National Forest, can I 
receive a title to it?

    You may receive title if you qualify for that allotment and the 
managing agency of the CSU agrees that conveyance of that allotment is 
not inconsistent with the purposes of the CSU.


Sec. 2568.102  Is the process by which the managing agency decides 
whether my allotment is not inconsistent with the CSU the same as other 
such determination processes?

    No. This process is unique to this regulation. It should not be 
confused with any similar process under any other act, including the 
incompatibility process under the National Wildlife Refuge System 
Improvement Act of 1997.


Sec. 2568.103  By what process does the managing agency of a CSU decide 
if my allotment would be consistent with the CSU?

    (a) BLM conducts a field exam, with you or your representative, to 
check the boundaries of the land for which you are applying and to look 
for signs of use and occupancy. The CSU manager or a designated 
representative may also attend the field exam.
    (b) The CSU manager or representative assesses the resources to 
determine if the allotment would be consistent with CSU purposes at 
that location. You may submit any other information for the CSU manager 
to consider. You or your representative may also accompany the CSU 
representative on any field exam.
    (c) The CSU manager submits a written decision and resource 
assessment to BLM within 18 months of the BLM field exam. The CSU 
manager will send you a copy of the decision and a copy of the resource 
assessment.


Sec. 2568.104  How will a CSU manager determine if my allotment is 
consistent with the CSU?

    The CSU manager will decide this on a case-by-case basis by 
considering the law or withdrawal order which created the CSU. The law 
or withdrawal order explains the purposes for which the CSU was 
created. The manager would also consider the mission of the CSU 
managing agency as established in law and policy. The manager will also 
consider how the cumulative impacts of the various activities that 
could take place on the allotment might affect the CSU.


Sec. 2568.105  In what situations could a CSU manager likely find an 
allotment to be consistent with the CSU?

    An allotment could generally be consistent with the purposes of the 
CSU if:
    (a) The allotment for which you qualify is located near land that 
BLM has conveyed to a Native corporation under ANCSA, or,
    (b) A Native corporation has selected the land under ANCSA and has 
said it would relinquish such selection, as long as the remaining ANCSA 
selection comports with the appropriate selection rules in 43 CFR 2650. 
Any relinquishment must not cause the corporation to become 
underselected. See 43 U.S.C. 1621(j)(2) for a definition of 
underselection.


Sec. 2568.106  In what situations could a CSU manager generally find an 
allotment to be inconsistent with the purposes of a CSU?

    An allotment could generally be inconsistent in situations 
including, but not limited to, the following:
    (a) If, by itself or as part of a group of allotments, it could 
significantly interfere with biological, physical, cultural, scenic, 
recreational, natural quiet or subsistence values of the CSU.
    (b) If, by itself or as part of a group of allotments, it obstructs 
access by the public or managing agency to the resource values of 
surrounding CSU lands.
    (c) If, by itself or as part of a group of allotments, it could 
trigger development or future uses in an area that would adversely 
affect resource values of surrounding CSU lands.
    (d) If it is isolated from existing private properties and opens an 
area of a CSU to new access and uses that adversely affect resource 
values of the surrounding CSU lands.
    (e) If it interferes with the implementation of the CSU management 
plan.

Alternative Allotments


Sec. 2568.110  If I qualify for Federal land in one of the categories 
BLM cannot convey, is there any other way for me to receive an 
allotment?

    Yes. If you qualify for land in one of the categories listed in 
section 2568.91 which BLM cannot convey, you may choose an alternative 
allotment from the following types of land within the same ANCSA Region 
as the land for which you originally qualified:
    (a) Land within an original withdrawal under section 11(a)(1) of 
ANCSA for selection by a Village Corporation which was:
    (1) Not selected,
    (2) Selected and later relinquished, or
    (3) Selected and later rejected by BLM;
    (b) Land outside of, but touching a boundary of a Village 
withdrawal, not including land described in section 2568.91 or land 
within a National Park; or
    (c) Vacant, unappropriated, and unreserved land. (For purposes of 
this section, the term ``unreserved'' includes land withdrawn solely 
under the authority of section 17(d)(1) of ANCSA.)


Sec. 2568.111  What if BLM decides that I qualify for land that is in 
the category of Federal land that BLM cannot convey?

    BLM will notify you in writing that you are eligible to choose an 
alternative allotment from lands described in section 2568.110.


Sec. 2568.112  What do I do if BLM notifies me that I am eligible to 
choose an alternative allotment?

    You must file a request for an alternative allotment in the Alaska 
State Office as stated in section 2568.71 and follow all the 
requirements you did for your original allotment application.


Sec. 2568.113  Do I have to prove that I used and occupied the land 
I've chosen as an alternative allotment?

    No. If BLM cannot convey the allotment for which you originally 
apply, and you are eligible to choose an alternative allotment, you do 
not have to prove that you used and occupied the land in the 
alternative location.


Sec. 2568.114  How do I apply for an alternative allotment if the CSU 
manager determines my application is inconsistent with a CSU?

    You should contact the appropriate CSU manager as quickly as 
possible to discuss resource concerns, potential constraints, and 
impacts on existing management plans. After you do this you must file a 
request for an alternative allotment with the BLM Alaska State Office 
as stated in section 2568.71 and follow all the requirements of the 
original allotment application. If the alternative allotment land is 
also in the CSU, the CSU manager will evaluate it to determine if 
conveyance of an allotment there would be inconsistent with the CSU as 
well.

[[Page 40966]]

Sec. 2568.115  When must I apply for an alternative allotment if the 
CSU manager determines my application is inconsistent with a CSU?

    Your application for an alternative allotment must be filed:
    (a) Within 12 months of when you receive a decision from a CSU 
manager that says your original allotment is inconsistent with the 
purposes of the CSU or,
    (b) Within six months of when you receive a decision from the CSU 
manager on your request for reconsideration of the original decision 
affirming that your original allotment is inconsistent with the 
purposes of the CSU, or
    (c) Within three months of the date an appellate decision from the 
appropriate Federal official becomes final. This official will be 
either:
    (1) The Regional Director of the National Park Service (NPS),
    (2) The Regional Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
(USFWS), or
    (3) The BLM Alaska State Director

Appeals


Sec. 2568.120  What can I do if I disagree with any of the decisions 
that are made about my allotment application?

    You may appeal all decisions, except for CSU inconsistency 
decisions or determinations by the Department of Veterans Affairs, to 
the Interior Board of Land Appeals under 43 CFR Part 4.


Sec. 2568.121  If an agency determines my allotment is inconsistent 
with the purposes of a CSU, what can I do if I disagree?

    (a) You may request reconsideration of a CSU manager's decision by 
sending a signed request to that manager.
    (b) The request for reconsideration must be submitted in person or 
correctly addressed and postmarked to the CSU manager no later than 90 
calendar days of when you received the decision.
    (c) The request for reconsideration must include:
    (1) The BLM case file number of the application and parcel, and
    (2) Your reason(s) for filing the reconsideration, and any new 
pertinent information.


Sec. 2568.122  What then does the CSU manager do with my request for 
reconsideration?

    (a) The CSU manager will reconsider the original inconsistency 
decision and send you a written decision within 45 calendar days after 
he or she receives your request. The 45 days may be extended for a good 
reason in which case you would be notified of the extension in writing. 
The reconsideration decision will give the CSU Manager's reasons for 
this new decision and it will summarize the evidence that the CSU 
manager used.
    (b) The reconsideration decision will provide information on how to 
appeal if you disagree with it.


Sec. 2568.123  Can I appeal the CSU Manager's reconsidered decision if 
I disagree with it?

    (a) Yes. If you or your legal representative disagree with the 
decision you may appeal to the appropriate Federal official designated 
in the appeal information you receive with the decision. That official 
will be either the NPS Regional Director, the USFWS Regional Director, 
or the BLM Alaska State Director, depending on the CSU where your 
proposed allotment is located.
    (b) Your appeal must:
    (1) Be in writing,
    (2) Be submitted in person to the CSU manager or correctly 
addressed and postmarked no later than 45 calendar days of when you 
received the reconsidered decision.
    (3) State any legal or factual reason(s) why you believe the 
decision is wrong. You may include any additional evidence or arguments 
to support your appeal.
    (c) The CSU manager will send your appeal to the appropriate 
Federal official, which is either the NPS Regional Director, the USFWS 
Regional Director, or the BLM Alaska State Director.
    (d) You may present oral testimony to the appropriate Federal 
official to clarify issues raised in the written record.
    (e) The appropriate Federal official will send you his or her 
written decision within 45 calendar days of when he or she receives 
your appeal. The 45 days may be extended for good reason in which case 
you would be notified of the extension in writing.
    (f) The decision of the appropriate Federal official is the final 
administrative decision of the Department of the Interior.

[FR Doc. 00-16648 Filed 6-29-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-84-P