Department Hearings and Appeals Procedures; Special Rules Applicable to Surface Coal Mining Hearings and Appeals

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of Hearings and Appeals

43 CFR Part 4

RIN 1094-AA42

Department Hearings and Appeals Procedures; Special Rules

Applicable to Surface Coal Mining Hearings and Appeals

AGENCY: Office of Hearings and Appeals, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The final rulemaking amends regulations of the Office of

Hearings and Appeals (OHA) applicable to surface coal mining hearings

and appeals by adding procedural rules for administrative review of a

decision by the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement

(OSM) to suspend or rescind permits that should not have been issued,

and a decision by OSM in response to (a) a challenge, by an applicant

or other person shown in the Applicant Violator System, to a finding

that he or she is in an ownership or control link to any person or (b)

a challenge, by an applicant or other person shown in the Applicant

Violator System in an ownership or control link to any person cited in

a federal violation notice, to the status of the violation in the

notice. The final rulemaking provides for a hearing before an

administrative law judge and for discretionary review of the

administrative law judge's initial decision by the Interior Board of

Land Appeals (IBLA). In addition, existing 43 CFR 4.1105(a)(2) is

amended to include a reference to the rules added by this rulemaking.

EFFECTIVE DATE: These final regulations are effective on November 28,

1994.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Will A. Irwin, Administrative Judge,

Interior Board of Land Appeals, Office of Hearings and Appeals, U.S.

Department of the Interior, 4015 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia

22203 (Telephone 703-235-3750).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: OHA's proposed rulemaking was published in

the Federal Register on September 6, 1991 (56 FR 45806-11). Proposed 43

CFR 4.1370-4.1377 set forth new OHA procedures for reviewing OSM

decisions to suspend or rescind permits OSM finds were improvidently

issued under 30 CFR 773.20. Proposed 43 CFR 4.1380-4.1387 set forth new

OHA procedures for reviewing OSM decisions finding that a person is in

an ownership or control link to a person currently in violation of the

Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA) or other

applicable law. In addition, OHA proposed to amend the existing rule

that establishes OSM's burden of proof in individual civil penalty

proceedings, 43 CFR 3.1307(a).

Proposed 43 CFR 4.1370-4.1377 and 4.1380-4.1387 are based on

section 510(c) of SMCRA, 30 U.S.C. 1260(c) (1988). This section

requires an applicant for a surface coal mining and reclamation permit

to file with the permit application a schedule listing all notices of

violations of SMCRA and any law, rule, or regulation of the United

States, or of any department or agency in the United States pertaining

to air or water environmental protection incurred by the applicant in

connection with any surface coal mining operation during the three-year

period prior to the date of application. Where the schedule or other

information indicates that any surface coal mining operation owned or

controlled by the applicant is currently in violation of the Act or

other air or water environmental protection laws, the permit shall not

be issued until the applicant submits proof that such violation has

been corrected or is in the process of being corrected to the

satisfaction of the regulatory authority, department, or agency which

has jurisdiction over such violation.

In order to implement section 510(c), OSM has promulgated a rule

defining the words ``owned or controlled'' in that section, as well as

``owns or controls.'' 30 CFR 773.5. It has adopted a rule requiring

that an application for a permit include information about each person

who owns or controls the applicant, within the meaning of Sec. 773.5,

and about any surface coal mining operation owned or controlled by

either the applicant or any person who owns or controls the applicant.

30 CFR 778.13(c), (d). It has adopted a regulation concerning review of

applications for permits that provides: ``[b]ased on available

information * * *, the regulatory authority shall not issue the permit

if any surface coal mining and reclamation operation owned or

controlled by either the applicant or by any person who owns or

controls the applicant is currently in violation of the Act or any

other law, rule or regulation referred to in this paragraph.'' 30 CFR

773.15(b)(1). This is the so-called ``permit block,'' referring to the

language in section 510(c) that states ``the permit shall not be issued

until the applicant submits proof'' that a violation of a surface coal

mining operation owned or controlled by the applicant has been

corrected or is in the process of being corrected. OSM has also

established the Applicant/Violator System (AVS), a computerized system

to store data regarding violations and ownership and control links to

those violations. See Save Our Cumberland Mountains v. Lujan, 963 F.2d

1541, 1545-46 (D.C. Cir. 1992).

OHA's proposed rules were published on the same day as OSM proposed

related rules defining the AVS, requiring its use in reviewing permit

applications to determine whether there are any ownership or control

links between applicants and persons in violation, and proposing

procedures and standards for an applicant or other person shown in the

AVS to challenge ownership and control links shown in the AVS and the

status of the violation. 56 FR 45780-45804 (Sept. 6, 1991). OSM also

proposed to amend its existing rules governing suspension and

rescission of improvidently issued permits. OSM's proposed rules

provided a right to review of its decisions to suspend or rescind a

permit under the procedures set forth in OHA's proposed rulemaking of

sections 4.1370 through 4.1377. See proposed Sec. 773.20(c)(2), 56 FR

45799 (Sept. 6, 1991). OSM's proposed rules also provided a right to

review of its written decisions on challenges to ownership and control

links and the status of violations shown in the AVS under the

procedures set forth in OHA's proposed rulemaking of sections 4.1380

through 4.1387. See proposed 30 CFR 773.24(d)(2)(ii), 56 FR 45800

(Sept. 6, 1991).

OHA received comments on its proposed rules from Texas Utilities

Services, Inc. (TU Services), the Joint National Coal Association/

American Mining Congress Committee on Surface Mining Regulations (NCA/

AMC), and the National Wildlife Federation (NWF). The NCA/AMC comments

dealt with both OHA's and OSM's proposed rules.

Proposed Amendment of 43 CFR 4.1307(a)(3) Withdrawn

As part of its September 6, 1991, proposed rulemaking, OHA proposed

an amendment to 43 CFR 4.1307(a)(3) at 56 FR 45808 which set forth an

element of OSM's prima facie case in proceedings to review the

assessment of individual civil penalties. Proposed 43 CFR 4.1307(a)(3)

complemented proposed rules by OSM at 56 FR 48924, 48929-30 (Sept. 26,

1991) addressing individual civil penalties. Both TU Services' and NCA/

AMC's comments expressed reservations about the proposed amendment of

43 CFR 4.1307(a)(3). By a notice published in the Federal Register on

October 16, 1992, OSM withdrew its September 26, 1991, proposed

rulemaking. 57 FR 47431 (Oct. 16, 1992). Therefore, OHA hereby

withdraws the corresponding proposed amendment to 43 CFR 4.1307(a)(3).

Because this proposed rule concerning an element of OSM's prima facie

case in individual civil penalty proceedings is withdrawn, no response

to the comments concerning it is necessary.

As noted above, the NCA/AMC comments address both the proposed OSM

rules and the proposed OHA rules ``[b]ecause [their] comments on the

proposal by [OHA] are interrelated with [their] concerns about the OSM

proposal.'' NCA/AMC's comments that relate to the procedures for

administrative review are addressed here.

Procedural Due Process

NCA/AMC state that although the proposed rules ``purport to

establish a comprehensive scheme for administrative review of ownership

and control determinations emanating from the AVS, they fall far short

of providing the meaningful guarantees that the due process clause

requires.'' They fall short, NCA/AMC state, because the procedures do

not allow one to challenge the existence of the violation that forms

the basis for a permit block under section 510(c). Further, the

proposed rules do not provide ``any opportunity for challenging either

the status of the violation or the validity of the AVS link prior to

the deprivation of the operator's property interest through permit

denial, suspension, or revocation, unless the applicant is able to meet

the stringent requirements for seeking temporary relief'' contained in

proposed 43 CFR 4.1386 (emphasis in original). NCA/AMC state that the

``right to notice and a hearing prior to a governmental deprivation of

private property is a cornerstone of American jurisprudence, and is a

well-established principle in cases involving the constitutionality of

SMCRA provisions'' that the proposed rules fail to recognize. NCA/AMC

state that an appeal or challenge to AVS information ``must, of

necessity, include the right to a full and fair determination on the

merits of the violation in advance of any decision to prohibit mining

through the sanctions contained within section 510(c).'' Under the

balancing test announced in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976),

the proposed rules do not afford due process, NCA/AMC argue.

A fundamental requirement of the Fifth Amendment to the

Constitution of the United States that ``[n]o person shall * * * be

deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law'' is

the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful

manner. Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552 (1965). In Mathews v.

Eldridge, supra, the U.S. Supreme Court discussed ``the extent to which

due process requires an evidentiary hearing prior to the deprivation of

some type of property interest even if such a hearing is provided

thereafter.'' 424 U.S. at 333. The Court quoted Morrissey v. Brewer,

408 U.S. 471, 481 (1972), that ``due process is flexible and calls for

such procedural protections as the particular situation demands,'' and

then stated:

[O]ur prior decisions indicate that identification of the specific

dictates of due process generally requires consideration of three

distinct factors: First, the private interest that will be affected

by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation

of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable

value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards;

and finally, the Government's interest, including the function

involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the

additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail. See,

e.g., Goldberg v. Kelly. [397 U.S.] at 263-271.

Mathews v. Eldridge, supra at 334-35. In Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S.

254 (1970), the Supreme Court decided procedural due process requires

that a state grant an evidentiary hearing before suspending or

terminating welfare payments to an individual who meets the statutory

qualifications for receiving them. ``[T]he crucial factor in this

context,'' the Court observed, ``is that termination of aid pending

resolution of a controversy over eligibility may deprive an eligible

recipient of the very means by which to live while he waits.'' Id. at

264 (emphasis in original). ``[C]ountervailing governmental interests

in conserving fiscal and administrative resources * * * are not

overriding in the welfare context,'' the Court stated. Id. at 265-66.

``[H]owever, * * * the pre-termination hearing need not take the form

of a judicial or quasi-judicial trial,'' the Court commented. Id. at

266. A complete record and a comprehensive opinion are not necessary;

an opportunity for the welfare recipient to confront and cross-examine

witnesses relied on by the government, and to retain an attorney,

however, are necessary. Id. at 267-270. Also necessary is an impartial

decisionmaker, who must ``state the reasons for his determination and

indicate the evidence be relied on.'' Id. at 271.

OHA believes that, when analyzed under Mathews v. Eldridge, the

procedures proposed for OSM decisions and for OHA administrative review

of those decisions provide adequate due process protection of the

interests involved.

The proposed rules recognize a distinction between a person who

holds a permit that might be suspended or rescinded because OSM

determines it was improvidently issued (43 CFR 4.1370-4.1377) and a

person who has applied for a permit or might apply for one in the

future (43 CFR 4.1380-4.1387). A person who holds a permit is entitled

to more protection than the person who has applied for one or plans to

do so. In recognition of this distinction, OSM's final rule 30 CFR

773.20(b)(2) will provide, for a person who has a permit, that OSM will

determine whether a violation, penalty or fee existed when it was cited

and whether an ownership or control link between a permittee and the

person responsible for the violation existed, still exists, or has been

severed, before issuing a notice to suspend or rescind a permit. An

applicant for a permit, however, may challenge the existence of a

violation in a review proceeding under 43 CFR 4.1360-4.1369 after the

application has been denied, not before. An applicant (or any other

person shown in the AVS) may challenge an ownership or control link or

the status of a violation before a permit application is denied, or

even filed, under proposed 30 CFR 773.24, as discussed further below.

(The ``status of a violation'' concerns whether the violation remains

outstanding, has been or is in the process of being corrected, or is

the subject of an administrative or judicial appeal. The status of a

violation is distinct from ``the existence of a violation,'' i.e.,

whether the violation existed at the time it was cited.)

The ``private interest that will be affected,'' i.e., a permit, is

limited. A permit is issued for a five-year term (with a right of

renewal unless its terms or other requirements are not being met), 30

U.S.C. 1256(b), (d) (1988), and is conditioned on compliance with

several performance standards, 30 U.S.C. 1265(a) (1988). It may be

terminated, revised, reviewed, suspended, or revoked. 30 U.S.C.

1256(c), 1261(c), 1265(c), 1271(a)(4) (1988). Thus, while valuable, a

permit to conduct surface coal mining is not a private interest

comparable to the welfare benefits in Goldberg v. Kelly, supra, that

entitles the holder to an evidentiary hearing prior to suspension or

rescission. In Mathews v. Eldridge, supra at 343, the Supreme Court

held that termination of disability payments may be effected without a

pretermination evidentiary hearing. Similarly, suspension or rescission

of a surface coal mining permit does not require a prior hearing in

addition to the other procedural safeguards provided in the OSM and OHA

rules.

Those rules significantly reduce ``the risk of an erroneous

deprivation'' of a permit. If OSM finds a permit was improvidently

issued because at the time it was issued one or more of the

circumstances set forth in the review criteria in 30 CFR 773.20(b)(1)

existed, it does so in accordance with the standards for challenging

ownership or control links and the status of violations in proposed 30

CFR 773.26, 56 FR 45801-45803 (Sept. 6, 1991). See proposed 30 CFR

773.20(b)(2), 56 FR 45799 (Sept. 6, 1991). As mentioned above, these

standards will apply, under OSM's final rule 30 CFR 773.20(b)(2), to a

determination whether a violation, penalty, or fee existed at the time

it was cited, remains unabated or delinquent, has been or is in the

process of being corrected, or is the subject of an appeal, and whether

an ownership or control link between the permittee and the person

responsible for the violation, penalty, or fee existed, still exists,

or has been severed. OSM has a choice of four remedial measures if it

finds a permit was improvidently issued, including suspension or

rescission of the permit. 30 CFR 773.20(c); see proposed

Sec. 773.20(c)(1), 56 FR 45799 (Sept. 6, 1991). If it decides to

suspend, it will give the permittee 30 days written notice and inform

the permittee of its right to review under 43 CFR 4.1370 et seq. See

proposed 30 CFR 773.20(c)(2), 56 FR 45799 (Sept. 6, 1991). If it

decides to rescind, it will issue the permittee a notice of proposed

suspension and rescission under 30 CFR 773.21 that includes the reasons

for finding the permit was improvidently issued and will inform the

permittee of its right to review under 43 CFR 4.1370 et seq. See

proposed 30 CFR 773.20(c)(2), 56 FR 45799 (Sept. 6, 1991).

Under OHA's proposed rules 43 CFR 4.1370-4.1377, the permittee may

file a request for review with OHA that includes OSM's notice;

documentary proof or offers of proof concerning the Sec. 773.20(b)

review criteria (or their analogues in Sec. 773.21(a)(1)-(4)); other

relevant information; a request for specific relief; and a request for

an evidentiary hearing. Sec. 4.1372. The permittee may amend its

request for review once as a matter of right before OSM files a

response and may also do so afterwards with leave of the administrative

law judge. The administrative law judge is to convene the hearing

within 90 days of receiving responses to the request (unless the

parties waive this deadline); this gives the parties an opportunity to

conduct discovery under 43 CFR 4.1130-4.1141. Sec. 4.1373. The

administrative law judge must issue an initial decision within 30 days

of the date the hearing record is closed. Sec. 4.1375. OSM has the

burden of going forward to present a prima facie case in support of its

notice while the person requesting review has the ultimate burden of

persuasion that the notice is in error. Sec. 4.1374. Any party may file

a petition for discretionary review of the administrative law judge's

initial decision with IBLA. The petition shall attach a copy of this

decision and specify the alleged errors. Other parties have 30 days to

file responses, after which IBLA shall issue a decision within 60 days

denying the petition or granting it and deciding the merits.

Sec. 4.1377.

OSM's proposed rule provides that its decision to suspend or

rescind will remain in effect during the time a request for review is

pending in OHA unless temporary relief is granted in accordance with 43

CFR 4.1376. 30 CFR 773.20(c)(2), 56 FR 45799 (Sept. 6, 1991). Proposed

43 CFR 4.1376 provides that with a request for review--or at any time

before the administrative law judge issues the initial decision--any

party may petition for temporary relief from OSM's notice of suspension

or notice of proposed suspension and rescission. Under Sec. 4.1376, the

petition must show that the petitioner has a substantial likelihood of

prevailing on the merits and that the relief it seeks will not

adversely affect public health or safety or cause significant, imminent

environmental harm. Other parties have 5 days to file responses. The

administrative law judge must hold a hearing within 10 days of the

filing of the responses if a hearing has been requested and must issue

a decision granting or denying temporary relief within 5 days of the

date of the hearing, or the filing of the responses if no hearing is

held. If all parties have been notified of the petition and given an

opportunity to respond (and a hearing has been held if requested), the

administrative law judge may grant temporary relief if the petitioner

has demonstrated a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits

and the relief will not adversely affect public health or safety or

cause significant, imminent environmental harm. These standards are

based on those contained in 30 U.S.C. 1275(c) (1988). As noted in the

preamble to the proposed regulations, 56 FR at 45807 (Sept. 6, 1991),

the focus of the adverse effect inquiry would be on the permitted

operation rather than operation allegedly in violation. Any party may

appeal the administrative law judge's decision granting or denying

temporary relief to IBIA, which shall decide the appeal expeditiously,

or may seek judicial review.

OHA believes ``the probable value, if any, of additional or

substitute procedural safeguards''--in particular, an evidentiary

hearing before a decision to suspend or rescind is effective--is

minimal. As in Mathews, supra at 343-345, although the definition of

ownership and control in 30 CFR 773.5 includes elements or judgment

where witness credibility and veracity will sometimes play a role

(e.g., Secs. 773.5(a)(3), 773.5(b)(6)), the determination is usually

made on the basis of documents, such as instruments of ownership or

voting securities, or on the basis of readily and often publicly

documentable circumstances such as a person's status as an officer or

director of an entity, the permittee or operator of a surface coal

mining operation, or a general partner in a parternship (e.g.,

Secs. 773.5(a)(1)-(2), 773.5(b)(1)-(2), (4)-(5)). Further, a permittee

receives sufficient notice of OSM's decision to suspend a permit (30

days under proposed Sec. 773.20(c)(2)) or rescind a permit (up to 180

days under Sec. 773.21) to enable it to request review by an

administrative law judge before the decision becomes effective. The

provisions in Secs. 4.1370-4.1377 imposing short time frames for each

step of review significantly reduce delay due to ``the torpidity of

[the] administrative review process,'' Mathews, supra at 342,

especially if temporary relief is sought.

The ``Government's interest'' is to effectively implement section

510(c), specifically, to ensure that no person in violation of SMCRA or

the other specified environmental laws obtains or retains a permit to

conduct surface mining operations until the violation is corrected or

in the process of being corrected. The Department's goal of achieving

compliance with these laws would be significantly burdened if it were

required to provide an evidentiary hearing before OSM could decide to

suspend or rescind a permit because the person should not have received

the permit when it was issued. It was OSM's experience in 1992-93 that

providing informal review by OSM of the proposed entry into the AVS of

information concerning ownership or control links became very time-and-

personnel-consuming. For 105 cases in 1993, for example, OSM spent more

than 11,000 hours from after investigating an ownership or control link

to issuing its final decision, a mean of 105 hours per case. It would

be even more costly to require an evidentiary hearing before a permit

was suspended or rescinded; meanwhile, mining would continue while

alleged outstanding violations existed.

In sum, as the Supreme Court stated in Mathews, supra at 343,

``there is less reason here than in Goldberg to depart from the

ordinary principle, established by our decisions, that something less

than an evidentiary hearing is sufficient prior to adverse

administrative action.'' OHA believes the procedures for OSM

decisionmaking and OHA administrative review on the proposed rules

provide all the due process that is due before an improvidently issued

permit is suspended or rescinded.

As noted above, OSM's proposed rules also provide that an applicant

for a permit or any other person that is shown in the AVS as having an

ownership or control link to a person may challenge the link (unless

the applicant or other person is bound by an earlier administrative or

judicial decision concerning the link). See proposed 30 CFR

773.24(a)(1), 56 FR 45800 (Sept. 6, 1991). An applicant or any other

person shown in the AVS may also challenge the status of the violation

cited in a federal violation notice naming a person with whom the

applicant or other person is linked (unless bound by a decision

concerning the status of the violation). See proposed 30 CFR

773.24(a)(2), 56 FR 45800 (Sept. 6, 1991). The applicant or other

person may submit a written explanation and supporting evidence to OSM

concerning the existence of the link or the status of the violation.

See proposed Sec. 773.24(b), 56 FR 45800 (Sept. 6, 1991). Applying the

standards for challenging ownership and control links and the status of

violations contained in proposed Sec. 773.26, 56 FR 45801-03 (Sept. 6,

1991), OSM will either correct the information in the AVS, if the

applicant or other person shows the link is erroneous or the violation

is no longer outstanding, or, if this is not shown, OSM will so notify

the applicant or other person. See proposed Sec. 773.24(d), 56 FR 45800

(Sept. 6, 1991). In either event, OSM will issue a written decision and

serve it by certified mail. See proposed Secs. 773.24(d)(2)(i), 56 FR

45800-01 (Sept. 6, 1991). The applicant or other person has a right to

request review within 30 days of service of OSM's decision under the

procedures proposed by OHA in 43 CFR 4.1380-4.1387. OSM's decision

remains in effect pending a decision on review unless temporary relief

is granted under proposed Sec. 4.1386. See proposed

Sec. 773.24(d)(2)(ii), 56 FR 45801 (Sept. 6, 1991).

OHA's procedures in proposed 43 CFR 4.1380-4.1387 closely parallel

those in Secs. 4.1370-4.1377. Any person who receives a written OSM

decision concerning a challenge to the existence of a link or the

status of a violation may request review. Sec. 4.1381. The required

contents of the request are set forth in proposed Sec. 4.1382; the

request may be amended once as a matter of right before a response is

filed by OSM and with the leave of an administrative law judge

thereafter. Sec. 4.1382(c). The administrative law judge is to convene

a hearing within 90 days of receipt of the responses unless the parties

waive that deadline, and give notice at least 10 days in advance of the

hearing. Sec. 4.1383. OSM has the burden of going forward to present a

prima facie case in support of its decision, while the person

requesting review has the ultimate burden of persuasion that the

decision is in error. Sec. 4.1384. An initial decision is required

within 30 days after the record of the hearing is closed. Sec. 4.1385.

At any time before the initial decision is issued, any party may file a

petition for temporary relief from OSM's decision. Temporary relief may

be granted if all parties to the proceeding have been notified of the

petition, have had an opportunity to respond, and a hearing has been

held if requested; and if the petitioner has demonstrated that it has a

substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits and that temporary

relief will not adversely affect public health or safety or cause

significant, imminent environmental harm. Sec. 4.1386. Expedited review

by IBLA or judicial review of a decision granting or denying temporary

relief may be requested within 30 days of receipt of the decision.

Sec. 4.1386(h). If temporary relief is not requested, any party may

file a petiton for discretionary review of the administrative law

judge's initial decision within 30 days of receiving it. Sec. 4.1387.

The Board is to issue a decision denying the petition or granting it

and ruling on the merits within 60 days of the deadline for filing

responses to the petition section 4.1387(d).

The nature of a person's interest in an application for a permit

cannot be regarded as a ``legitimate claim of entitlement'' to a permit

and therefore requires less due process protection than the interest of

a person who holds a permit that is subject to suspension or rescission

because it was improvidently issued. See Board of Regents v. Roth, 408

U.S. 564, 569-71, 577 (1972). For a person who has applied for a permit

or may apply for one, due process does not require a hearing on the

existence of an ownership or control link or on the existence of a

violation when it was cited before OSM issues a decision under proposed

30 CFR 773.24. If the proposed procedures in Secs. 4.1370-4.1377 for

administrative review of notices of permit suspension or rescission

under proposed 30 CFR 773.20(c)(2) provide adequate due process

protection, as OHA believes, then the parallel procedures in proposed

Secs. 4.1380-4.1387 certainly satisfy due process requirements for

OSM's decisions regarding ownership and control links or the status of

a violation under proposed 30 CFR 773.24. In particular, an applicant's

opportunity to obtain temporary relief under 43 CFR 4.1386 from an OSM

decision provides sufficient due process at this stage. Further

administrative review is available to an applicant for a permit in an

appeal of the denial of the application under existing procedures in 43

CFR 4.1360 through 4.1369, when the existence of the violation may be

challenged. Providing an evidentiary hearing before OSM decisions under

proposed 30 CFR 773.24 would severely impede the Department's effective

implementation of section 510(c).

State Primacy

NCA/AMC argue that the proposed OSM and OHA regulations ``undermine

state primacy [under section 503 of SMCRA, 30 U.S.C. (1988)] entirely,

by preempting state permitting authority where the ownership and

control presumption is based on information contained within the AVS. *

* * Additionally, OSM and OHA propose to require that any appeals from

decisions on the ownership and control presumptions be made before the

OHA in accordance with the proposed OHA regulations at 43 CFR 4.1380. *

* * Moreover, OSM would create a completely federalized process for

administrative review of the AVS linkage.''

The regulatory authority in a state that has been delegated primacy

under section 503 will retain its authority to issue permits.

Information in the AVS is ``other information available to the

regulatory authority,'' within the meaning of section 510(c), that a

state regulatory authority must use in deciding whether or not issuance

of a permit should be blocked. The state regulatory authority's

decision is its own--subject, of course, to OSM oversight. See 30

U.S.C. 1202(g), 1211(c), 1253, 1254, 1255, and 1271.

An applicant or other person shown in the AVS in an ownership or

control link to any person cited in a state violation notice may

challenge the status of the violation in that notice under the state

program equivalents to proposed 30 CFR 773.24(b)-(d) and 773.26. See

proposed 30 CFR 773.24(a)(3), 56 FR 45800 (Sept. 6, 1991). Similarly,

decisions by a state regulatory authority to suspend or rescind a

permit are reviewed by the State program equivalent of proposed 43 CFR

4.1370-4.1377. See proposed 30 CFR 773.20(c)(2), 56 FR 45799 (Sept. 6,

1991). The fact that challenges to ownerships and control links and to

the status of violations are made to OSM by applicants or other persons

shown in the AVS under proposed 30 CFR 773.24(a)(1) and (a)(2), and

that OSM's decisions are reviewed under proposed 43 CFR 4.1380-4.1387,

is a function of OSM's maintenance of the data in AVS and its

responsibility to keep that data accurate and up-to-date. But OSM's

role in deciding on the accuracy of the data and OHA's role in

reviewing those decisions do not subvert the authority of the state

regulatory authority in a primacy state to make decisions on

applications for permits.

Burden of Proof

NCA/AMC object to OHA's proposed 43 CFR 4.1374(b) and 4.1384(b),

which place the ultimate burden of persuasion on a permittee that seeks

review of a notice of proposed suspension or rescission and on an

applicant or other persons that seeks review of an OSM decision on a

challenge to an ownership and control link or status of a violation

shown in the AVS. In proposed Secs. 4.1374(a) and 4.1384(a), OSM has

the burden of going forward to present a prima facie case of the

validity of the notice or decision. NCA/AMC state that when OSM seeks

to overturn a permit as improvidently issued, it should bear the

ultimate burden of proving its case. ``All permits, once issued, should

be accorded some presumption that they were issued in accordance and

compliance with applicable law. * * * [I]t is the party seeking to set

aside the permitting decision who should bear both the burden of going

forward to establish a prima facie case and the ultimate burden of

persuasion, ``NCA/AMC state.

Allocation of the burdens of proof in proposed 43 CFR 4.1374 and

4.1384 is consistent with other OHA regulations governing review of OSM

decisions. See 43 CFR 4.1171, 4.1193, 4.1366. OSM's burden of going

forward to support a prima facie case of the validity of its notice or

decision means it must present ``sufficient evidence * * * to establish

the essential facts * * * which evidence will remain sufficient if not

contradicted. It is evidence that will justify but not compel a finding

in favor of the one presenting it.'' James Moore, 1 IBSMA 216, 223 n.7,

86 I.D. 369, 373 n.7 (1979). It is the permittee, applicant, or other

person shown in the AVS who will have access to information that would

overcome OSM's prima facie case. Harry Smith Construction Co. v. OSM,

78 IBLA 27, 31 (1983). Under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.

556(d) (1988), OSM properly bears only the burden of going forward with

proof, not the ultimate burden of persuasion. Environmental Defense

Fund, Inc. v. Environmental Protection Agency, 548 F.2d 998, 1012-13

(D.C. Cir. 1976).

Right of Appeals From OSM Decisions for Adversely Affected Persons;

Notice of Appeals to Adversely Affected Persons

The NWF comments criticized proposed 43 CFR 4.1371 for its failure

to incorporate the rights of citizens to challenge decisions by OSM

regarding improvidently issued permits under 30 CFR 773.20. As

explained above, 30 CFR 773.20 provides that a permit has been

improvidently issued if, under the violations review criteria at the

time the permit was issued, the regulatory authority should not have

issued the permit. Proposed 43 CFR 4.1371 grants a right of review to a

``permittee that is served with a notice of suspension under 30 CFR

773.20(c)(2) or a notice of proposed suspension and rescission under 30

CFR 773.21.'' The rights of citizens to appeal similar decisions have

been completely overlooked, NWF states.

Similarly, NWF objects to proposed 43 CFR 4.1381, which authorizes

``[a]ny person who receives a written decision from OSM'' pursuant to

proposed 30 CFR 773.24(d)(2) or 773.25(c)(2) to file a request for

review of OSM's finding that such person is in an ownership or control

link to any person cited in a violation notice within the scope of 30

CFR 773.5 and 773.15(b). No provision for citizen-initiated appeals of

these decisions exists under the proposed rules, NWF states.

``Decisions by OSM not to act on the information provided by citizens,

or decisions to issue permits in the face of information that indicates

an ownership or control link to a violation, should be subject to

review by the Office of Hearings and Appeals,'' NWF comments.

NWF also criticizes lack of notice to affected citizens. Although

proposed 43 CFR 4.1372(b) provides to ``OSM and all interested

parties'' the right to file an answer to a request for review of a

decision to suspend or rescind a permit as improvidently issued and to

request an evidentiary hearing even if the person requesting review

does not, it is silent as to how interested parties other than OSM are

to know that a request for review has been filed, NWF states. Only

counsel for OSM would be served with a copy of a request for review

under 43 CFR 4.1109, NWF observes. Similarly, the rules proposed in 43

CFR 4.1380-4.1387 for review of OSM decisions concerning ownership and

control links provide ``no notice to citizens who may be substantially

and adversely affected by a reversal of a determination of ownership

and control linkage,'' NWF comments. Specific provisions for notice to

all affected persons of appeals of both kinds of OSM decisions should

be adopted, NWF urges.

OHA agrees that provisions for notice to citizens of appeals of OSM

decisions concerning permit suspension and rescission and concerning

ownership and control links and for rights of appeal of such OSM

decisions were not included in the proposed rules. Adding such

provisions to the final rules on the basis of NWF's comments, however,

without providing an opportunity for notice and comment, might be

regarded as inconsistent with the requirements of the Administrative

Procedure Act. See American Federation of Labor v. Donovan, 757 F.2d

330, 338-40 (D.C. Cir. 1985). After consultation with OSM, OHA may

propose rules concerning these issues in the future. Meanwhile, no

right of appeal by citizens from OSM decisions not to find an ownership

or control link is available under these rules. Citizens may of course

avail themselves of existing procedures, e.g., 30 CFR 773.13, 842.11,

842.12, 842.15, and 843.21, and petition for leave to intervene in

proceedings under Secs. 4.1370-4.1377 and 4.1380-4.1387 in accordance

with 43 CFR 4.1110.

Changes in the Final Rules From the Proposed Rules

OHA believes no revisions to proposed 43 CFR 4.1370-4.1377 and

4.1380-4.1387 are required in response to the comments. However, OHA

has made the following changes to the proposed rules to improve their

clarity and to remove references to section numbers of the rules

proposed by OSM:

1. 43 CFR 4.1373(a): The phrase ``If a hearing is requested'' has

been added at the beginning of the first sentence, and the remainder of

the sentence revised, to account for the possibility that a hearing

might not be requested.

2. 43 CFR 4.1373(b): ``of the date of the hearing'' has been added

at the end of the sentence to make clear that notice shall be given at

least 10 days in advance of the hearing.

3. 43 CFR 4.1375: An alternative deadline is provided for issuance

of an initial decision when no hearing is held.

4. 43 CFR 4.1380: The language concerning the kind of OSM decisions

from which a request for review may be filed has been revised to

replace references to 30 CFR 773.5 and 773.15(b) with a more general

description, i.e., decisions on challenges by an applicant or other

person shown in the AVS to an ownership or control link or the status

of a violation.

5. 43 CFR 4.1381(a): The specific references to proposed 30 CFR

773.24(d)(2) and 773.25(c)(2) and to 30 CFR 773.5 and 773.15(b) have

been replaced with language describing the kind of OSM decision from

which a request for review may be filed, i.e., a written decision by

OSM, in response to a challenge from an applicant or other person shown

in the AVS, on whether or not the ownership or control link has been

shown to be erroneous or has been rebutted and/or whether the violation

covered by the notice remains outstanding, has been corrected, or is

the subject of a good faith appeal.

6. 43 CFR 4.1383(a): The phrase ``If a hearing is requested'' has

been added at the beginning of the first sentence, and the remainder of

the sentence revised, to account for the possibility that a hearing

might not be requested.

7. 43 CFR 4.1383(b): ``of the date of the hearing'' has been added

at the end of the sentence to make clear that notice shall be given at

least 10 days in advance of the hearing.

8. 43 CFR 4.1385: An alternative deadline is provided for issuance

of an initial decision when no hearing is held.

In addition, in order to implement the Administrative Dispute

Resolution Act, OHA has added rules (Secs. 4.1371(c), 4.1381(c))

providing the parties an opportunity to employ alternatives means of

dispute resolution, as defined in 5 U.S.C. 571(3) (1988), before the

hearing and appeals procedures set forth in the following rules. Any

party could decline this opportunity, in its discretion, at any time.

Because no new obligations are imposed and this voluntary procedure

does not affect substantive rights, its adoption does not require

separate notice under the Administrative Procedure Act.

Determination of Effects

The Department has determined that these rules will not have a

significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.

Executive Order 12866

These rules were not subject to OMB review under Executive Order

12866.

National Environmental Policy Act

The Department has determined that these rules will not

significantly affect the quality of the human environment on the basis

of the categorical exclusion of regulations of a procedural nature set

forth in 516 DM 2, Appendix 1, section 1.10.

Paperwork Reduction Act

These rules contain no information collection requirement requiring

Office of Management and Budget approval under 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

Takings Implication Assessment

These rules do not pose any takings implications requiring

preparation of a Takings Implication Assessment under Executive Order

No. 12630 of March 18, 1988.

Drafting Information

The primary author of these regulations is Will A. Irwin,

Administrative Judge, Interior Board of Land Appeals, Office of

Hearings and Appeals, U.S. Department of the Interior.

List of Subjects in 43 CFR Part 4

Administrative practice and procedure, Mines, Public lands, Surface

mining.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, subpart L of part 4 of

title 43 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as set forth

below:

Dated: August 18, 1994.

Bonnie R. Cohen,

Assistant Secretary--Policy, Management and Budget.

43 CFR part 4 is amended as follows:

PART 4--[AMENDED]

Subpart L--Special Rules Applicable to Surface Coal Mining Hearings

and Appeals

1. The authority citation for part 4, subpart L, continues to read

as follows:

Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1256, 1260, 1261, 1264, 1268, 1271, 1272,

1275, 1293; 5 U.S.C. 301.

2. Section 4.1105 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(2)

introductory text to read:

Sec. 4.1105 Parties.

(a) * * *

(2) In a review proceeding under Secs. 4.1160 through 4.1171,

4.1180 through 4.1187, 4.1300 through 4.1309, 4.1350 through 4.1356,

4.1360 through 4.1369, 4.1370 through 4.1377, 4.1380 through 4.1387 or

4.1390 through 4.1394 of this part, OSM, as represented by the Office

of the Solicitor, Department of the Interior, and--

* * * * *

3. New Secs. 4.1370 through 4.1377 and a new undesignated heading

preceding them are added to read:

Review of Decisions of the Office of Surface Mining Suspending or

Rescinding Improvidently Issued Permits

Sec.

4.1370 Scope.

4.1371 Who may file, where to file, when to file.

4.1372 Contents of request for review, response to request,

amendment of request.

4.1373 Hearing.

4.1374 Burdens of proof.

4.1375 Time for initial decision.

4.1376 Petition for temporary relief from notice of suspension or

notice of proposed suspension and rescission; appeals from decisions

granting or denying temporary relief.

4.1377 Petition for discretionary review of initial decisions.

Review of Decisions of the Office of Surface Mining Suspending or

Rescinding Improvidently Issued Permits

Sec. 4.1370 Scope.

Sections 4.1370 through 4.1377 govern the procedures for review of

notices from OSM of suspension of improvidently issued permits issued

under 30 CFR 773.20(c) or of notices of proposed suspension and

rescission of improvidently issued permits issued under 30 CFR 773.21.

Sec. 4.1371 Who may file, where to file, when to file.

(a) A permittee that is served with a notice of suspension under 30

CFR 773.20(c)(2) or a notice of proposed suspension and rescission

under 30 CFR 773.21 may file a request for review with the Hearings

Division, Office of Hearings and Appeals, U.S. Department of the

Interior, 4015 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22203 (Telephone

703-235-3800) within 30 days of service of the notice.

(b) Failure to file a request for review within 30 days of service

of the notice shall constitute a waiver of review of the notice. An

untimely request for review shall be dismissed.

(c) Where appropriate under the Administrative Dispute Resolution

Act, 5 U.S.C. Secs. 571-583, the Hearings Division may use a dispute

resolution proceeding, if the parties agree to such proceeding, before

the procedures set forth in Secs. 4.1373 through 4.1377.

Sec. 4.1372 Contents of requests for review, response to request,

amendment of request.

(a) The request for review shall include:

(1) A copy of the notice of suspension or the notice of proposed

suspension and rescission;

(2) Documentary proof, or, where appropriate, offers of proof,

concerning the matters set forth in 30 CFR 773.20(b) or 773.21(a)(1)

through (4) showing that the person requesting review is entitled to

administrative relief;

(3) A statement whether the person requesting review wishes an

evidentiary hearing or waives the opportunity for such a hearing;

(4) A request for specific relief; and

(5) Any other relevant information.

(b) Within 20 days of service of the request for review by the

permittee in accordance with 43 CFR 4.1109, OSM and all interested

parties shall file an answer to the request for review or a motion in

response to the request or a statement that no answer or motion will be

filed. OSM or any interested party may request an evidentiary hearing

even if the person requesting review has waived the opportunity for

such a hearing.

(c) The permittee may amend the request for review once as a matter

of right before a response in accordance with paragraph (b) of this

section is required to be filed. After the period for filing such a

response, the permittee may file a motion for leave to amend the

request for review with the administrative law judge. If the

administrative law judge grants a motion for leave to amend, he shall

provide OSM and any other party that filed a response in accordance

with paragraph (b) not less than 10 days to file an amended response.

Sec. 4.1373 Hearing.

(a) If a hearing is requested, the administrative law judge shall

convene the hearing within 90 days of receipt of the responses under

Sec. 4.1372(a). The 90-day deadline for convening the hearing may be

waived for a definite time by the written agreement of all parties,

filed with the administrative law judge, or may be extended by the

administrative law judge, in response to a motion setting forth good

cause to do so, if no other party is prejudiced by the extension.

(b) The administrative law judge shall give notice of the hearing

at least 10 days in advance of the date of the hearing.

Sec. 4.1374 Burdens of proof.

(a) OSM shall have the burden of going forward to present a prima

facie case of the validity of the notice of suspension or the notice of

proposed suspension and rescission.

(b) The permittee shall have the ultimate burden of persuasion by a

preponderance of the evidence that the notice is invalid.

Sec. 4.1375 Time for initial decision.

The administrative law judge shall issue an initial decision within

30 days of the date the record of the hearing is closed, or, if no

hearing is held, within 30 days of the deadline for filing responses

under Sec. 4.1372(b).

Sec. 4.1376 Petition for temporary relief from notice of suspension or

notice of proposed suspension and rescission: appeals from decisions

granting or denying temporary relief.

(a) Any party may file a petition for temporary relief from the

notice of suspension or the notice of proposed suspension and

rescission in conjunction with the filing of the request for review or

at any time before an initial decision is issued by the administrative

law judge.

(b) The petition for temporary relief shall be filed with the

administrative law judge to whom the request for review has been

assigned. If none has been assigned, the petition shall be filed with

the Hearings Division, Office of Hearings and Appeals, U.S. Department

of the Interior, 4015 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22203

(Telephone 703-235-3800).

(c) The petition for temporary relief shall include:

(1) A statement of the specific relief requested;

(2) A detailed statement of why temporary relief should be granted,

including--

(i) A showing that there is a substantial likelihood that

petitioner will prevail on the merits, and

(ii) A showing that the relief sought will not adversely affect the

public health or safety or cause significant, imminent environmental

harm to land, air or water resources;

(3) A statement whether the petitioner requests an evidentiary

hearing.

(d) Any party may file a response to the petition no later than 5

days after it was served and may request a hearing even if the

petitioner has not done so.

(e) The administrative law judge may hold a hearing on any issue

raised by the petition within 10 days of the filing of responses to the

petition, and shall do so if a hearing is requested by any party.

(f) The administrative law judge shall issue an order or decision

granting or denying the petition for temporary relief within 5 days of

the date of a hearing on the petition or, if no hearing is held, of

service of the responses to the petition on all parties.

(g) The administrative law judge may only grant temporary relief

if:

(1) All parties to the proceeding have been notified of the

petition and have had an opportunity to respond and a hearing has been

held if requested;

(2) The petitioner has demonstrated a substantial likelihood of

prevailing on the merits; and

(3) Temporary relief will not adversely affect public health or

safety or cause significant, imminent harm to land, air or water

resources.

(h) Any party may file an appeal of an order or decision granting

or denying temporary relief with the Board within 30 days of receipt of

the order or decision or, in the alternative, may seek judicial review

within 30 days in accordance with section 526(a) of the Act, 30 U.S.C.

1276(a). If an appeal is filed with the Board, the Board shall issue an

expedited briefing schedule and shall decide the appeal expeditiously.

Sec. 4.1377 Petition for discretionary review of initial decision.

(a) Any party may file a petition for discretionary review of an

initial decision of an administrative law judge issued under

Sec. 4.1375 with the Board within 30 days of receipt of the decision.

An untimely petition shall be dismissed.

(b) The petition for discretionary review shall set forth

specifically the alleged errors in the initial decision, with

supporting argument, and shall attach a copy of the decision.

(c) Any party may file a response to the petition for discretionary

review within 30 days of its service.

(d) The Board shall issue a decision denying the petition or

granting the petition and deciding the merits within 60 days of the

deadline for filing responses.

4. New Secs. 4.1380 through 4.1387 and a new undesignated heading

preceding them are added to read:

Review of Office of Surface Mining Written Decisions Concerning

Ownership and Control

Sec.

4.1380 Scope.

4.1381 Who may file; when to file; where to file.

4.1382 Contents of request for review; response to request;

amendment of request.

4.1383 Hearing.

4.1384 Burdens of proof.

4.1385 Time for initial decision.

4.1386 Petition for temporary relief from decision; appeals from

decisions granting or denying relief.

4.1387 Petition for discretionary review of initial decisions.

Review of Office of Surface Mining Written Decisions Concerning

Ownership and Control

Sec. 4.1380 Scope.

Sections 4.1380 through 4.1387 govern the procedures for review of

written decisions of OSM on challenges by an applicant or other person

shown in the Applicant Violator System to an ownership or control link

or the status of a violation.

Sec. 4.1381 Who may file; when to file; where to file.

(a) An applicant or any other person shown in the Applicant

Violator System who receives a written decision by OSM, in response to

a challenge to an ownership or control link or the status of a

violation, on whether or not the ownership or control link has been

shown to be erroneous or has been rebutted and/or whether the violation

covered by a federal violation notice remains outstanding, has been

corrected, or is the subject of a good faith appeal may file a request

for review with the Hearings Division, Office of Hearings and Appeals,

U.S. Department of the Interior, 4015 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington,

Virginia 22203 (Telephone 703-235-3800) within 30 days of service of

the decision.

(b) Failure to file a request for review within 30 days of service

of the decision constitutes a waiver of review of the decision. An

untimely request for review shall be dismissed.

(c) Where appropriate under the Administrative Dispute Resolution

Act, 5 U.S.C. Secs. 571-583, the Hearings Division may use a dispute

resolution proceeding, if the parties agree to such proceeding, before

the procedures set forth in Secs. 4.1383 through 4.1387.

Sec. 4.1382 Contents of request for review; response to request;

amendment of request.

(a) The request for review shall include:

(1) A copy of the decision of OSM;

(2) A statement of the alleged errors in the decision and the facts

that entitle the person requesting review to administrative relief;

(3) A statement whether the person requesting review wishes an

evidentiary hearing or waives the opportunity for such a hearing;

(4) A request for specific relief; and

(5) Any other relevant information.

(b) Within 20 days of service of the request for review in

accordance with 43 CFR 4.1109, OSM and all interested parties shall

file an answer to the request for review or a motion in response to the

request or a statement that no answer or motion will be filed. OSM or

any interested party may request an evidentiary hearing even if the

person requesting review has waived the opportunity for a hearing.

(c) The person filing the request for review may amend it once as a

matter of right before the response in accordance with paragraph (b) of

this section is required to be filed. After the period for filing such

a response, the person may file a motion for leave to amend the request

with the administrative law judge. If the administrative law judge

grants a motion for leave to amend, he shall provide OSM and any other

party that filed a response in accordance with paragraph (b) not less

than 10 days to file an amended response.

Sec. 4.1383 Hearing.

(a) If a hearing is requested, the administrative law judge shall

convene the hearing within 90 days of receipt of responses under

Sec. 4.1382(b). The 90-day deadline for convening the hearing may be

waived for a definite time by the written agreement of all parties,

filed with the administrative law judge, or may be extended by the

administrative law judge, in response to a motion setting forth good

cause to do so, if no other party is prejudiced by the extension.

(b) The administrative law judge shall give notice of the hearing

at least 10 days in advance of the date of the hearing.

Sec. 4.1384 Burdens of proof.

(a) OSM shall have the burden of going forward to present a prima

facie case of the validity of the decision.

(b) The person filing the request for review shall have the

ultimate burden of persuasion by a preponderance of the evidence that

the decision is in error.

Sec. 4.1385 Time for initial decision.

The administrative law judge shall issue an initial decision within

30 days of the date the record of the hearing is closed, or, if no

hearing is held, within 30 days of the deadline for filing responses

under Sec. 4.1382(b).

Sec. 4.1386 Petition for temporary relief from decision; appeals from

decisions granting or denying temporary relief.

(a) Any party may file a petition for temporary relief from the

decision of OSM in conjunction with the filing of the request for

review or at any time before an initial decision is issued by the

administrative law judge.

(b) The petition for temporary relief shall be filed with the

administrative law judge to whom the request for review has been

assigned. If none has been assigned, the petition shall be filed with

the Hearings Division, Office of Hearings and Appeals, U.S. Department

of the Interior, 4015 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22203

(Telephone 703-235-3800).

(c) The petition for temporary relief shall include:

(1) A statement of the specific relief requested:

(2) A detailed statement of why temporary relief should be granted,

including:

(i) A showing that there is a substantial likelihood that

petitioner will prevail on the merits, and

(ii) A showing that granting the relief requested will not

adversely affect the public health or safety or cause significant,

imminent environmental harm to land, air or water resources;

(3) A statement whether the petitioner requests an evidentiary

hearing.

(d) Any party may file a response to the petition no later than 5

days after it was served and may request a hearing even if the

petitioner has not done so.

(e) The administrative law judge may hold a hearing on any issue

raised by the petition within 10 days of the filing of responses to the

petition, and shall do so if a hearing is requested by any party.

(f) The administrative law judge shall issue an order or decision

granting or denying the petition for temporary relief within 5 days of

the date of a hearing on the petition or, if no hearing is held, of

service of the responses to the petition on all parties.

(g) The administrative law judge may only grant temporary relief

if:

(1) All parties to the proceeding have been notified of the

petition and have had an opportunity to respond and a hearing has been

held if requested;

(2) The petitioner has demonstrated a substantial likelihood of

prevailing on the merits; and

(3) Temporary relief will not adversely affect public health or

safety or cause significant, imminent environmental harm to land, air

or water resources.

(h) Any party may file an appeal of an order or decision granting

or denying temporary relief with the Board within 30 days of receipt of

the order or decision or, in the alternative, may seek judicial review

within 30 days in accordance with section 526(a) of the Act, 30 U.S.C.

1276(a). If an appeal is filed with the Board, the Board shall issue an

expedited briefing schedule and shall decide the appeal expeditiously.

Sec. 4.1387 Petition for discretionary review of initial decisions.

(a) Any party may file a petition for discretionary review of an

initial decision of an administrative law judge issued under

Sec. 4.1385 with the Board within 30 days of receipt of the decision.

An untimely petition shall be dismissed.

(b) The petition for discretionary review shall set forth

specifically the alleged errors in the initial decision, with

supporting argument, and shall attach a copy of the decision.

(c) Any party may file a response to the petition for discretionary

review within 30 days of its service.

(d) The Board shall issue a decision denying the petition or

granting the petition and deciding the merits within 60 days of the

deadline for filing responses.

[FR Doc. 94-26553 Filed 10-27-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-79-M