Apex Project, Nevada Land Transfer and Authorization Act of 1989
Section 2 · Sec. 2 ·
What this chapter is about
This part changes an older law from 1989 about land at Apex in Nevada. It adds two names to the list of words that law uses. It brings a city and a group of land owners in beside the county. It says some land stays held back with no end date. It sets a rule for selling sand, gravel, and rock. It ties land handovers to federal land laws.
The document says “is amended”Who acts: CongressHow: statuteSec. 2 in the PDF
What the document says
“The Apex Project, Nevada Land Transfer and Authorization Act of 1989 (Public Law 101-67; 103 Stat. 168) is amended--”
The whole of section 2 hangs off this one instruction. It names the statute it changes, the Apex Project, Nevada Land Transfer and Authorization Act of 1989 (Public Law 101-67; 103 Stat. 168), and six numbered amendments follow it. This Act does not state what that statute said before the changes.
What the document actually says
“The Apex Project, Nevada Land Transfer and Authorization Act of 1989 (Public Law 101-67; 103 Stat. 168) is amended--”
That sentence, in plain words
This part reaches back to a law from 1989. That law deals with land at Apex in Nevada. This part changes it.
What this is about
A new law can change a law that came before it. Here it makes six changes at once. Each one is set out below. This law does not say how the old one read before.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.
The document says “means”Who acts: CongressHow: statuteSec. 2 in the PDF
What the document says
“The term `Apex Industrial Park Owners Association' has the meaning given such term by the charter document for the entity entitled `Apex Industrial Park Owners Association', formed on April 9, 2001, and any successor documents to such charter document, on file with the Nevada Secretary of State.”
Inserted as paragraph (6) after paragraph (5) of section 2(b) of the 1989 Act. The definition does not set out terms of its own. It points instead to the charter document of the entity of that name formed on April 9, 2001, and to any successor documents to that charter, on file with the Nevada Secretary of State.
What the document actually says
“The term `Apex Industrial Park Owners Association' has the meaning given such term by the charter document for the entity entitled `Apex Industrial Park Owners Association', formed on April 9, 2001, and any successor documents to such charter document, on file with the Nevada Secretary of State.”
That sentence, in plain words
The name points to a group of land owners at Apex. Papers filed in Nevada say who that group is. Those papers date from April 9, 2001. Later papers count too.
What this is about
A charter is the paper that sets a group up. This one is on file with the state of Nevada. The law does not spell the terms out here. It points to those papers instead.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.
The document says “means”Who acts: CongressHow: statuteSec. 2 in the PDF
What the document says
“The term `City of North Las Vegas' means North Las Vegas, Nevada.”
Inserted as paragraph (7) of section 2(b) of the 1989 Act, alongside the definition above. It fixes the term to the city of North Las Vegas, Nevada, and says nothing more.
What the document actually says
“The term `City of North Las Vegas' means North Las Vegas, Nevada.”
That sentence, in plain words
The words City of North Las Vegas mean one city. That city is North Las Vegas in Nevada.
What this is about
A law often says what its own words mean. This line is one of those. The city now has a set name in the old law.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.
The document says “is amended”Who acts: CongressHow: statuteSec. 2 in the PDF
What the document says
“by striking "Clark County for the connection" and inserting "Clark County, the City of North Las Vegas, and the Apex Industrial Park Owners Association, individually or jointly as appropriate, for the connection"”
The first of three changes to section 3(b) of the 1989 Act. Where that subsection read Clark County for the connection, it now names Clark County, the City of North Las Vegas, and the Apex Industrial Park Owners Association, individually or jointly as appropriate. This Act does not state what the rest of section 3(b) provides.
What the document actually says
“by striking "Clark County for the connection" and inserting "Clark County, the City of North Las Vegas, and the Apex Industrial Park Owners Association, individually or jointly as appropriate, for the connection"”
That sentence, in plain words
The old words named just Clark County. The new words name the city and the owners group as well. They may act on their own or act together.
What this is about
This changes one line in the older law. That line has to do with a connection. This law does not say what the rest of the line asks for.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.
The document says “is amended”Who acts: CongressHow: statuteSec. 2 in the PDF
What the document says
“by striking "Kerr-McGee Site" and inserting "Kerr-McGee Site and other lands conveyed in accordance with this Act"”
The second of the three changes to section 3(b) of the 1989 Act. The words Kerr-McGee Site are replaced by Kerr-McGee Site and other lands conveyed in accordance with this Act, so the subsection reaches those other lands as well.
What the document actually says
“by striking "Kerr-McGee Site" and inserting "Kerr-McGee Site and other lands conveyed in accordance with this Act"”
That sentence, in plain words
The old words named one site. The new words add other land handed over under this law.
What this is about
The older law used the name of a single site. This change makes the line wider. It now takes in more land as well.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.
The document says “is amended”Who acts: SecretaryHow: statuteSec. 2 in the PDF
What the document says
“by inserting "(or any successor maps created by the Secretary)" after "May 1989"”
The third of the three changes to section 3(b) of the 1989 Act. The words or any successor maps created by the Secretary are inserted after the reference to May 1989. This Act does not state what the May 1989 reference is to.
What the document actually says
“by inserting "(or any successor maps created by the Secretary)" after "May 1989"”
That sentence, in plain words
New words go in after a date. They let later maps count too. The Secretary is the one who makes them.
What this is about
The older law points back to May 1989. Maps get drawn again as time goes on. This change lets a later map stand in.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.
The document says “shall”Who acts: SecretaryHow: statuteSec. 2 in the PDF
What the document says
“During such time as the requirements of section 6 are met, and pursuant to applicable law, the Secretary shall grant Clark County, the City of North Las Vegas, and the Apex Industrial Owners Association”
Everything in section 4(c) of the 1989 Act from the word Pursuant through the words Clark County is struck, and the words quoted here are inserted in place of it. Two conditions ride on the front of the new text: the requirements of section 6 have to be met during the time in question, and the grant is made pursuant to applicable law. This Act does not state what section 6 requires, and it does not state what section 4(c) provides after the words quoted here. The inserted text reads Apex Industrial Owners Association, while the definition inserted by paragraph (1) of this section reads Apex Industrial Park Owners Association.
What the document actually says
“During such time as the requirements of section 6 are met, and pursuant to applicable law, the Secretary shall grant Clark County, the City of North Las Vegas, and the Apex Industrial Owners Association”
That sentence, in plain words
Part 6 of the old law sets out some tests. While those tests are met, the Secretary has to make a grant. It goes to the county, the city, and the owners group.
What this is about
This swaps out the start of a line in the older law. The new words name three bodies, not one. This law does not say what part 6 asks for.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.
The document says “shall”Who acts: CongressHow: statuteSec. 2 in the PDF
What the document says
“The withdrawal made by this subsection shall continue in perpetuity for all lands transferred in accordance with this subsection.”
The last sentence of section 4(e)(1) of the 1989 Act is struck and this sentence is inserted in its place. It sets no end date: the withdrawal runs in perpetuity, and it runs to all lands transferred in accordance with the subsection. This Act does not state what the struck sentence said.
What the document actually says
“The withdrawal made by this subsection shall continue in perpetuity for all lands transferred in accordance with this subsection.”
That sentence, in plain words
The land is kept back from other uses. That holds for all the land moved under this rule. It has no end date.
What this is about
To withdraw land is to hold it out of other claims. The older law had a last line here. This new line takes its place.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.
The document says “shall”Who acts: CongressHow: statuteSec. 2 in the PDF
What the document says
“it shall be considered impracticable to obtain competition for purposes of section 3602.31(a)(2) of title 43, Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect on the date of the enactment of the Apex Area Technical Corrections Act)”
Added to section 4(e) of the 1989 Act as paragraph (3). The paragraph opens by naming what it covers: the sale of mineral materials resulting from grading, land balancing, or other activities on the surface of a parcel within the Apex Site for which the United States retains an interest in the minerals. For such a sale, subparagraph (A) fixes the answer to one question, whether competition is practicable, under section 3602.31(a)(2) of title 43, Code of Federal Regulations, as that regulation stood on the date this Act was enacted. This Act does not state what that regulation provides.
What the document actually says
“it shall be considered impracticable to obtain competition for purposes of section 3602.31(a)(2) of title 43, Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect on the date of the enactment of the Apex Area Technical Corrections Act)”
That sentence, in plain words
One rule in a book of federal rules asks if bidding can be had. For these sales the answer is set. It counts as a sale where bidding cannot be had.
What this is about
Grading and land work can turn up sand, gravel, or rock. This covers the sale of that. It covers land at Apex where the United States still owns what is under the ground. The rule named sits in title 43 of that book.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.
The document says “shall”Who acts: CongressHow: statuteSec. 2 in the PDF
What the document says
“such sale shall be exempt from the quantity and term limitations imposed on noncompetitive sales under subpart 3602 of such title”
Subparagraph (B) of the same new paragraph, and it runs to the same sales. Those sales are exempt from the quantity and term limitations that subpart 3602 of title 43, Code of Federal Regulations places on noncompetitive sales, again as that subpart stood on the date this Act was enacted. This Act does not state what those limitations are.
What the document actually says
“such sale shall be exempt from the quantity and term limitations imposed on noncompetitive sales under subpart 3602 of such title”
That sentence, in plain words
Some limits cap how much can be sold with no bidding. They cap how long the sale can run. This sale is free of both.
What this is about
Those limits sit in one part of the same book of rules. The law fixes them as they stood the day it passed. This law does not say what they are.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.
The document says “shall”Who acts: United StatesHow: statuteSec. 2 in the PDF
What the document says
“Each transfer by the United States of additional lands or interests in lands within the Apex Site or rights-of-way issued pursuant to this Act shall be conditioned upon compliance with applicable Federal land laws, including the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976.”
Added at the end of section 6 of the 1989 Act as subsection (d), under the heading Compliance With Environmental Assessments. It reaches two things: a transfer by the United States of additional lands or interests in lands within the Apex Site, and a right-of-way issued under that Act. Each is conditioned upon compliance with applicable Federal land laws, and two are named, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. This Act does not state what either of those laws requires.
What the document actually says
“Each transfer by the United States of additional lands or interests in lands within the Apex Site or rights-of-way issued pursuant to this Act shall be conditioned upon compliance with applicable Federal land laws, including the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976.”
That sentence, in plain words
More land at Apex may be handed over. A right to cross land may be given out. Each one has to follow federal land laws.
What this is about
Two of those laws are named by title. One dates from 1969. The other dates from 1976. This law does not say what either one asks for.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.
Each of the six amendments the section makes: the two terms added to the definitions, the three changes to section 3(b), the rewritten opening of section 4(c), the new sentence on withdrawal at section 4(e)(1), the new paragraph on sales of mineral materials at section 4(e), and the new subsection added at the end of section 6.
The redesignation of paragraph (6) of section 2(b) as paragraph (8). Renumbering a paragraph changes nothing anybody must do, so it is noted here rather than recorded as a proposal.
Every change this section makes is a change to an older statute, the Apex Project, Nevada Land Transfer and Authorization Act of 1989, and that statute is not indexed here. So the site does not record what section 2(b), section 3(b), section 4(c), section 4(e) or section 6 of that Act said before these changes, or how they read after them. The same holds for the regulations at subpart 3602 of title 43, Code of Federal Regulations, and for the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, all of which this section names without reproducing.
