[House Report 119-88]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
119th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session } { 119-88
======================================================================
EXPEDITED APPEALS REVIEW ACT
_______
May 5, 2025.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Westerman, from the Committee on Natural Resources,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 677]
The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred
the bill (H.R. 677) to establish a process to expedite the
review of appeals of certain decisions by the Department of the
Interior, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon
with an amendment and recommends that the bill as amended do
pass.
The amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Expedited Appeals Review Act'' or the
``EARA''.
SEC. 2. EXPEDITED REVIEWS.
(a) Request for Expedited Review.--A party that files an appeal of a
Department of the Interior decision described under section 4.1(b)(2)
of title 43, Code of Federal Regulations (or any successor
regulations), with the Board of Land Appeals may submit to the Board of
Land Appeals written notice of such party's intent to seek expedited
review of the appeal. If a party submits such written notice, the Board
of Land Appeals shall issue a final decision on the appeal by not later
than the date that is 6 months after the date on which such written
notice is received, except such deadline may not be earlier than the
date that is 18 months after the date on which the appeal was initially
filed with the Board of Land Appeals.
(b) No Final Decision.--If the Board of Land Appeals does not issue a
final decision on an appeal by the deadline described in subsection
(a)--
(1) the Department of the Interior decision is deemed to be a
final agency action for purposes of section 704 of title 5,
United States Code; and
(2) notwithstanding section 706 of title 5, United States
Code, judicial review of such decision shall be de novo.
(c) Applicability.--This section shall apply to any appeal described
in subsection (a) that--
(1) is pending before the Board of Land Appeals as of the
date of enactment of this Act; or
(2) is filed with the Board of Land Appeals after the date of
enactment of this Act.
(d) Conflict.--In the event of a conflict between the deadline
described in subsection (a) and a deadline under section 115(h) of the
Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act of 1982 (30 U.S.C. 1724(h))
or section 525(b) of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of
1977 (30 U.S.C. 1275(b)), the deadline described in subsection (a)
shall control.
PURPOSE OF THE LEGISLATION
The purpose of H.R. 677 is to establish a process to
expedite the review of appeals of certain decisions by the
Department of the Interior.
BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION
H.R. 677, sponsored by Representative Hageman, would force
the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), Interior Board of
Land Appeals (IBLA) to issue final decisions within six months
upon request, ensuring that appeals are heard by DOI in a
timely manner.
The IBLA is an appellate review board within DOI that is
responsible for resolving disputes involving public lands and
natural resources under DOI's jurisdiction. Appeals involving
grazing, mining, energy development, royalty disbursement and
management, timber harvesting, wildfire management, land
exchanges, rights of way, and trespass are decided by the
IBLA.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\U.S. Department of the Interior, About the Interior Board of
Land Appeals, https://www.doi.gov/oha/about-interior-board-landappeals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The IBLA's lengthy examination process has resulted in over
650 backlogged appeals dating back to 2014.\2\ The IBLA's
deference to original bureau decisions is also significant.
According to the IBLA Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2023, the
IBLA ruled in favor of the respective bureaus roughly 90
percent of the time.\3\ Moreover, IBLA's decisions are based
upon bureau-curated administrative records with limited
opportunities for appellants to supplement or challenge the
record. These processes can disincentivize stakeholders from
pursuing appeals, as the outcome is often predictably aligned
with the agency's stance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\U.S. Department of the Interior, IBLA 2024 Pending Appeals,
https://www.doi.gov/sites/
default/files/documents/2025-03/february-2025-pending-appeals.pdf.
\3\U.S. Department of the Interior, IBLA Annual Report Fiscal Year
2023, https://www.doi.gov/media/document/ibla-annualreport-fiscal-
year2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 677, the ``Expedited Appeals Review Act,'' seeks to
mitigate these issues by creating a predictable alternative
path for appellants seeking expedited reviews. The bill allows
stakeholders to request an accelerated decision on their appeal
and forces IBLA to issue a decision within six months of such a
request. If this deadline is not met, the agency decision will
automatically become eligible for de novo judicial review
outside of DOI.
COMMITTEE ACTION
H.R. 677 was introduced on January 23, 2025, by
Representative Harriet Hageman (R-WY). The bill was referred to
the Committee on Natural Resources. On April 9, 2025, the
Committee on Natural Resources met to consider the bill.
Representative Harriet Hageman (R-WY) offered an Amendment in
the Nature of a Substitute designated Hageman_049 ANS. The
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute was agreed to by
unanimous consent. The bill, as amended, was ordered favorably
reported to the House of Representatives by unanimous consent.
HEARINGS
For the purposes of clause 3(c)(6) of House rule XIII, the
following hearing was used to develop or consider this measure:
hearing in the 118th Congress by the Subcommittee on Energy and
Mineral Resources held on November 19, 2024.
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
Section 1. Short title
Section 1 names the bill the ``Expedited Appeals Review
Act'' or the ``EARA''.
Section 2. Expedited reviews
Section 2 requires the IBLA to issue a final decision
within 6 months if a party submits a written notice of intent
to seek expedited review of an appeal. A party would not be
able to submit such a request unless the appeal is sitting at
DOI for over one year. If the IBLA does not issue a final
decision on an appeal by this deadline, the agency decision
automatically becomes eligible for de novo judicial review
outside of DOI.
COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
Committee on Natural Resources' oversight findings and
recommendations are reflected in the body of this report.
COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII AND
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET ACT
1. Cost of Legislation and the Congressional Budget Act.
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(2) of House rule XIII and section
308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, and pursuant to
clause 3(c)(3) of House rule XIII and section 402 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has requested
but not received from the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office a budgetary analysis and a cost estimate of this bill.
2. General Performance Goals and Objectives. As required by
clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the general performance goal or
objective of this bill is to establish a process to expedite
the review of appeals of certain decisions by DOI.
EARMARK STATEMENT
This bill does not contain any Congressional earmarks,
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined
under clause 9(e), 9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI of the Rules of
the House of Representatives.
UNFUNDED MANDATES REFORM ACT STATEMENT
An estimate of federal mandates prepared by the Director of
the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 423 of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act was not made available to the
Committee in time for the filing of this report. The Chair of
the Committee shall cause such estimate to be printed in the
Congressional Record upon its receipt by the Committee, if such
estimate is not publicly available on the Congressional Budget
Office website.
EXISTING PROGRAMS
Directed Rule Making. This bill does not contain any
directed rule makings.
Duplication of Existing Programs. This bill does not
establish or reauthorize a program of the federal government
known to be duplicative of another program. Such program was
not included in any report from the Government Accountability
Office to Congress pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139
or identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance published pursuant to the Federal Program
Information Act (Public Law 95-220, as amended by Public Law
98-169) as relating to other programs.
APPLICABILITY TO LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public
services or accommodations within the meaning of section
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act.
PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL OR TRIBAL LAW
Any preemptive effect of this bill over state, local, or
tribal law is intended to be consistent with the bill's
purposes and text and the Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the
U.S. Constitution.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
As ordered reported by the Committee on Natural Resources,
H.R. 677 would make no changes in existing law.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
H.R. 677, the Expedited Appeals Review Act, would create
timelines for the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA)
decisions and remove agency deference in subsequent District
Court appeals. Under this legislation, if the IBLA does not
decide on an appeal within 18 months of filing, the appellant
may request an expedited review. The IBLA would then have six
months to issue a final decision. If the IBLA does not issue a
final decision by the expedited review deadline, the appellant
would be able to appeal the case in a District Court. Judicial
review in a District Court would be de novo, meaning that the
District Court judge would not use the agency's administrative
record for the case but would newly compile the evidence and
establish the administrative record, effectively removing
judicial deference to agency decision-making.
The IBLA decides most appeals within two years, but some
can take longer to reach resolution. Some of that timeline is
out of the IBLA's control: many cases take months to become
``ripe'' or ready to review as the parties file documents, seek
extensions, or engage in settlement negotiations. However, some
cases linger for years: the oldest cases on the IBLA's active
docket at the end of FY23 were filed in FY17.
While Committee Democrats do agree that the length of IBLA
reviews is a problem and do not oppose passage of this
legislation, the bill does not address the underlying cause of
the IBLA's delays, which are primarily capacity-based. Adequate
funding for agency staff could be a more effective solution for
long review timelines. H.R. 677 would also create a fast-
tracked review procedure that could advantage wealthier
appellants. Taking a case to the District Court is time- and
resource-intensive, making this expedited process less
accessible to under-resourced communities coming to the IBLA
with an appeal.
Jared Huffman,
Ranking Member.
[all]