(a) Any person who participated in the planning process and has an interest which is or may be adversely affected by the approval or amendment of a resource management plan may protest such approval or amendment. A protest may raise only those issues which were submitted for the record during the planning process.
(1) The protest shall be in writing and shall be filed with the Director. The protest shall be filed within 30 days of the date the Environmental Protection Agency published the notice of receipt of the final environmental impact statement containing the plan or amendment in the Federal Register. For an amendment not requiring the preparation of an environmental impact statement, the protest shall be filed within 30 days of the publication of the notice of its effective date.
(2) The protest shall contain:
(i) The name, mailing address, telephone number and interest of the person filing the protest;
(ii) A statement of the issue or issues being protested;
(iii) A statement of the part or parts of the plan or amendment being protested;
(iv) A copy of all documents addressing the issue or issues that were submitted during the planning process by the protesting party or an indication of the date the issue or issues were discussed for the record; and
(v) A concise statement explaining why the State Director's decision is believed to be wrong.
(3) The Director shall promptly render a decision on the protest. The decision shall be in writing and shall set forth the reasons for the decision. The decision shall be sent to the protesting party by certified mail, return receipt requested.
(b) The decision of the Director shall be the final decision of the Department of the Interior.
[48 FR 20368, May 5, 1983, as amended at 81 FR 89661, Dec. 12, 2016; 82 FR 60555, Dec. 21, 2017]
Notes of Decisions
Mt Royal Jt. Vntr v. Kempthorne, Dirk, 477 F.3d 745 (D.C. Cir. 2007).
· cites it 2× “BLM informed the public that the draft Amendment/EA could be protested pursuant to 43 C.F.R. § 1610.5-2 8 and on June 14, 1995, Mount Royal did *752 just that, delaying the Amendment/EA’s implementation.”
Desert Prot. Council v. United States Dep't of the Interior, 927 F. Supp. 2d 949 (S.D. Cal. 2013).
“10 (a)(2); (OWEF 30966-69); (OWEF 30969) (text of 43 C.F.R. § 1610.5-2 .) Desert Protective Council *966 submitted comments on the FEIS during this period and it also submitted 48 pages of comments on the FEIS and final ABPP through its expert, Scott Cashen.”
Biodiversity Conservation All. v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 608 F.3d 709 (10th Cir. 2010).
“at 25-29; see 43 C.F.R. § 1610.5-2 (a). But because one group, the Wyoming Outdoor Council, protested the Bureau’s decision, it exhausted the administrative processes for all the groups.”
Backcountry Against Dumps v. Jim Abbott, 491 F. App'x 789 (9th Cir. 2012).
· cites it 3× “See 43 C.F.R. § 1610.5-2 (a)(1). Here, the final EIS for the proposed RMP was made available on December 7, 2007.”
Desert Prot. Soc'y v. Bernhardt (E.D. Cal. 2023).
· cites it 2× “43 C.F.R. § 1610.5-2 (a). The BLM 14 director is required to review and consider the comments and issue a decision on the 15 protest prior to issuing a Decision Record.”
Hall v. Abbey, 32 F. App'x 920 (9th Cir. 2002).
“See 43 C.F.R. § 1610.5-2 (a). Whether that is overly restrictive need not be mooted here because Hall was allowed to participate in any event.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.