admin-2
January 20, 2026
 
SUBMITTED VIA REGULATIONS.GOV (BLM-2025-0269)
 
U.S. Department of the Interior, Director (630) Bureau of Land Management
1849 C St. NW, Room 5646
Washington, D.C. 20240, Attention: 1004-AF43
 
Re: Comments on Direct Final Rule – Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Statewide Bonds; Extension of Phase-in Deadline
 
To Whom It May Concern:
 
Please accept these comments from the undersigned organizations on the direct ?inal rule (DFR), “Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Statewide Bonds; Extension of Phase-in Deadline,” issued by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) on December 18, 2025.
 
I. Use of a DFR is unjustified and violates the Administrative Procedure Act.
 
The use of a DFR in this context contravenes the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), ignores long-established procedures on notice-and-comment rulemaking, and undermines the role of public participation. As described below, the rescission is not based on a reasonable justification and could have serious unintended consequences.
 
Agencies may rely on the good cause exception to issue a DFR if notice-and-comment procedures would be “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.”15 U.S.C. § 553. BLM has neither met requirements for the good cause exception nor substantially complied with the notice-and-comment requirements of the APA.
 
BLM has not even attempted to invoke the good cause exception. The only justification BLM appears to offer is that it is delaying the requirement while the agency “pursu[es] a separate but related rulemaking in the coming months, which could significantly change the timeline for this requirement” and the “delay will provide operators with relief while the BLM pursues this change.”290 Fed. Reg. 59,069, 59,069 (Dec. 18, 2025). This explanation fails to show good cause excepting this rulemaking from traditional notice and comment. The Administrative Conference of the United States has clarified that “direct final rulemaking is a technique for expediting the issuance of noncontroversial rules.”3See Ronald M. Levin, Direct Final Rulemaking, 64 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1, 31 (1995) (prepared on behalf of the Administrative Conference of the United States). In other words, a DFR is only appropriate when it involves “a minor rule in which the public is not particularly interested.”4Congressional Research Service, The Good Cause Exception to Notice and Comment Rulemaking 7 n.54 (Aug. 27, 2025), available at https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R44356.
 
BLM’s DFR fails this test because it involves changes to important requirements that protect the environment and taxpayers from the growing impacts of aging and unproductive oil and gas wells. The public – and many others – have a well-documented interest in these requirements and have repeatedly called for BLM to strengthen federal oil and gas bonding requirements. In fact, 99 percent of the over 260,000 comments submitted on BLM’s 2024 oil and gas rule were supportive.5Id. Oil and gas companies have also encouraged BLM to focus its time and resources on implementing (rather than delaying) financial assurance requirements.6Hana Beach & Jimmy Tobias, The Oil Industry Wrote a Wishlist. Trump’s Interior Department is Delivering, Public Domain (July 31, 2025), available at https://www.publicdomain.media/p/oil-industry-wishlist-trump-interior-department. Notably, API did not recommend any changes to statewide bond minimums or phase-in periods. The DFR makes no effort to address the public’s longstanding interest in BLM’s bonding regime and makes no attempt to explain how the DFR qualifies for the APA’s “good cause” exception.

BLM has also not provided a sufficient statement of basis and purpose for this rule to substantively comply with the APA. Merely stating that the agency intends to extend these deadlines through a rulemaking at some point in the future does not provide adequate reasoning for delaying the deadline. Use of a DFR does not exempt the agency from adequately explaining its reasoning. BLM has failed to do so.

II. There is no rational basis for the DFR.

BLM has failed to provide any sort of rational basis for delaying compliance with the new statewide bonding requirements. BLM merely lists various executive orders that it claims authorize the DFR. However, none of those actions override the requirements of federal law, which require BLM to, at all times, “ensure that an adequate bond . . . will be established prior to the commencement of surface-disturbing activities on any lease, to ensure the complete and timely reclamation of the lease tract, and the restoration of any lands or surface waters adversely affected by lease operations after the abandonment or cessation of oil and gas operations on the lease.”730 U.S.C. § 226(g).

BLM has already determined, through the rulemaking process for the 2024 rule, that its former bond minimums were “no longer adequate to provide the requisite funding for reclamation when a lessee defaults on its obligations.”8Fluid Mineral Leases and Leases Process, 89 Fed. Reg. 30,916, 30,935 (Apr. 23, 2024). Complying with the new bonding minimums on the schedule set forth in the rule is critical to avoid imposing further obligations on taxpayers and endangering public lands values because “70% of statewide bonds are for the minimum regulatory amounts.”9BLM, Fluid Mineral Leases and Leasing Process – Final Rule: Regulatory Impact Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 41 (Apr. 2024) The DFR neither addresses these prior determinations nor points to any new information suggesting that bringing existing statewide bonds into compliance with the new minimums is not feasible or presents issues that were not foreseen during the prior rulemaking process.

Based on these significant adverse comments, BLM must withdraw the DFR before the effective date.10See Office of the Federal Register, A Guide to the Rulemaking Process, 9, https://uploads.federalregister.gov/uploads/2013/09/The-Rulemaking-Process.pdf; Squillace, supra at 29 (“If the agency receives signi􀏐icant adverse comments, it has two options. It can either withdraw the rule or publish a regular proposed rule that is open for public comment. In either case, the agency should promptly publish notice of its decision in the Federal Register so that the public knows whether the rule has gone into effect.”).

Sincerely,

Ben Tettlebaum
Acting Senior Legal Director The Wilderness Society

Frank Szollosi Executive Director
Montana Wildlife Federation

Aubrey Bertram
Staff Attorney, Federal Policy Director Wild Montana

Amy Mall
Director, Fossil Fuels, Nature NRDC

Matt Gaffney
Legal and Government Relations Director Wyoming Outdoor Council

Emily Thompson Executive Director
Coalition to Protect America’s National Parks

Sally Paez Staff Attorney
New Mexico Wild

Alison Gallensky
Conservation Geographer, Leadership Team Rocky Mountain Wild

  • 1
    5 U.S.C. § 553.
  • 2
    90 Fed. Reg. 59,069, 59,069 (Dec. 18, 2025).
  • 3
    See Ronald M. Levin, Direct Final Rulemaking, 64 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1, 31 (1995) (prepared on behalf of the Administrative Conference of the United States).
  • 4
    Congressional Research Service, The Good Cause Exception to Notice and Comment Rulemaking 7 n.54 (Aug. 27, 2025), available at https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R44356.
  • 5
    Id.
  • 6
    Hana Beach & Jimmy Tobias, The Oil Industry Wrote a Wishlist. Trump’s Interior Department is Delivering, Public Domain (July 31, 2025), available at https://www.publicdomain.media/p/oil-industry-wishlist-trump-interior-department. Notably, API did not recommend any changes to statewide bond minimums or phase-in periods.
  • 7
    30 U.S.C. § 226(g).
  • 8
    Fluid Mineral Leases and Leases Process, 89 Fed. Reg. 30,916, 30,935 (Apr. 23, 2024).
  • 9
    BLM, Fluid Mineral Leases and Leasing Process – Final Rule: Regulatory Impact Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 41 (Apr. 2024)
  • 10
    See Office of the Federal Register, A Guide to the Rulemaking Process, 9, https://uploads.federalregister.gov/uploads/2013/09/The-Rulemaking-Process.pdf; Squillace, supra at 29 (“If the agency receives signi􀏐icant adverse comments, it has two options. It can either withdraw the rule or publish a regular proposed rule that is open for public comment. In either case, the agency should promptly publish notice of its decision in the Federal Register so that the public knows whether the rule has gone into effect.”).