Brief for Fred a Seaton Secretary of the Interior in Opposition — McKenna v. Seaton

¢ eT Court, U.S.

ee FILED

‘Sep. 4. 1958

seit

Inthe gaan apes fe

Cree Tee, Feensth

0 id ¥ i at >

; ee atta x ‘ :* * 4 ; < Ao Pa

». Pagrick A. McKenna, PerrrioneR _ |

| << Ve jee ar ey . = ioe : os “ee

Fam A. Seirox, Sinner Or THE Tomo, AND |

., Joun €. PE Ja." eae:

> ;

x

. } 7% 2.

—

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED . ~;

STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF 0.

Lym CUCOIT 8 2 RA Es OS oe

BRIEF: FOR FRED A. SEATON, SECRETARY. ‘OF THE INTE.

* RIOR, IN OPPOSITION - |

™

7 * :

~~

7. LEE RANKER,

\ * Solicitor General,

| PERRY (W. MORTON,” .. ’

bi ‘ Asetstant Attorney aiieoal:”

: , ROGER P. MARQUIS; —_ \~

FRED W. SMITH, x os

Wow ttorneys,, Department of Justice,

Washiogton 2 25, D. C..

¥. . 2

> ‘

>

.

° 3

INDEX

; * Pace

Opinions below 1... 6... tee eee ene enes 1

ieeiaMiiae x. as co wc vsice cscs ot SOS Elen ee |

Question «presented ..... 0.65555. ROT, ee ee Ee 2

Statutes and regulations mvolved 2... ........- aes Ra 3

Statement ......4 I EL Nae OU ee ed aE 2

i ee i eon nn Maknks Seaes anes 7

Conclusion . 6... 6... eee ee eee ees bak ce haaies tyes - 12

| re eee eee e eee See. OO eee 13

; ' .

: }

CITATIONS +

Cases:

»

PI MEN DOG na REM SAG DANO ANSASrS SN SNR RSet He eee .

El Paso Brick Co. vo McKnight, 233 US. 250..... mets 9

Great Northern Ry. v. Sunburst; Co., 287 US. Gee. .«:.- 9

Hooper, S. J. OL L., LD. 346...2.. rer ee “Poepeeee a.

Hooper, 8. J. OVD. DL B50... eee eens 4,6,9

McKay v. i ahlenmaier, 226 F.2d 35...,........... eae 10

Panama Canal Co. v. Grace Line, Inc., 356 U.S. 309 .... 7

Riverside-Oil Co, v. Hitchcock, 190 US. 316... 0.60... 7

Seaton v. Teras Company,-et al., Nos. 13.636, 14,637

(cc a: D.C), decided May ROIMD8. 2... ..---. i eee 10

Service '¥. Dulles, 354. US. B08... 2.066660 react ... 1.11

Enited States v. Alebama Railroad Company, 142 US.

Mas eee ered os ek otek eR Oe Ne eae Peer ee Te TEE * 9

Warring v. Colpoys, 122 F:2d 642.......-2. 0-200 0b ee: 9

Williams v. United States, 138 U.S. 514 oo ae .10

Statutes. Regulations. and Rule:

Act of August 2, 1954, 68 Stat, a 30 USC. Supp. VY,

Sls GREP eee: | SPOw rrr rer rege re 3

“Mineral Leasing Act of ee 25, 1920, 41 Stat. 437,

- as nsgeye by the Act of Augus t 8. 1946. 60 Stat. 950,

30 USC. 18h, et seq. ; fare ended

Section 17 (230. U.S.C, 226)... -5.........6- reer yt 3,13

Section 27 (80 U.S.C. 184. 06. e cee ee eee eee 3,13

_

4 +

Accardi, United States ex rei. 7. Shaughne “8U. 347° US.

EE EEN OCC Aer Rel ee ee oe 10, 11

Barash v. Seaton, No. 14.069 (CLA.D.Co), decided April

II

Statutes, Regulations, and Rule—C iatiaiand ,

age

Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands é August 43

1947, 61 Stat. 913, 30 U0 Ss. 351- 359:

Section 3 (30 U.S.C. 352)....0:....... eee eae 2.13

Section 10 (90 U.S.C. BIB)... o2 coc ec te ec es cus 2,14

Circular 1624, 11 FR. 12958, 43 C.F.R., fo46 Supp.

~ et rca Wier Gere Pee eee es 3, 14

Circular 1668, 12 F.R. 8678, 43. C.F.R., 1949 ed.,

ii eG a ee tek he ee 3,8,.15

Cireular 1773, ) F. R. 8583, 43 C.F. R: sail Supp., :

OM. oa Vi aoe awe CE a ee eoae eS a 3,8, 14

Cireular 1886, 19 F.R. 7127, 43 C F. R. 200.51 ai. erry &

13 F.R. 9567, 43 C.F.R.. 1949 ed., 192.42(a)..... eae ara 3

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 56(¢)..... GN erate 1.1

b

| nthe Supreme Gourtof the Wnited States 2%.

~OcroBeR TERM, 1998 :

No, 203,

: | Parrick A. MCKENNA, PETITIONER

é ¢.

FRED .A. SEATON, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, AND >

Joun C. DEARMAS, Jk.

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARL TO THE UNITED

STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF CO.

LUMBIA CIRCUIT

sees pee

BRIEF FOR FRED A. SEATON, SECRETARY ‘OF THE INTE-

RIOR, IN OPPOSITION , ,

OPINIONS BELOW

he District Court did not write an opinion, The

Court of Appeals, not yet reported, are

OpPLLOUs of the

Is-

set out iu the appendix to the petition | Pet. App.

30). s-

JURISDICTION

The judgment of the Court of Appeals was entered

on Mareh 20, 1958. A petition for rehearing was denied

). 1958. The petition for a writ of certiorari

-on May $

The jurisdiction of this

was filed on August 5, 1998.

Court is invoked under 28-U.8.C. 154(1)..,

(1) 9

QUESTION PRESENTED ‘

Whether the Secretary of the Interior are arbi-

trartly in permitting pest- filing amendme nt of appli-

cations for oil ‘and gas leases, without loss of time

priority, seas to bring the application into accord

With the -Seeretary ‘own view of the pertinent regula-

tion, Where the application as originally tiled) con. ,

formed to the regulation as previously understood and

cnforced by the Bureau of Land Management.

STATUTES AND REGULATIONS INVOLVED

The statutes and regulations involved are set forth

in the Appendix? afra, pp. 13-1,

‘STATEMENT .

‘BTiis suit Was instituted to enjoin. the Secretary of

the Tnterior frome issuing sin oil and was lease of. ae-

quired lands of the United States to respondent De-

Armas, on to declare ang lease issued to be void, and to

compel the Secretary te issue a dease covering such

aequired lands te petitioner, Section 3 oof the Act oft.

August 7 1997, 61 Stat. O14 30 CUS.0. 351-359, known

ais the Mineral Leasing Net Yor Aecdired Lands, App.

mfra, yp. V8. authorized: the a To isstie leases.

on aequired lands (with exception not here matertal )

“ander the same conditions as cottained in the leasing

provisions of the mineral leasing Lrws." Seetion 10,

App. cdifra. Ta aathorized the Seeretary ta thake

necessary rules and regulations to carry out the pur-

peses of the Net. whieh mules and regulations shall be

the same as those preseribed under the mineral leasing

laws to the « Ntent ‘lat they are applicable.’ :

The mineral leasing laws thus made applicable to

acquired lands, and pertinent te this ease. are, Sections

17 and 27 of the Mineral Leasing Aet of February 25,

——- ,

”

7?

1920, as amended by the Act of August 146, GO Stat.

951, 954, 30 ULS.C. 226 and 184, App. infra, po 1.

“As of the time of passage of the Mineral Leasing Act

ror Aequired Lands, the publie lanes regulation pro-

rinigated by the Seeretary: te implement the aereace

“limitation of Section 27 of. the Mineral Leasing et,

8 CUFLR.. 1946 Supp. W2a2 Ce), App. vifra, po UA.

required applications to list the publie land Jeasehold

vnterests of the applicant in’ the same State with i

reference to their serial numbers, tn 148, the: regu-

lation was amended to require ‘ndditionally that) an

applicant affirmatively state that) he owned no mere

than the permitted ‘nerednwe. im RL. OaH7, 43 COB RG,

1949 ed. W420) 09). Ry oa further simendment of

the publie land regulation, effective Jantury 28. 1991,

the requirement that the heasehold interests of thie ape

pelieaunt he listed was eliminated, and the applicant Wits

reqnired foo tise a preseribed form. Whieh contained. a

S statement to the effeet that he did net own leases 1p

the same State covering more than the Statuterynant

mum of 15360 aeres.’ “5 FUR. S585, 43 CPR. Wot

Supp. W2A2C0), App. infra, pp. Velo.

~ The Gret acquired lands recuiatiens were issued on

December Lo, 1947, and the revulation relating te aue

therized acreage paralleled the publie lage regulation,

then in effect by requiring that an “ppliednt -list In

sesial number the government lease- he already held,

12 EUR. 860s. 45 CORR. 1949 ed, 2005. App. itr,

yi 15. When the Secretary as of January 28,1991. re

vised the public land regulation te eliminate the listing

>.

Vie udlowsable aegesce Wits) ier satel to 464 pSO trey the Net oa!

Viouet 2. 1854 GS Stat (48.30 Casco Supp. Vi Bs Thos 3

{ Sterind te this ease sites yt gw Tyeet cuit etyantieed thicat farsprant chett

Pe Nrnan~ beta less tha the POO cere Mia Nail

4 ,

of leases already held, ne corresponding change was

Inade in the aequired land regulation. However, as a

practical matter, the Bureau of Land Management,

after 2991, merely required of an applicant for a lease

on.stich lands the statement that thie applicant’ x hold-

ings did) net exeeed the statutory limit without listing

the leases so owned’ This was the situation when re-

<pondent DeArmas on April 2, 1951, tiled his original

application for a lease of 1,865.36 acres of aequired —

Iran in -touisiana. - That appleation contained only

“the statement that * Applieant!s interests, direct. or

indirect, in oiband gas leases‘or in applications for oil

md gas lewses, on any lands owned by the United

States, do not exceed 15.360 aeres of land in the State.

Peomisiana.”

i what is known as the tirst Hooper decision, 61 1D,

6, the Seere tary held in 1954 that the precise re quire-

thents of the acquired land régulatiog Were mandatory,

that, Hooper's applieation. (whieh was like DeArmnas’

application) was properly rejected beeause of failure to

dist his other interests, that such a defeet could he cured

Herat et without loose of priority, and that the lease must |

Ie awarded tea second applicant whe, subsequent’ te

I Teper 's application, had tiled an ap plication Which

listed) the applicant's cother interests, Thy second

hooper decision was issued on Qetober PS WAL OL T- 1),

SOO. This deeis lon recites that the Direetor, Bureau of

Land) Management, reqne sted recohsideration of the

Hirst Hooper decision. This iemorandiunm informed the.

See BOTUPY that asa natter of administrative practice.

and construction the Bureau had. sinee the revision of

the public land regulation te eliminate listing, effective

Aanmary 2S, 1991, eons sain red- that *revisien to Be like-

M.; ea coal this poltew ds fot f “ fact oon thie: second ol

the two Heoper dees ols hereafter discussed (61 1D. 30).

:

a

wise applicable to acquired lands, and that since

November 29, 1950, the date the public Land re ieulativn”

Was revised, rany acquired lands applications hal

heen tiled Without the detailed statements of the appl

eant’s other inte rests: required | by 45 4B RR, 200.9 (the

acquired lands regulations) tnd leases h: id heen issued

on the basis of saeh applications, ‘The Barreau ex

pressed the belief that, to deny priority to atl appltea-

tions which prior to the tirst Hooper decision failed to

lix<t other interests, would betta darsh result ii view —

of the administrative practice regarding this regula

tion. *- The Seeretary noted that when he decided the:

Ripe exse on Angust 3, 1954 he was netaware of the

Barean practice and, although he considered the prac-

tiee not legally justifiable” he held that: ;

fairness and equity would seem te require that an

applicant era lessee whe hes tiled an application

deficient in this respeet in relianee tpen the admin

istrative construetion shoald be giver time te etre

the defeet by supply ag the details required by the

reeulation without loss of priority. if all else is

reguiar. * * *

Furthermore, “in the cireumetances, in the interest of

administrative fairness,’ the Seeretary ruled that ‘Mr.

— and other similarly situated whe prior to Au

enst 31, 1924 tiled applications defective in the respect

ro ribed tu this decision will be allowe Ato and inelud-

ine December 1-14, te submit the stutement of other

interests required hy 1 CoF.R. BOOS without loss of

priority tothe ir apytic ations.” *

thie Secrpetarv. On November o.- Pat

Follay hte th, js odeadst is

ed ACR R 2005 hie seqpuiped: Fatids reguiation) te eliprartnate

tlie iistine asf ative pirte ts. reegulreh iu nt 1% I: ht 7127 43 a I I

ZOOS App cefras op I i . =

«ry

6

The facts in the instant case are similar to those in

the Hooper case, The present leaseholder, respondent

DeArmas, tiled his application for a lease. on the

acquired lands in 1951, without listing his specific

leaseholdings and their serial numbers, but did de-

‘clare that his holdings did net exceed the statutory

limit. The: tirst Hooper decision was announced on

August}, 1994. On August 17, 1954. ina patent attempt

to have the technical terms of thé first Hooper decision

forevlose fespondent DeArnias, Whose application had

been pending for more than three years, petitioner filed

his application: which listed his individual holdings.

On October 21, 1954, DeArmas filed a corrected appli-

cation listing his heldings. On October 28, 1954, the

second Hooper decision was issued, authorizing: such

correction Without loss of priority. Petitioner Me-

Kenna on January 24, 1955, tiled a protest against

DeArmas’ application which Was rejected hy both the

Bure aa of Land Management and by the Solicitor, act-

ing for the Seéretary; the DeArmas application was,

sustained on the basis ‘of the second” Hooper decision. -

A Tease wa issued to DeArmas on May 18, 1956. |

This suit was instituted on May 21, 1956, against the

Secretary of the Interior. Petitioner contended that

DeArmas Was not the first qualified applicant because

of the technical deticiéney’ in his original application,

alleged that the Secretary's action was illegal, and

prayed for a cor laratory judgment that the DeArmas

lease Is mer Respondent DeArmas was. allowed to

intervene, and he, the Secretary, and petitioner tiled

motions for summary judgment.

On Sua 20), 1947, the District Court sihered its”

judement denying. petitioner’ssmotion and granting the

nytions, of the Secretary and DeArmas for summary

>

—

.

7

"judgment. ‘On appeal, the’ judgment of. the Histriet

Court was attirmed, one judge, dissenting. The mia-

jority held that -the Sec retary’s deci inion was “an. en-

tirely fair, reasonable, and rational administrative ac-

tient: Tt didnot reach the further point urged by.

respondent: De Armas, with which the Secretary dis-

avreed, that the acquired land regulation was aute-

matically nullified when the public land regulation was

changed, | |

ARGUMENT ~°

The Secretary's resolut ion of the controversy bet ween,

petitioner and respondent DeArmas is clearly not sub-

jeet to mandamus since the matter he was called upon.

to decide unquestionably invelved an exe reise of that

judgment and discretion ¢ committed by © ongress to him

alone, “Neither an injunetion nor mandamus will le

against an officer of the Land De partinent. te control

him-in discharging. an official duty whieh requires the

exercise of his. judgment au discretion.” Riverside

Oil Co, *, Hitelecock, 190 ULS. O16. 2: ot. Cf. Panama

Canal Cov. Grace Line, iva BAG UES. B09, 318, where

mandamus Cas recognized as ‘ta remedy long restric ‘ted,

. > *** in the main, to situations where ministerial duties

ofa nondiscretionary nature are involved?" No such

case is: present’ here. The majority helow noted a

Jong line of decisions by this Court and other courts

- establishing that ‘‘the primary responsibility for the

solution of such questions as this, arising in the ad-

ministration of the land laws, is, with the/ Secretary:

‘of the Interior, whose decision will not. be superseded

lays the conrts exee pt under limited conditions.” The

ini re quirement justifving judicial repudiation:

of administrative action by the Secretary | was stated

3 e

— by the majerity to be ‘that he is plainly: wrong” ( Pet.

App. 23): ‘

It isapparent froma mere } reading of the Statement.

supra, that the Secretary's ac tien in allowing DeArmas

Caml others in his situation) a period in which to amend

his application without loss of priority cannot be saidto

he plainly wrong. Lndeed, while it is net required that

“the Secretary's determination of the matter be shown

‘te he tilaindy right. the helding of the majority that

“he was right, and well within his lawful authority,

in holding that DeA\rmaswas the first qualified appli-

iio rests not alone on regson but also on authority.

There is ne question but that DeArmas met eve ry

pelea auahfication for a lease. His application

met the practice and the fqcukations as interprted by the

Burean of Land Management at the time he filed in

April 1951, whieh practice and interpretation remained

the- official administrative practice and a

until it was changed by the ng snd in August 1954,

Jn the first Hooper decision” It would Ae unjust

ad inequitable to deprive DeArmas of his rights

sinc® his Application complied with an administrative

practice which, whether right or wrong, mevertheless

was the practice at-the time he filed. (As the Secretary

‘The Bureau's estlege ition Is understandeble. .As the majority

heow noted (Pet. App. 22). the aequired lands statute contemplated

povaliel procedures as nearly as possible, and a statement that the

appliennt did not hold other interests exeeedhig the statutory limit,

revured by the amended pubhe land reguiation (43 C.F.R. 192.42

fatto Was just fs effective to establish the statutory qualifieation a-

aodetoaled htm of other interests“as required by. the unchanged

eq tpred Einds re salation 43 CFR. 20050) would have been,

Henee, the Bureau obviously comsidered either that the acquired

land regulation no longer applied, or-that it had been impliedly

amended te contorm to the publie land regul: ation. And stub-

sequently. of course, the acquired lands regulation was so changed. *

9

pointed out in the second Hooper decision, in allowing

amendment without loss.of priority he was but following

a poliey already 4ixed in cases Where regulations were

amended. The courts, of course, have long held that a

change in constguction of a statute should be applied

only prospectively. Great Northern Ry. v. Sanburst

(o., 28T US. 358, 364; Warring Vv. Colpoys, V2 ee |

44. 645-647 (CLAD DLC.) | ef. United States Vv. Alabama

Railroad Company, 142 U.S. 615, 621.

“This case is not different in principle from kl Pas»

“Brick Conv. MeRuight, 255 US, 250, cited by the mit-

jority below (Pet. App. 24) and ignered by petitioner.

There, there was no question but that the Brick Com-

pany had qualified under the law fora patent to vovern-

ment land, but had furnished as part of its proof an

affidavit of posting not executed by an officer residing

in the land district as-required by the statute, Never-

theless, it was stated by this Court that sirregularities

in Complying with such directory provision could he

cured, and when cured, as it was, here, the patent should

have beew issued 233 US. at pp. 298-259). Likewise,

here There is no question -of DeArnnas being qualitied

under the statuté. The case here is even str ger since,

nntiPthe Secretary changed the practice in the Hooper

decision, there was actially a compliance with both the

watute and regulations under the prevailing adiinis-

trative practice at the time he tiled. :

“The petition is pitched entirely ond udge Prettyman’ —

dissenting opinion. Unquestionably his view is that

the reeulations must be followed, and that fi ne ease

maya departure from them he excused. Weagree that,

asa general proposition, regulations are mandatory,

but we do not agree that, where an applieant’s applies

tien complies with the reculations a= administratively

«

‘interpreted at the time he files, a subsequent change in

that) interpretation défeats. his rights. Contrary to

Midge Pirettyman’s vie w, the Sec ‘retary Is not hog-tied”

“by his regulations in cases such as this. «‘* It is obvious,

“it ds'common Anowleé ‘dre, that’ in the administration of

such large and varied interests as are intrusted>to the

Land Department, matters not .foreseen, equities not

anticipated, and whieh are the ‘refore not provided\, for

sby express Statute, maty sometimes arise, and, therefore,

that. the Secretary of the Interior is given that super-

Intending ard super Vising power which will enable him,

in the face of these unexpected contingencies, to do

justice. oS ne HMiams Vv. United States, 138 U.S; 514, 524.

Nor is there substance to pe titioner *s claim (Pet, 10-

15) that thedecisions of the.court below, in McKay v.

Wobhlenmater, 2206 F.2d-35: Seaton veo Teras Compant

‘ . ° 7?)

cteal., Nos. 13,636, 13,637, decided May 8,° 1958; and

Barash vy. Seaton, Now 14, 069, decided, April 25, 1958,

ind the decision here, show a conflict of views between

di ferentgfariels of the court below, The three decisions

just cited alb turn on their par ieular facts, “as does

the instant case, atid none of, those cases presented

it <ithiation such as ix presented here. a

Finally, there is no substance to petitioner's ¢ aim of

contiet (Pet, 15-16) between the decisions below and

this Court’. decisions in (oiited States er rel. Aceardi

V. Shaaghuessy, BAT US, 260, and Service v. Dulles, 354

Us. 363. The majerity epinion properly* held these

cisés distinguishable «Pet. App. 23). The cases are,

~ offcourse, tots Hy different from the instant case. The

essence of hoth is that achninistrative procedures re-

lating te drial of pe rsonal charges against individuals,

its preseribed hy regulations, cannot be sidestepped, |

vere judved, or ‘ignored, by the hes roof a Department.

>

é

11

Here there has been no denial to petitioner of any of

his administrative remedies, nor any prejudging of the

‘same. Petitioner’s sole complaimt is that he disagrees

with the Secretary's decision on the merits of the con-

troversy ae ‘tween petitioner and respondent. DeArmas,

which. as we have shown, was for the Secretary to devide,

e-and which, if is submitted, he decided correctly. Since

the Nérvice and’ Accardi cases related to procedural.

irregularities which could be cured by further action

undp r the correct procedures, they are irrelevant here

where the question is one of adjustment after the event

of the relative. right&ot contesting parties Where errors

have oecurred, and the result of the decision must be

that one claimant loses the property. right he sought.

2, Moreover, since the regulations. for acquired and

ublic lands have now been conformed, it is apparent

that their former applicability does not present a ques-

tion of importance for review by this Conrt. — |

3. The. lack of substance in petitioner *s claim (Pet.

16-17) that ghere was a genuine issue’ of material fact

which precluded summary judgment is indicated by the -

fact that neither the, majority nor dissenting opinions’

below took any note of it, Rule 56(c¢) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure (Pet. 5) requires that sume

mary judgment he rendered **if the pleadings, deposi-

. tions, and admissions on file. together with the affi-

davits, ifjany. show that there is no genuine issue as

‘to any material fact * ** 9) Both the Secretary and_

respondent DeArmas in their motions expressly alleged

that) no such ixsfae- existed. Counsel for respondents

twice Stipudated that petitione robe allowed to file an.

apeawer, but no answer. and thus no challenge of the

allegitions in the motioas, was ever filed by petitioner.

In, tead he tiled a similar motion for judgme ut in which

° 3

&-

t

°

®

~che stated that it appeared fron’ ‘the Hleaghargs and

the admissions of the @efendant and the intervenor.

[respondents Seaton and De Armas] in their respec tive

| metions for sunnnare Judge nt *** there is no geutiine

issue as to any material fact.” That is to say, ne such

@issues existed either as to responde hts” or pe titioner’s sy.

Mot lola,

* CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, it is respect fully submitted

that the petition for a writ.of certiorari should be de-

nied. |

: . 4, Lee RANKIN,

a Solicitor Gene ral.

Jerry: W. Morron,

Assistant Atforney General,

RoGer ?. MARQE ts, - ‘

FREY W. SMITH, ;

Atlorneys.

SEPTEM BER, 1998,

APPENDIX -- oe, ae

‘The pertinent, provision of Section 17 of the Mineral

Leasing Act of February 25, 1920, 41 Stat. cae, a.

amended, 60 Stat. 951, 30 U.S.C. 226, read as-follows:

*** When the lands to be leased are not within any

known geological structure of a producing oil or gas

— field, the person first makin application for the

lease who is qualified to hold, a lease under this

Act shall be. entitled to a lease of sueh lands

ee competitive bidding. * *.* ;

The pertinent provision “sh wy tion 27 of the above-

cited Aeto as amended, 30 U, _ PS4. reads:

-o persoh, assoc oe vn 4 corporation, CXC i

as herein prey ided, shall take or hold at one time

oil or gas leases eXceeding:in the aggregate tifteen

thousand three hundied and-sixty acres ari nted

herenmder in any one State; * * *

The pertinent provision of Section 3 of the Mineral

Leasing Act for Acquired Land’ of August 7 W947, 61

- Stat. 914, 30 ULSLO. 352, reads:

=

Except where lands: Shave heen. required lw

the United States for the development of the min-

eral deposits, hy forec ‘osure or otherwise for re-

sale. or reported:as surplus pursuant to the pro-

visions of the Surplus Property Net of Oetober 3,

1944 (50 ULS.C., see. 161) and the following), all

deposits.of coal, phosphate, oil, oil simate. gas.

dit. potassinm, and sulfur whieh are owned or

cmmay hereafter be acquived by the’ United States

‘and: whieh are within the: lands te: juired by thi

United States * * * may be leased by the Secretary

under the “sate conditions as contained in the

leasing provisions of the mineral leasing laws, sub- +

ject to the provisions hereof. ~ * o*

a 14

Séction 10 of the Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired

Lands, 30. U.S.C, 399, reads: | 2 ,

The Seeretary of, the ‘Interior is authorized to

* prescribe such rules and regulations as are neces-

sary and appropriate to carry out the purposes of

this Act, Which rules and regulations shall be

the same.as those preseribed under the mineral :

leasing luws to the extent that they are applicable.

‘The relevant public land regulations joe egneny

amder the Mineral Ledsing Act of February 2 , 1920,

41 Stat. 437, as amended, 30 U.S.C. 181, ¢¢ seq., are as

follows: me ,

Cireular 1624, 11 FAR. 12958, 43 (OFLR., 1946 Supp..

192,42 (¢), October 28, 1946.

R A922. Applications for noncompetitive leases.

* ' * ¥ * - *

— The application must contain in substance the

following:

* oar * ie *

‘ -

(v) A statement of the interests, direct and in-

direct, held by the applicaut in oil and gas leases,

and applications therefor on public lands in the +

same State, idertifving by serial number the ree-

ords Wherein stich interests may be fount,

aa -— se e-- ri %

Cireular 1773.15 FR. 8583, 43 CLPLR., 1954 Supp.

192.42(a), effective January 28, 1951 as

s-

6192.42. Offer to lease, and issuance of lease,

(a) To obtain a noncompetitive lease, an offer.te

accept such a lease must be made on. Form, 4-114 ro,

Offer and Lease Form, * * *. [ The form referred

to contained a statement to the effect that the

~

ais

applicant’s lease holdings did not exceed the statu-

tory limit of 15,360 acres in the: same State. |

The relevant regulations promulgated under the Min--

eral Leasing Act for Acquired: Lands, 61 Stat. 91.0

U.S.C. 391-399, are as follows: Ree

’ Cireular 1668, 12°F .R. S678, 4:5 BA OF oe LOAD ed.,

200,5(a), December 15, 1947 | ps

6 200.5. Supplemental information required WH,

leage or permit applications, and place for applica-

tion-filing. Inaddition to the information required —

Gy the appropriate regulations, referred to in-

6200.4, each application for a lease or permit ‘must«

contain (a) a separate statement of the applicant's

interests, direct and indirect, in leases or permits

for similar inineral deposits, or 1m applications”

therefor, on Federally-owned acquired lands in the

same State, identifying by serial number the ree-

ords where such interests may be fomna, * *:*.

Circular 1886, 19 F.R. 7127, 48 C.F. R. 200.500).(1),

November 3, 1954 °

6 200.5. Supplemental vi formation required in

offers and applications for leases and permits;

place of filing. (a) Each offer of application for’

a lease or perinit must contain (1) a statement that

applicant’s interest, direct or indirect, in leases,’

permits or applications, for similar minerals does

not exceed a maximum chargeable acreage permit-

ted to be held for that mineral in federally owned

acquired lands in the dame State, * * °.

ee VERNMERT PRINT oo FF f 74e acest