(a) Except where the law and regulations provide otherwise, all applications shall be accepted for filing. However, applications which are accepted for filing shall be rejected and cannot be held pending possible future availability of the lands or interests in lands, except those that apply to selections made by the State of Alaska under section 906(e) of the Alaska National Interest Land Conservation Act and selections made by Alaska Native Corporations under section 3(e) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, when approval of the application is prevented by:
(1) A withdrawal, reservation, classification, or management decision applicable to the lands;
(2) An allowed entry or selection of lands;
(3) A lease which grants the lessee exclusive use of the lands;
(4) Classifications existing under appropriate law:
(5) Segregation due to an application previously filed under appropriate law and regulations;
(6) Segregation resulting from a notice of realty action previously published in the Federal Register under appropriate regulations; and
(7) The fact that, for any reason, the lands have not been made subject to, restored or opened to operation of the public land laws, including the mineral laws.
(b) Lands may not be appropriated under the mining laws prior to the date and time of restoration and opening. Any such attempted appropriation, including attempted adverse possession under 30 U.S.C. 38, vests no rights against the United States. Actions required to establish a mining claim location and to initiate a right of possession are governed by State laws where those laws are not in conflict with Federal law. The Bureau of Land Management does not intervene in disputes between rival locators over possessory rights because Congress has provided for the resolution of these matters in local courts.
Notes of Decisions
Texas Oil & Gas Corp. v. Andrus, 498 F. Supp. 668 (D.D.C. 1980).
· cites it 4× “43 C.F.R. § 2091.1 (e) (1979). Seemingly in opposition to this viewpoint is a memorandum dated July 31,1978, from the Associate Solicitor of the Energy and Resource Division of the Department of the Interior to the Assistant Secretary of the Land and Water Resources Division…”
Pac. Legal Found. v. Watt, 529 F. Supp. 982 (D. Mont. 1982).
· cites it 3× “43 C.F.R. § 2091.1 (1980) provides that applications which are accepted for filing must be rejected and cannot be held pending possible future availability of the land or interests in land, when approval of the applications is prevented by: (a) Withdrawal .”
Andrus v. Idaho, 445 U.S. 715 (1980).
· cites it 2× “The Board also relied on a general regulation, 43 CFR § 2091.1 (a) (1974), providing in pertinent part that "applications which are accepted for filing must be rejected and cannot be held pending possible future availability of the land or interests in land, when approval of the…”
Rowe v. United States, 464 F. Supp. 1060 (D. Alaska 1979).
· cites it 2× “43 CFR 2091.1(b). (b) Even if ANCSA did not preclude lease issuance, this policy would be established in the exercise of the discretion in section 17 of the Mineral Leasing Act, 30 *1086 U.”
Arkla Expl. Co. v. Watt, 548 F. Supp. 466 (W.D. Ark. 1982).
· cites it 2× “The Secretary had argued that under 43 C.F.R. § 2091.1 , the public land laws came into effect only when he exercised his discretion whether to allow leasing of certain lands.”
Texas Oil & Gas Corp. v. Andrus, 498 F. Supp. 677 (D.D.C. 1980).
“The Court finds the Secretary’s invocation of 43 C.F.R. § 2091.1 and 43 C.F.R. § 3101.2-1 as the basis for rejection of all lease applications filed prior to September 21,1978, to be proper as within his authority and in accordance with the applicable statutes and regulations.”
Learned v. Watt, 528 F. Supp. 980 (D. Wyo. 1981).
“43 C.F.R. § 2091.1 (a) requires the Secretary or his agents to take prompt action on any lease applications submitted by offerors such as the plaintiffs in this action.”
— 43 C.F.R. § 2091.1(b) — 1 case
Rowe v. United States, 464 F. Supp. 1060 (D. Alaska 1979).
“43 CFR 2091.1(b). (b) Even if ANCSA did not preclude lease issuance, this policy would be established in the exercise of the discretion in section 17 of the Mineral Leasing Act, 30 *1086 U.”
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.