C.F.R. » Title 43 » CHAPTER II—BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR › SUBCHAPTER D—RANGE MANAGEMENT (4000) Group 4100—Grazing Administration › PART 4100—GRAZING ADMINISTRATION—EXCLUSIVE OF ALASKA › Subpart 4160—Administrative Remedies

43 C.F.R. § 4160.4

Appeals

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Any person whose interest is adversely affected who wishes to appeal or seek a stay of a final BLM grazing decision must follow the requirements set forth in § 4.472 of this title. The appeal and any petition for stay must be filed with the BLM office that issued the decision within 30 days after its receipt or within 30 days after the proposed decision becomes final as provided in § 4160.3(a).

(b) When OHA stays all or a portion of a BLM grazing decision that affects a grazing permit or lease, BLM will authorize grazing use as follows:

(1) When OHA stays implementation of all or part of a grazing decision that cancels or suspends a permit or lease, changes any term or condition of a permit or lease during its current term, or renews a permit or lease, BLM will continue to authorize grazing under the permit or lease, or the relevant term or condition thereof, that was in effect immediately before the decision was issued, subject to any relevant provisions of the stay order. This continued authorization will expire upon the resolution of the administrative appeal. Such continued authorization is not subject to protest or appeal.

(2) When OHA stays implementation of a grazing decision that issues or denies issuance of a permit or lease to a preference transferee, BLM will issue the preference applicant a permit or lease with terms and conditions that are the same as the terms and conditions of the most recent permit or lease applicable to the allotment or portion of the allotment in question, subject to any relevant provisions of the stay order. This temporary permit will expire upon the resolution of the administrative appeal. Issuance of the temporary permit is not a decision subject to protest or appeal.

(3) When OHA stays implementation of a grazing decision that issues a permit or lease to a preference transferee with terms and conditions different from terms and conditions of the most recent permit or lease applicable to the allotment or portion of the allotment in question, BLM will issue the preference applicant a permit or lease that, with respect to any stayed term or condition, is the same as the terms and conditions of the most recent permit or lease applicable to the allotment or portion of the allotment in question, subject to any relevant provisions of the stay order. This temporary permit will expire upon the resolution of the administrative appeal. Issuance of the temporary permit is not a decision subject to protest or appeal.

[71 FR 39508, July 12, 2006]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1980–2012 · leading case: Buckingham v. Sec'y of the U.S. Dep't of Agric., 603 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Buckingham v. Sec'y of the U.S. Dep't of Agric., 603 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2010). “Buckingham cites 43 C.F.R. §§ 4160.4 and 4.470 for the proposition that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) furnishes the exact type of evidentiary hearings in connection with grazing permit decisions that Buckingham contends the Forest Service should have provided him.”
Pub. Lands Council v. Babbitt, 154 F.3d 1160 (10th Cir. 1998). “” 43 C.F.R. § 4160.4 (1995). As such, any change in a privilege assigned through the permit process is safeguarded to the extent that parties aggrieved by the Secretary’s decisions have the right to challenge them.”
Pub. Lands Council v. Babbitt, 167 F.3d 1287 (10th Cir. 1999). “” 43 C.F.R. § 4160.4 (1995). As such, any change in a privilege assigned through the permit process is safeguarded to the extent that parties aggrieved by the Secretary’s decisions have the right to challenge them.”
Smithsfork Grazing Ass'n v. Salazar, 564 F.3d 1210 (10th Cir. 2009). “The Secretary has accomplished this by issuing regulations 43 C.F.R. § 4160.4 and 43 C.F.R. § 4.472 , which provide for a hearing on appeal”
W. Watersheds Proj. v. Salazar, 843 F. Supp. 2d 1105 (D. Idaho 2012). “Thus, Hahn compels the Court to reject the BLM’s argument that WWP failed to exhaust its administrative remedies because it failed to administratively appeal the decisions challenged here.”
Hinsdale Livestock Co. v. United States, 501 F. Supp. 773 (D. Mont. 1980). “Gerth, then gave each plaintiff, 30 days to appeal the final decision by filing such appeal in writing with the area manager pursuant to 43 C.F.R. 4160.4 and 4.470. 13. The time stated for appeal to all plaintiffs exceeded the date the area mana *776 ger set for the removal of…”
Buckingham v. Sec'y of Us Dept. of Agr., 603 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2010). “NOTES [1] Buckingham cites 43 C.F.R. §§ 4160.4 and 4.470 for the proposition that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) furnishes the exact type of evidentiary hearings in connection with grazing permit decisions that Buckingham contends the Forest Service should have provided him.”
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.