40954 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 127 / Friday, June 30, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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repealed Native Allotment Act of 1906.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.

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

40956 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 127 / Friday, June 30, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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

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

40958 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 127 / Friday, June 30, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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)

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

40960 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 127 / Friday, June 30, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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

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

40962 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 127 / Friday, June 30, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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-theground, 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

§ 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

§ 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).

§ 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

§ 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

§§ 2568.102 through 2568.106.

Veteran has the same meaning as in

38 U.S.C. 101, paragraph 2.

Information Collection

§ 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.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 127 / Friday, June 30, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 40963

Who Is Qualified for an Allotment

§ 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

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 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 § 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

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 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.’’

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 2568.77 Do I have to post, on-theground, 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.

§ 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).

§ 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.

40964 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 127 / Friday, June 30, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 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

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 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 halfmile 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.

§ 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.

§ 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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 127 / Friday, June 30, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 40965

authority to reacquire former Federal

land in order to convey it to a Native

veteran.

Available Lands—Conservation System

Units (CSU)

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 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

§ 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.)

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 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.

40966 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 127 / Friday, June 30, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

§ 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

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 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