36 C.F.R. § 9.30

What is the purpose and scope of this subpart?

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

(a) The purpose of this subpart is to ensure that operators exercising non-federal oil and gas rights within a System unit outside of Alaska use technologically feasible, least damaging methods to:

(1) Protect federally owned or administered lands, waters, or resources of System units;

(2) Protect NPS visitor uses or experiences, or visitor or employee health and safety; and

(3) Protect park resources and values under the statute commonly known as the NPS Organic Act;

(b) This subpart applies to all operators conducting non-federal oil or gas operations on lands or waters within System units outside of Alaska, regardless of the ownership or legislative jurisdiction status of those lands or waters.

(c) We do not intend for this subpart to result in a taking of a property interest. Application of this subpart is intended to reasonably regulate operations within System units that may affect federally owned or administered lands, waters, and resources, visitor uses and experiences, and visitor and employee health and safety.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 1995–2017 · leading case: Sierra Club v. Mainella, 459 F. Supp. 2d 76 (D.D.C. 2012).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Sierra Club v. Mainella, 459 F. Supp. 2d 76 (D.D.C. 2012). “See 36 C.F.R. § 9.30 (a). Such rights arise most frequently where the land within a park unit is owned in fee by a private party, including the right to oil and gas, or, most relevant here, “[w]hen in a transfer of the surface estate to the United States, the grantor reserved…”

Dunn-McCampbell Royalty Interest, Inc. v. Nat'l Park Serv., 630 F.3d 431 (5th Cir. 2011). · cites it 2× “36 C.F.R. § 9.30 , et seq. Dunn-McCampbell challenged those regulations in 1994, but the district court dismissed its suit as barred by the statute of limitations.”

Dunn McCampbell Royalty Interest, Inc. v. Nat'l Park Serv., 964 F. Supp. 1125 (S.D. Tex. 1995). “” 36 C.F.R. § 9.30 (a). The Court finds no evidence the 9B Regulations were promulgated in the absence of statutory authority.”

Nat. Resources Def. Council v. Nat'l Park Serv., 250 F. Supp. 3d 1260 (M.D. Fla. 2017). “” 36 C.F.R. § 9.30 (a), They “are designed to insure that activities.”

Duncan Energy Co. v. United States Forest Serv., 50 F.3d 584 (8th Cir. 1995). “Duncan responds that Congress has not enacted and the Forest Service has not implemented by regulations the authority the Forest Service now attempts to invoke. In Duncan’s words, “[t]his dispute turns on what the law is, not what the law could be.”

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.