Impact Energy Resources, LLC v. Salazar, 693 F.3d 1239

Energy Companies bid on Utah oil and gas leases at a BLM auction; Salazar later withdrew 77 parcels from the sale.
The withdrawal was announced publicly on February 4, 2009, memorialized February 6, 2009, and implemented via February 12, 2009 letters to high bidders.
The Energy Companies filed suit May 13, 2009, challenging the Secretary’s authority to withdraw the leases.
The district court dismissed the suit as time-barred under the MLA’s 90-day limit for challenges to a Secretary’s decision, 30 U.S.C. § 226-2.
A panel majority held the MLA limit ran no later than February 6, with some concurrences asserting differing rationales on timing; the court also held equitable tolling did not apply.
The opinions discuss whether the MLA’s “final decision of the Secretary” should be read against the APA’s notion of “final agency action,” and whether tolling could excuse late filing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
When does the MLA clock begin?	Energy Companies contend accrual begins when APA final action occurs.	Secretary’s final decision occurred by February 6; MLA clock starts then.	The clock began by February 6; suit untimely.
Is the Secretary’s February 6 memo or February 12 letters the final action?	Energy Companies argue final action is the February 12 letters.	Final action occurred no later than February 6 under MLA.	Final decision occurred by February 6 for MLA purposes; February 12 letters confirm implementation, not the trigger.
Should equitable tolling apply given government delay or secrecy?	Equitable tolling should apply due to reliance on government positions.	No equitable tolling under the facts; defendants promptly notified; plaintiffs gambled on theory.	Equitable tolling denied.
Do APA notice provisions affect MLA timing?	Notice under APA could shift start date.	MLA timing is textually fixed at final Secretary decision, not notice.	MLA timing is not notice-based; notice does not alter accrual.

Irwin v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89 (1990) (strict construction of a limitations period as a condition on waiver)
Graham Cnty. Soil & Water Conservation Dist. v. United States ex rel. Wilson, 545 U.S. 409 (2005) (limits accrual-first approach; ambiguity governs start of limitations period)
Dodd v. United States, 545 U.S. 353 (2005) (unambiguous start date must be followed even if it yields harsh results)
Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (1997) (definition of final agency action under APA; consummation and rights/duties flow test)
Whitman v. American Trucking Ass’ns, 531 U.S. 457 (2001) (final action requires consummation of decision-making process; same meaning across statutes)
Mesa Airlines v. United States, 951 F.2d 1186 (1991) (final decision requires external issuance; release to interested parties marks finality)
Pfannenstiel v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, 477 F.3d 1155 (2007) (equitable tolling when government’s conduct prevented timely filing)
Turner v. Watt, 566 F.Supp. 87 (D. Utah 1983) (agency notice issues in tolling considerations)
S. Pac. Pipe Lines v. U.S. Dep’t of Transp., 796 F.2d 539 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (notice/issuance timing issues in finality determinations)
Carter/Mondale Presidential Comm. v. FEC, 711 F.2d 279 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (timeliness concepts in review contexts)