C.F.R. » Title 15 » CHAPTER IX—NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE › SUBCHAPTER B—OCEAN AND COASTAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT › PART 923—COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM REGULATIONS › Subpart D—Boundaries

15 C.F.R. § 923.33

Excluded lands

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

(a) The boundary of a State's coastal zone must exclude lands owned, leased, held in trust or whose use is otherwise by law subject solely to the discretion of the Federal Government, its officers or agents. To meet this requirement, the program must describe, list or map lands or types of lands owned, leased, held in trust or otherwise used solely by Federal agencies.

(b) The exclusion of Federal lands does not remove Federal agencies from the obligation of complying with the consistency provisions of section 307 of the Act when Federal actions on these excluded lands have spillover impacts that affect any land or water use or natural resource of the coastal zone within the purview of a state's management program. In excluding Federal lands from a State's coastal zone for the purposes of this Act, a State does not impair any rights or authorities that it may have over Federal lands that exist separate from this program.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1987–1995 · leading case: California Coastal Comm'n v. Granite Rock Co., 480 U.S. 572 (1987).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
California Coastal Comm'n v. Granite Rock Co., 480 U.S. 572 (1987). · cites it 2× “15 CFR § 923.33 (a) (1986). Granite Rock argues that the exclusion of "lands the use of which is by law subject solely to the discretion of or which is held in trust by the Federal Government, its officers or *590 agents" excludes all federally owned land from the CZMA…”
Narragansett Indian Tribe of Rhode Island v. Narragansett Elec. Co., 878 F. Supp. 349 (D.R.I. 1995). “15 C.F.R. § 923.33 . However, that reference falls far short of exempting tribal lands from the requirements of the CZMA or the management programs implementing it.”
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.