Home/Federal/Federal Register/2025-19982

Rule2025-19982

Rescission of the Management and Protection of the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska Regulations, Issued May 7, 2024

Primary source

Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.

Published

November 17, 2025

Effective

December 17, 2025

Issuing agencies

Interior DepartmentLand Management Bureau

Abstract

Through this final rule, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) rescinds and replaces the "Management and Protection of the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska" final rule, issued on May 7, 2024, to restore regulatory clarity and align BLM's implementing regulations with statutory requirements and national energy policy.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 219 (Monday, November 17, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 219 (Monday, November 17, 2025)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51470-51500]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-19982]

[[Page 51469]]

Vol. 90

Monday,

No. 219

November 17, 2025

Part II

Department of the Interior

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Bureau of Land Management

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

43 CFR Part 2360

Rescission of the Management and Protection of the National Petroleum
Reserve in Alaska Regulations, Issued May 7, 2024; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 90 , No. 219 / Monday, November 17, 2025 /
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 51470]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

43 CFR Part 2360

[A2407-014-004-065516; #O2412-014-004-047181.1]
RIN 1004-AF02

Rescission of the Management and Protection of the National
Petroleum Reserve in Alaska Regulations, Issued May 7, 2024

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Through this final rule, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
rescinds and replaces the ``Management and Protection of the National
Petroleum Reserve in Alaska'' final rule, issued on May 7, 2024, to
restore regulatory clarity and align BLM's implementing regulations
with statutory requirements and national energy policy.

DATES: This final rule is effective on December 17, 2025.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kyle W. Moorman, Chief, Division of
Regulatory Affairs and Directives, telephone: 202-527-2433, email:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#22494f4d4d504f434c62404e4f0c454d54"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4b2026242439262a250b292726652c243d">[email&#160;protected]</span></a>. Individuals in the United States who are deaf,
deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711
(TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay services.
Individuals outside the United States should use the relay services
offered within their country to make international calls to the point-
of-contact in the United States.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Executive Summary
II. NPR-A Background
III Need for the Final Rule
IV. Discussion of Public Comments on the Proposed Rule
V. Section-by-Section Analysis for Part 2360
VI. Procedural Matters

I. Executive Summary

The BLM's regulations governing the management of surface resources
within the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (the Reserve or NPR-A) are
located at 43 CFR part 2360. This final rule rescinds and replaces the
final rule promulgated in 2024, entitled ``Management and Protection of
the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska,'' 89 FR 38712 (May 7, 2024)
(2024 NPR-A Rule). The BLM has determined that the 2024 NPR-A Rule
conflicts with and exceeds its statutory authority under the Naval
Petroleum Reserves Production Act of 1976, Public Law 94-258 (90 Stat.
303; 42 U.S.C. 6501 et seq.) (NPRPA), as amended, undermines the
purpose of that act, and is inconsistent with national energy policy.
This final rule will facilitate the orderly administration of the
public lands and will support the purposes of the NPRPA, including
facilitating an expeditious program of competitive oil and gas leasing
in the NPR-A. This deregulatory action supports the BLM's
implementation of the statutorily mandated oil and gas program
activities while providing for the appropriate level of protection for
surface resources, including within special areas, without subverting
other statutory requirements.
The BLM published the proposed rule to rescind the 2024 NPR-A Rule
in the Federal Register on June 3, 2025 (90 FR 23507), followed by a
60-day comment period ending on August 4, 2025. The BLM received
approximately 139,757 document submissions on <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>,
which entailed approximately 257,847 total comments from Tribes, Alaska
Native Corporations, State and local governments, organizations,
businesses, and individuals. The BLM identified 1,463 comment
submissions that were unique and responsive to the request for
comments, with the remaining submissions being either duplicative form
letters, non-substantive, or outside the scope of the rule. The BLM
analyzed those unique comment submissions and determined that 43
submissions provided substantive input and rationale on the proposed
rule.
In addition to the public-comment period, the BLM invited federally
recognized Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations to consult on this
rulemaking process. On May 14, 2025, the BLM mailed invitation-to-
consult letters to 33 Alaska native organizations in the region,
including Alaska Native Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations. The BLM
also emailed 26 of these letters on May 14, 2025, to those entities for
whom we have email addresses. As a result of this outreach, the BLM
scheduled and attended five requested consultation meetings, including:
May 21, 2025--North Slope Borough; May 27, 2025--Utqiagvik Trilateral
(City of Utqiagvik, Ukpea[gdot]vik I[ntilde]upiat Corporation, Native
Village of Barrow); May 29, 2025--Kuukpik Corporation; June 30, 2025--
Arctic Slope Regional Corporation; and July 9, 2025--I[ntilde]upiat
Community of the Arctic Slope.
The BLM received numerous substantive comments expressing support
for rescinding the 2024 NPR-A Rule. Some comments agreed with the BLM's
assessment that the 2024 NPR-A Rule exceeds the BLM's statutory
authority under the NPRPA. Among those comments, some asserted that the
2024 NPR-A Rule contradicts congressional intent, particularly
regarding oil and gas development in the NPR-A, and that certain
provisions in the 2024 NPR-A Rule misinterpret or unlawfully expand the
BLM's regulatory role, specifically for special areas. Additionally,
some comments criticized the 2024 NPR-A Rule's new and revised
definitions such as ``significant resource value'' and ``special
areas'' as vague, overly broad, and circular.
Other comments supported the rescission given the 2024 NPR-A Rule's
effect on oil and gas development, including hindering responsible
development by imposing overly rigid restrictions--especially on
infrastructure and commercial development; discouraging investment and
creating regulatory uncertainty that could delay or prevent projects;
and increasing the risk of regulatory takings. Some comments supported
the rescission of the 2024 NPR-A Rule because they were concerned that
it prioritized resource preservation at the expense of exploration and
development.
Some comments supported the rescission of the 2024 NPR-A Rule
because this final rule would more closely align the management of
surface resources in the NPR-A with the national energy policy,
including Executive Order (E.O.) 14153, while other comments considered
the 2024 NPR-A Rule to be counterproductive to national energy security
and Alaska's economic interests.
Finally, comments expressed concern that the 2024 NPR-A Rule lacked
a meaningful economic analysis and suggested that returning to the
previous rule--which had guided management of surface resources for
many decades--would provide a stable and efficient regulatory framework
to support long-term investment and development in the NPR-A.
In preparing this final rule, the BLM has reviewed, evaluated, and
provided responses to the substantive comments received during the
public comment period and through Tribal consultation. The responses
are located in sections II, III, IV, V, and VI of this preamble. Where
appropriate, the BLM made technical changes, corrections, and
clarifications to the proposed rule. These changes are specifically
noted in section V of this preamble.

[[Page 51471]]

II. NPR-A Background

Additional historical background information on the NPR-A can be
found in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section in Federal Register
publication (90 FR 23507) dated June 3, 2025.

Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act of 1976

Motivated by private industry's 1968 discovery of oil at Prudhoe
Bay and the increasing price of oil due to the embargo that started in
1973, Congress passed the NPRPA in 1976. The NPRPA transferred
administrative jurisdiction of the Reserve from the Secretary of the
Navy to the Secretary of the Interior and redesignated the ``Naval
Petroleum Reserve Numbered 4, Alaska'' as the ``National Petroleum
Reserve in Alaska.'' At the time the NPRPA was enacted, the NPR-A
remained largely unexplored and almost completely undeveloped (H.R.
Rep. No. 94-156, at 3). Between 1974 and 1977, the Navy drilled seven
test wells in the northeast corner of the NPR-A. These early
explorations were significant undertakings that involved public funds,
with a single test well costing the Federal Government approximately
$100 million.
Congress recognized that accelerating exploration of the NPR-A was
vital to the national interest to assess the amount and location of the
potential oil and gas available in the NPR-A, particularly in light of
the national need for energy independence. H.R. Rep. No. 94-81, at 8.
Congress also acknowledged that the wildlife and other surface values
in the NPR-A would have to be considered within the context that the
NPR-A be managed for oil and gas exploration activities. Congress
determined that the Secretary of the Interior is best qualified to make
judgments regarding these other values. Id.
Congress provided certain directives within the NPRPA, including
for the Secretary of the Interior to commence petroleum exploration
within the NPR-A as soon as the administration of the NPR-A was
transferred to the Interior Department. Congress further set forth the
purpose that the development of the NPR-A be regulated in a manner
consistent with the total energy needs of the Nation. The NPRPA
established a management priority for oil and gas exploration
activities within the NPR-A and, as a result, is considered a dominant-
use statute.
Within that context, the NPRPA also authorized the Secretary to
promulgate such rules and regulations necessary and appropriate for the
protection of environmental, fish and wildlife, and historical or
scenic values within the Reserve. Public Law 94-258, codified at 42
U.S.C. 6503(b). This provision provides the Secretary with discretion
to protect surface resources within the Reserve but not in
contravention of the overriding purpose of the NPRPA to provide for the
energy needs of the Nation.
The NPRPA as originally enacted also directed the Secretary to
assure the maximum protection of significant subsistence, recreational,
fish and wildlife, or historical or scenic value within special areas,
as determined by the Secretary, but only insofar as that protection is
consistent with the requirements of the NPRPA for the exploration of
the Reserve (42 U.S.C. 6504(a)). The BLM promulgated regulations soon
after enactment of the NPRPA to govern management and protection of
surface resources in the NPR-A that implement the direction in Act.

Department of the Interior Appropriations Act, Fiscal Year 1981

In 1979, the BLM completed a comprehensive ``Study of the
Reserve,'' as required by the NPRPA. The study determined the best
overall procedures to be used in the development, production,
transportation, and distribution of petroleum reserves in the NPR-A,
the alternatives to those procedures, and the environmental
consequences. The BLM submitted the results of that study to Congress.
In response, Congress amended the NPRPA through the Department of
the Interior Appropriations Act, Fiscal Year 1981, which directed the
Secretary to conduct an expeditious program of competitive leasing of
oil and gas in the NPR-A, while providing for such conditions,
restrictions, and prohibitions as the Secretary deems appropriate to
mitigate reasonably foreseeable and significantly adverse effects on
the surface resources in the NPR-A (Pub. L. 96-514, tit. I, 94 Stat.
2957, 2964). The Fiscal Year 1981 Appropriations Act also exempted
management of the NPR-A from two sections of the Federal Land Policy
and Management Act of 1976, as amended (FLPMA): Section 202 (43 U.S.C.
1712), which requires the BLM to prepare resource management plans to
guide management of public lands; and section 603 (43 U.S.C. 1782),
which required the BLM to complete wilderness reviews and describes the
procedures for managing any lands recommended to Congress for
wilderness designation pending congressional action. Id.
In doing so, Congress explained that exempting the NPR-A from FLPMA
sections 202 and 603 was necessary because both sections would
otherwise inhibit expeditious leasing. See H.R. Rep. No. 96-1147, at 33
(1980). This legislative history gives further support to the position
that the purpose of the NPRPA is primarily to facilitate oil and gas
leasing and associated activities and that the direction to protect
surface values, both within and outside special areas is a secondary
purpose of the NPRPA. Finally, the 1981 Interior Appropriations Act
amended the NPRPA and also clarified that the maximum protection
standard for special areas also applies to production activities, to
the extent consistent with the requirements of the NPRPA for
exploration and production. Id.
Combined with the original direction in the NPRPA, the 1981
Interior Appropriations Act amendments emphasize that Congress intended
to dedicate management of the NPR-A to the primary purpose of
supporting an expeditious program of oil and gas activities in the NPR-
A, while providing the Secretary with discretion to take into
consideration the protection of surface resource values as appropriate
and consistent with that overriding purpose. Id. Because Congress
expressly dedicated management of the NPR-A to that dominant use, the
BLM is not required to manage the area subject to multiple use and
sustained yield. See 43 U.S.C. 1732(a).
Public Comments Received
Comment: A commenter urged the BLM to revoke its proposal to
rescind the 2024 NPR-A Rule, stating that the proposal threatens to
transform the NPR-A landscape ``into an industrial oil field while
unleashing more climate chaos and violates the BLM's legal
obligations.'' The commenter stated that under the NPRPA, Congress
mandated the mitigation of ``reasonably foreseeable and significantly
adverse effects'' on the NPR-A's surface resources from oil and gas
activities and the maximum protection of sensitive habitat areas.
Another commenter asserted that rescinding the 2024 NPR-A Rule would
reverse critical environmental protections, removing a presumption
against oil and gas development in approximately 13 million acres of
special areas in contravention of statutory directive.
BLM Response: The NPRPA is a dominant-use statute in that it
directs the BLM to manage the NPR-A primarily for oil and gas leasing,
exploration, development, and production, and provides the BLM with

[[Page 51472]]

discretion to determine the appropriate framework for protecting
surface resources throughout the NPR-A. Further, the maximum protection
of significant surface values within special areas, while required by
the NPRPA, only applies to the extent consistent with the exploration
and production requirements of the Act. This rule correctly reflects
this statutory mandate. Provisions in the 2024 NPR-A Rule that would
unnecessarily restrict the leasing, exploration, development, and
production of oil and gas resources within the NPR-A are contrary to
the congressional direction in the NPRPA to develop lands within the
NPR-A, including special areas, as part of an expeditious oil and gas
leasing program. For example, the presumption against oil and gas
leasing and new infrastructure established in the 2024 NPR-A Rule flips
BLM's statutory mandate on its head. Moreover, the 2024 NPR-A Rule, by
enshrining the 2024 Integrated Activity Plan (IAP) maps in the
regulatory text, when taken in tandem with this presumption against oil
and gas leasing, effectively prohibited any oil and gas development in
certain areas the BLM had already determined should be available for
leasing and new infrastructure through the IAP process. Thus the 2024
NPR-A rule created a regulatory framework that would generally prohibit
new leasing and new oil and gas infrastructure development in areas
that the BLM had designated as open to leasing or available for new
infrastructure just 2 years earlier, creates uncertainty for industry,
and frustrates the congressional policy objective of expeditious oil
and gas leasing, exploration, development, and production in the NPR-A.
It is therefore contrary to the purposes and plain language of the
NPRPA.
Other changes made by the 2024 NPR-A rule run contrary to
Congress's mandate to conduct an expeditious oil and gas leasing
program, including Sec. 2361.30 and Sec. 2361.40, which codified new
processes, assessments, and analyses that could slow down BLM's
administration of its program. Similarly, by adopting by rule the 2024
restrictions on existing special areas, the BLM would run into
additional barriers when making any changes to the management of those
areas, decreasing the speed and efficiency of its management of the
reserve. As has been the standard since long before the 2024 NPR-A
Rule, special area identification, including boundaries and management
restrictions, are made through the IAP process and that evaluation
process will be unaffected by this rule. The final rule returns the
NPR-A to the intended focus of oil and gas exploration and development,
but--like the 2024 NPR-A Rule--it is not self-executing, meaning that
it does not itself make any substantive changes on the ground and will
not restrict the BLM's discretion to take or authorize future on-the-
ground actions. Instead, this rule provides the BLM with the
appropriate level of discretion to consider future on-the-ground
actions--through the IAP process or project-specific decision making to
analyze and account for the impacts to surface resources--consistent
with the resource protection provisions of the NPRPA. These management
decisions, including which stipulations and required operating
procedures are necessary to ensure proper protection of surface
resources under the NPRPA (both within and outside special areas), are
appropriately made through the IAP process, as well as project-specific
decisions.
Comment: The commenter stated that the BLM failed to explain how
its proposal to rescind the 2024 NPR-A Rule is permissible and
justified under FLPMA. The commenter noted that while the NPR-A is
exempt from FLPMA section 202's planning requirements, the BLM now
appears to imply the NPR-A is exempted from all FLPMA mandates without
providing support for such an assertion or its change in interpretation
of the applicability of FLPMA to the NPR-A. A commenter also asserted
that the final rule does not explain how it will ensure the BLM is
meeting its FLPMA obligations in the NPR-A including to manage public
lands ``in a manner that will protect the quality of scientific,
scenic, historical, ecological, environmental, air and atmospheric,
water resource, and archeological values,'' to ``take any action
necessary to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of the lands,''
as well as the provisions governing the issuance of rights-of-way.
Another commenter opined that while the NPRPA exempted the NPR-A from
FLPMA's planning requirements, it does not exempt the applicability of
FLPMA's other provisions that allow reasonable impacts associated with
oil and gas development.
BLM Response: The BLM does not claim that the NPR-A is entirely
exempt from FLPMA. However, the Department of the Interior
Appropriations Act, Fiscal Year 1981 Public Law 96-514, tit. I, 94
Stat. 2957, 2964 (1980) exempted management of the NPR-A from two
sections of FLPMA: section 202 (43 U.S.C. 1712), which requires the BLM
to prepare resource management plans to guide management of public
lands; and section 603 (43 U.S.C. 1782), which requires the BLM to
complete wilderness reviews and describes the procedures for managing
any lands recommended to Congress for wilderness designation pending
congressional action. In addition, the NPRPA is a dominant-use statute
in that it directs the BLM to manage the NPR-A primarily for oil and
gas development and provides the BLM with discretion to determine the
appropriate framework for protecting surface resources throughout the
NPR-A. Further, the maximum protection of significant surface values
within special areas, while required by the NPRPA, only applies to the
extent consistent with the exploration and production requirements of
the Act. Congress has thus dedicated lands within the NPR-A to these
specific uses, and under section 302(a) of FLPMA, 43 U.S.C. 1732(a),
the BLM will manage these lands accordingly. This is why the IAP, which
the BLM has long used to guide the management of the NPR-A, addresses a
narrower range of uses than a FLPMA resource management plan and does
not provide a framework for management under broader principles of
multiple use and sustained yield. However, the BLM otherwise manages
public lands within the NPR-A pursuant to FLPMA, where such management
is consistent with the NPRPA, as amended. For example, the BLM applies
its broad authority under FLPMA to regulate the use, occupancy, and
development of public lands within the NPR-A and must take action to
prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of the lands (43 U.S.C.
1732(b)) through the IAP, including oil and gas stipulations and
required operating procedures. The BLM also has the discretion to apply
additional mitigation measures, as appropriate, at the project approval
stage. Finally, the BLM meets its FLPMA resource obligations, where
consistent with the direction in the NPRPA, by applying other
regulatory requirements within the NPR-A, such as 43 CFR 3162.5-1.
This final rule appropriately restores the regulatory framework
with the primary statutory authority (NPRPA) for governing the NPR-A,
recognizing that environmental protections are implemented consistent
with that framework and other legal requirements, as applicable.
Nevertheless, we have adjusted the final rule to clarify that, while
the NPRPA provides the primary management direction for the NPR-A,
other Federal land laws, including

[[Page 51473]]

FLPMA, guide the BLM's management of these lands.
Comment: Commenters stated that the 2024 NPR-A Rule was consistent
with the NPRPA, which a commenter asserted does not prioritize oil and
gas activities over resource protection, and was necessary to protect
the NPR-A from harmful impacts of oil and gas development. They
referenced the NPRPA requirement to provide ``maximum protection'' of
any designated ``Special Area'' containing significant subsistence,
recreational, fish and wildlife, or historical or scenic value.
BLM Response: The BLM disagrees with the commenters' interpretation
that the NPRPA places the same priority on resource protection that it
does on providing for oil and gas activity in the NPR-A. As explained
earlier, the NPRPA is a dominant-use statute that directs the BLM to
manage the NPR-A primarily for oil and gas leasing, exploration,
development, and production, and provides the BLM with discretion to
determine the appropriate framework for protecting surface resources
throughout the NPR-A. Further, the maximum protection of significant
surface values within special areas, while required by the NPRPA, only
applies to the extent consistent with the exploration and production
requirements of the Act. This rule correctly reflects this statutory
mandate. Provisions in the 2024 NPR-A Rule that would unnecessarily
restrict the leasing, exploration, development, and production of oil
and gas resources within the NPR-A are contrary to the congressional
direction in the NPRPA to develop lands within the NPR-A, including
special areas, as part of an expeditious oil and gas leasing program.
The presumption against oil and gas leasing and new infrastructure
established in the 2024 NPR-A Rule in tandem with the adoption by
rulemaking of the 2022 IAP special area maps would effectively prohibit
any oil and gas development in certain areas the BLM had already
determined, through the IAP process, should be available for leasing
and new infrastructure. Thus the 2024 NPR-A rule created a regulatory
framework that flipped the purposes of the NPRPA on its head by
generally prohibiting new leasing and new oil and gas infrastructure
development in areas that the BLM had designated as open to leasing or
available for new infrastructure just 2 years earlier creates
uncertainty for industry and frustrates the congressional policy
objective of expeditious oil and gas leasing, exploration, development,
and production in the NPR-A. This restriction is therefore contrary to
the purposes and plain language of the NPRPA. More detail on the
statutory history of the NPR-A is provided in Section II Background of
this preamble.
Comment: A commenter stated that, as part of finalizing the
recission of the 2024 NPR-A Rule and reinstating the prior regulations
from 1977, the BLM should clarify the scope of its ``maximum
protection'' authority in the NPR-A. The commenter stated that the
statute only applies to exploration activities in special areas, and
then only ``to the extent consistent with the requirements of this Act
for the exploration of the reserve.'' The commenter expressed that
there is no textual basis for extending ``maximum protection'' to
leasing or development activities, and that the preamble of the
proposed rule misquoted the statute, incorrectly suggesting an
independent directive to ``assure the maximum protection'' of special
areas. Another commenter expressed that, in recognition of the NPR-A's
extraordinary ecological, cultural, and scenic values, Congress
recognized the need to manage the NPR-A differently from other public
lands so that any activities which are or might be detrimental to such
values will be carefully controlled. The commenter said that when
Congress amended the NPRPA in 1980 to authorize an expeditious program
of competitive leasing, it continued to emphasize the importance of the
NPR-A's exceptional ecological and subsistence values.
BLM Response: The BLM agrees that the direction in the NPRPA to
provide ``maximum protection'' applies only to significant surface
values within special areas and such application is limited to the
extent consistent with the exploration and production requirements of
the Act. This final rule takes into account the provision in the Fiscal
Year 1981 Interior Appropriations Act that amended the NPRPA to apply
the ``maximum protection'' measures to both exploration and production
of oil and gas production within Special Areas in the NPR-A, to the
extent consistent with the requirements of the Act for those uses (Pub.
L. 96-514, 94 Stat. 2964). As discussed earlier, the legislative
history of that amendment supports the position that the NPRPA is a
dominant-use statute, the purpose of which is primarily to facilitate
oil and gas leasing and associated activities and the direction to
protect surface values, both within and outside special areas, is a
secondary purpose of the Act. See H.R. Rep. No. 96-1147, at 33 (1980).
Provisions in the 2024 NPR-A Rule that would unnecessarily restrict the
leasing, exploration, development, and production of oil and gas
resources within the NPR-A are contrary to the congressional direction
in the NPRPA to develop lands within the NPR-A, including special
areas, as part of an expeditious oil and gas leasing program. This
final rule rescinds provisions that were inconsistent with the NPRPA or
beyond its authority. It clarifies that the Secretary may apply maximum
protection measures in special areas of the NPR-A only when doing so is
consistent with the requirements of the Act for exploration and
production of oil and gas.

III. Need for the Final Rule

The preamble to the 2024 NPR-A Rule asserted that a new rule was
needed to update the regulatory framework governing the management and
protection of surface values and Special Areas within the Reserve
because conditions throughout the Arctic had changed dramatically since
the regulations governing the NPR-A were initially promulgated.
Specifically, it claimed that a new rule was necessary because of the
impacts of climate change on the Reserve's natural environment and
Native communities. It also asserted that the prior regulations did not
reflect the full management regime for the Reserve, and that
consolidating management direction for the NPR-A that is otherwise
found in statutes, regulations, plans, and other guidance documents
would enhance consistency and certainty, particularly with respect to
protection of surface resources and Special Areas. This ``more cohesive
framework'' was predicated on a belief that the NPRPA gave BLM ``three
overarching mandates'' of equal weight: ``(1) conduct an oil and gas
exploration, leasing and production program; (2) protect environmental,
fish and wildlife, historical, and scenic surface resources from the
impacts of that program through mitigation of reasonably foreseeable
adverse effects; and (3) assure maximum protection for significant
surface values from the impacts of the oil and gas program, including
subsistence use, within Special Areas.''
Following a legal and policy review of the 2024 NPR-A Rule, the BLM
determined that the 2024 NPR-A rule went beyond what is authorized
under the NPRPA because it impermissibly imposed restrictions on oil
and gas activities that exceed its statutory authority under the NPRPA.
For example, by creating a framework for areas open to leasing and
infrastructure predicated on the NPRPA containing

[[Page 51474]]

``three overarching mandates'' with equal weight, the 2024 NPR-A Rule
elevated the protection of surface resources in a manner that runs
afoul of the NPRPA's mandate to implement an expeditious program of
competitive leasing. It also, contrary to its intended effect,
increased public uncertainty for how the NPR-A would be managed, and
created internal ambiguity about how to apply the rule, and internal
procedural hurdles that would delay authorizations for activities
within the NPR-A. Further, the rule did not require any specific
mitigation measures nor did it, by itself, effectuate any changes to
respond to changing conditions, to the extent they exist; by its own
terms, those changes would need to be addressed in the IAP. Finally,
the 2024 NPR-A Rule is inconsistent with the national energy priorities
of this administration. Accordingly, and as explained further below, a
rulemaking is necessary to establish the appropriate regulatory
framework that aligns with the statutory directives for the activities
and resources within the NPR-A and prioritizes energy development (as
that statute requires).
The 2024 NPR-A Rule updated and expanded procedures for the BLM to
mitigate reasonably foreseeable and significantly adverse effects of
proposed oil and gas activities on the surface resources of the NPR-A;
in particular, it elevated the maximum protection for surface values
within special areas above the primary management purpose of supporting
an expeditious oil and gas leasing program. Specifically, the rule
required the BLM, in each decision concerning oil and gas activity in
the NPR-A, to adopt measures to mitigate the reasonably foreseeable and
significantly adverse effects on surface resources. The 2024 NPR-A Rule
also codified five existing special areas and established a process for
designating and de-designating Special Areas in the future. Id. In
those special areas, the 2024 NPR-A Rule elevated the protection of
significant resource values above the requirement of the BLM to manage
the NPR-A for the exploration and development of oil and gas resources.
In particular, the 2024 NPR-A Rule established a blanket presumption
that proposed oil and gas activities should not be permitted in areas
open to leasing and infrastructure unless specific information
available to the authorized officer clearly demonstrates that those
activities can be conducted with no or minimal adverse effects on
significant resource values in areas that are allocated as available
for future oil and gas leasing or new infrastructure.
While the NPRPA includes provisions that require protection of
surface resources, including the maximum protection of significant
resource values in special areas, the NPRPA is a dominant-use statute
that is focused on the management of exploration and production of oil
and gas in the NPR-A. Driven by the oil embargo imposed by the
Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries and energy crisis in the
1970s, Congress enacted the NPRPA to set aside the NPR-A as a petroleum
reserve to help meet the Nation's total energy needs including the
specific need for oil and gas and directed the Secretary to carry out
an expeditious program of competitive leasing of oil and gas on BLM-
administered lands within the NPR-A. While the NPRPA provides for
maximum protection of significant surface values in special areas, it
is clear from the text of the statute that Congress envisioned those
areas may need such protection precisely because they could also be
developed for oil and gas production.
Provisions in the 2024 NPR-A Rule that would unreasonably restrict
the leasing, exploration, development, and production of oil and gas
resources within the NPR-A are contrary to the plain text of and the
congressional direction in the NPRPA to develop lands within the NPR-A,
including special areas, as part of an expeditious oil and gas leasing
program. The underlying directive in the 2024 NPR-A Rule to balance
permitting oil and gas activities with the protection of surface
resources--illustrated by the 2024 NPR-A Rule's articulation of the
NPRPA as having three coequal mandates--is at odds with the directive
in the NPRPA that the BLM undertake an expeditious program of
competitive leasing of oil and gas and only apply maximum protection of
significant subsistence, recreational, fish, and wildlife, or historic
or scenic values to the extent consistent with the exploration and
production requirements of the Act (42 U.S.C. 6504(a)). Similarly, the
direction to mitigate reasonably foreseeable and significantly adverse
effects on the surface resources (42 U.S.C. 6506a(b)) does not confer
the authority not to lease, but rather to develop the restrictions the
Secretary deems necessary and appropriate. In both cases, the NPRPA
establishes a presumption for oil and gas activities, subject to the
secondary purpose of protecting surface resources at the discretion of
the Secretary.
The provisions at 43 CFR 2361.40(f) promulgated under the 2024 NPR-
A Rule create an impermissible presumption that proposed oil and gas
activities should not be permitted on lands within special areas that
are allocated as available for future oil and gas leasing or new
infrastructure unless there is evidence that clearly demonstrates that
activities can be conducted with no or minimal adverse effects on
significant resource values or unless they are necessary to comport
with the terms of a valid existing lease. In doing so, Sec. 2361.40(f)
effectively prohibits any new oil and gas leasing and new
infrastructure not required for existing leases in areas that the BLM
already determined, through the 2022 IAP process, should be available
for future oil and gas leasing and new infrastructure, contrary to the
purposes of the NPRPA. This is made more egregious because Sec.
2361.40(d) of the 2024 NPR-A Rule adopts by rule the 2022 IAP maps that
identify portions of special areas as available for oil and gas leasing
and new infrastructure, but then effectively prohibits these activities
through the presumption in Sec. 2361.40(f).
While the BLM is required to conduct an expeditious oil and gas
leasing program in the NPR-A while protecting significant surface
resources, it does so through the IAP process that seeks to balance
those requirements. Provisions in the 2024 NPR-A Rule that would
unnecessarily restrict the leasing, exploration, development, and
production of oil and gas resources within the NPR-A are contrary to
the congressional direction in the NPRPA to develop lands within the
NPR-A, including special areas, as part of an expeditious oil and gas
leasing program. As described above, the presumption against oil and
gas leasing and new infrastructure established in the 2024 NPR-A Rule
would effectively prohibit any oil and gas development in certain areas
the BLM had already determined, through the IAP process, should be
available for leasing and new infrastructure. Thus, the 2024 NPR-A rule
created a regulatory framework that would generally prohibit new
leasing and new oil and gas infrastructure development in areas that
the BLM had designated as open to leasing or available for new
infrastructure just 2 years earlier, creates uncertainty for industry,
and frustrates the congressional policy objective of expeditious oil
and gas leasing, exploration, development, and production in the NPR-A.
This restriction is therefore contrary to the purposes and plain
language of the NPRPA.
Further, the 2024 NPR-A Rule is not required by law and is
unnecessary to

[[Page 51475]]

effectively manage surface resources in the NPR-A. As such, it
establishes bad policy that, via regulatory fiat, constrains the IAP
process that the BLM has used for decades to determine appropriate
management decisions, including which stipulations and required
operating procedures are necessary to ensure proper protection of
surface resources. The new provisions within the 2024 NPR-A Rule simply
add additional, unnecessary processes that could complicate the BLM's
ability to make timely decisions for protection of surface resources
and for authorized uses within the NPR-A. For example, soon after the
rule was issued, the BLM was required to complete a statement of
adverse effect under 43 CFR 2361.40(g)(6) before approving the renewal
of ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc's (CPAI) annual environmental monitoring
permit for 2024, part of the environmental monitoring and baseline
studies in the required operating procedures for the 2022 NPR-A IAP
ROD. The statement of adverse effect largely summarized information
that had already been presented to the public and analyzed by the BLM
the associated environmental reviews under the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA), analysis under section 810 of the Alaska National
Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), and consultation under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) and section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act related to the approval of the project years earlier.
This extra step delayed the BLM's renewal of CPAI's monitoring permit
and impacted CPAI's ability to begin its seasonal monitoring on time.
There are many such provisions in the 2024 NPR-A rule, explored in more
detail below, that are not required by law, unnecessary, and run
contrary to Congress's mandate to conduct an expeditious oil and gas
leasing program by slowing down BLM's administration of its program.
The 2024 NPR-A Rule is also inconsistent with the national energy
priorities of the Trump administration. In January 2025, President
Trump issued E.O. 14153 Unleashing Alaska's Extraordinary Resource
Potential highlighting the need to unlock the abundant and largely
untapped supply of energy resources within the State of Alaska to
increase the prosperity of American citizens while helping to enhance
our Nation's economic and national security for generations to come. To
do so, the E.O. explains that it is imperative to immediately reverse
the punitive restrictions implemented by the previous administration
that specifically target resource development on both State and Federal
lands in Alaska and specifically directs the rescission of the 2024
NPR-A Rule, consistent with applicable law. On the same day, the
President also issued E.O. 14154, Unleashing American Energy and E.O.
14156 Declaring a National Energy Emergency, which directed Federal
agencies to appropriately address the inadequate development of
domestic energy resources to maintain the United States' prosperity and
national security.
The 2024 NPR-A Rule created policy direction that was inconsistent
with the authorizing statute as discussed above, which resulted in
uncertainty for local communities and users of the NPR-A. By largely
returning to the status quo that has provided the management framework
for the NRP-A, this final rule provides predictability and transparency
for the oil and gas program, which will lead to more efficient,
effective, and responsible development within the NPR-A consistent with
the national energy policy articulated above.
Finally, while the proposed rule was out for public comment,
Congress once again provided guidance on how the BLM should approach
oil and gas leasing in the NPR-A. Section 50105 of Public Law 119-21
directs the Secretary to expeditiously restore and resume oil and gas
lease sales in the areas designated for oil and gas leasing in the 2020
IAP and under the terms and stipulations established in the 2020 IAP.
Public Law 119-21, section 50105(b), 139 Stat. 72, 144 (2025). That
section also requires that the Secretary conduct at least five lease
sales of at least 4 million acres each before July 2035, with the first
sale occurring by July 2026. Public Law 119-21, section 50105(c), 139
Stat. 72, 144 (2025). The direction in the rule makes clear the
intention of Congress that the BLM proceed with an expeditious program
of oil and gas leasing in the NPR-A that is not unreasonably restricted
by administrative and procedural hurdles put in place to unnecessarily
delay or prohibit oil and gas activities in the NPR-A, contrary to the
direction in the NPRPA. Further, the statutory requirement that the BLM
offer leases at least five times in the next 10 years is predicated on
offering leases in the areas designated as open for oil and gas leasing
in the 2020 NPR-A IAP and under the associated terms and conditions
thein, which includes some areas that would otherwise be subject to the
presumption against leasing in the 2024 NPR-A Rule.
Consistent with the direction from the President and Congress, the
BLM's policy is to efficiently and effectively maximize the development
and production of the natural resources located on Federal lands within
Alaska, including the NPR-A, to meet the Nation's total energy needs,
consistent with statutory requirements. Therefore, we are rescinding
the 2024 NPR-A Rule in full, returning the regulations in 43 CFR part
2360 to their original language as published in the rule promulgated in
1977 (42 FR 28721, June 3, 1977), with limited technical changes,
corrections, and clarifications to the regulations under this final
rule.

Public Comments Received

Comment: A commenter stated that the BLM promulgated the 2024 NPR-A
Rule to update the regulatory framework governing the management and
protection of environmental, fish and wildlife, and other surface
resources in the NPR-A, and that the 2024 NPR-A Rule is necessary to
protect surface resources. In opposition to rescinding the 2024 NPR-A
Rule, a commenter stated that the 2024 NPR-A Rule elevates conservation
on par with extractive uses, which effectively allows for vital bird
habitat such as wetlands, grasslands, and riparian corridors to be
safeguarded from degradation and industrialization. The commenter
stated that rescinding the 2024 NPR-A Rule would reduce habitat
protections for dozens of avian species. A commenter stated that the
2024 NPR-A Rule was a step in the right direction toward ensuring
necessary protections for resources and values of the NPR-A, and that
rescinding the 2024 NPR-A Rule would make it harder for the BLM to meet
its legal obligations to provide maximum protection for significant
resources.
BLM Response: The BLM agrees that the 2024 NPR-A Rule updated the
regulatory framework for protecting surface resources in the NPR-A in a
manner that elevates conservation on par with extractive uses. However,
this is precisely why the 2024 NPR-A rule is contrary to the purposes
and plain language of the NPRPA, as amended. That statute makes clear
that Congress intended that the NPR-A be managed primarily for oil and
gas activities and that the Secretary has discretion to determine the
appropriate framework for protecting surface resources throughout the
NPR-A. Further, the maximum protection of significant surface values
within special areas, while required by the NPRPA, only applies to the
extent consistent with the exploration and production requirements of
the Act.

[[Page 51476]]

Further, recission of the rule, by itself, will not affect the
BLM's ability to provide appropriate protection for surface resources,
including maximum protection for significant surface values within
special areas, to the extent consistent with the exploration and
production requirements of the Act. This final rule is not self-
executing, meaning that it does not, by itself, make any substantive
changes on the ground and will not restrict the BLM's discretion to
make future decisions. Rather, this rule provides the BLM with the
appropriate level of discretion to consider future on-the-ground
actions--through the IAP process or project-specific decision making to
analyze and account for the impacts to surface values and subsistence
activities--consistent with the resource protection provisions of the
NPRPA. These management decisions, including which lease stipulations
and required operating procedures are necessary to ensure proper
protection of surface resources and to ensure maximum protection of
significant resource values in special areas to the extent consistent
with the exploration and production requirements of the Act, will be
made through future, separate processes.
Comment: A commenter disputed the existence of a ``national energy
emergency,'' stating that E.O. 14156 misrepresents the current domestic
energy situation and is countered by the current Administration's own
assertion that oil production is declining due to low oil prices
globally. One of the commenters said that in the absence of any
increased demand for fossil fuel extraction, there is no rationale for
the proposed rule. The commenter indicated that domestic energy
production is at an all-time high with the United States being a net
energy exporter since 2019. They stated that U.S. companies have
indicated they will not increase output in response to the emergency
declaration because it is not economical to do so. In addition, the
commenter said that the E.O. fails to satisfy the Department of the
Interior's (DOI) definition of an emergency, which it describes as ``a
sudden, urgent, usually unexpected occurrence or occasion requiring
immediate action,'' or ``an unforeseen combination of circumstances or
the resulting state that calls for immediate action.'' A commenter
stated that the BLM's justifications for rescinding the 2024 NPR-A Rule
are unfounded, saying that E.O. 14156 did not premise its declaration
of emergency on any threat to human health, loss of significant
property, or other immediate, unforeseen economic hardship, making the
declaration invalid. Additionally, an individual commenter stated that
the E.O.s do not supersede the NPRPA and the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA), which Congress passed and the President signed. The
commenter stated that any specification in an E.O. that conflicts with
the NPRPA or NEPA must yield to the provisions in the NPRPA or NEPA. An
individual commenter said that the current rulemaking prioritizes E.O.s
that emphasize resource extraction at the expense of statutory
obligations, and they cannot lawfully supplant explicit congressional
mandates. The commenter said that declaring an emergency in this
context undermines the integrity of the rule of law and sets a
dangerous precedent for executive overreach.
BLM Response: In January 2025, President Trump issued E.O. 14153,
Unleashing Alaska's Extraordinary Resource Potential, articulating that
it is the policy of the United States to take action, through the
Department of the Interior, to unlock the abundant and largely untapped
supply of energy resources within the State of Alaska to increase the
prosperity of American citizens and enhance our Nation's economic and
national security for generations to come. The E.O. explains that it is
imperative to immediately reverse the punitive restrictions implemented
by the previous administration that specifically target resource
development on both State and Federal lands in Alaska and specifically
directs the rescission of the 2024 NPR-A Rule consistent with
applicable law. This final rule implements that policy direction.
Further, we have identified that doing so will address inconsistencies
between the 2024 NPR-A Rule and congressional direction in the NPRPA
that undermine the legal sufficiency of the BLM's administration of the
NPR-A, the 2024 NPR-A Rule is not required by law and is unnecessary to
effectively manage surface resources in the NPR-A.
The decision to rescind the 2024 NPR-A Rule is not based solely on
the emergency declaration in E.O. 14156 Declaring a National Energy
Emergency. Rather, this final rule reflects a broader policy shift
toward enhancing energy reliability and economic resilience by
maximizing the use of existing authorities. The BLM's action is
grounded in a reevaluation of statutory obligations, national energy
needs, and administrative priorities.
Further, E.O. 14156 was issued pursuant to the President's
constitutional and statutory authorities. The E.O. identifies several
factors including geopolitical threats, regulatory inefficiencies, and
infrastructure constraints, that collectively impair the Nation's
ability to ensure a reliable and affordable energy supply. These
factors constitute a national emergency as defined by the relevant
legal framework, even if they do not reflect the DOI's definition of an
``emergency'' used in other contexts.
While it is true that the United States remains a net energy
exporter and domestic production is historically high, energy security
encompasses more than output levels, especially when considering long-
term energy security. E.O. 14156 recognizes that while the United
States has made significant strides in energy production, new and
emerging pressures--both domestic and global--threaten the reliability,
affordability, and resilience of the Nation's energy systems. Notably,
traditional risks such as geopolitical instability and supply chain
vulnerabilities remain relevant. However, the energy landscape is also
being reshaped by rapid technological change and surging demand from
emerging sectors. For example: electricity consumption by U.S. data
centers is projected to rise from 147 Terawatt-hours (TWh) in 2023 to
606 TWh by 2030, representing nearly 12 percent of total U.S.
electricity demand, largely due to the growth of artificial
intelligence, cloud computing, and digital infrastructure (McKinsey
2024). The E.O. responds to this anticipated demand surge and the need
for resilient infrastructure and diversified supply chains.
Nevertheless, even if factors identified in E.O. 14156 as
constituting a national emergency no longer existed, the need to
rescind the rule and return to the previous regulatory framework would
remain unchanged. The national energy policy as articulated in E.O.
14153 and E.O. 14154, and the need to bring the regulations into
conformance with the plain language of the NPRPA, would continue to
counsel in favor of a recission of the 2024 Final Rule and a return to
the previous regulatory framework management of surface resources
within the NPR-A.
Comment: A commenter stated that in the proposed rule the BLM
failed to justify rescission of the 2024 NPR-A Rule in violation of the
APA. The commenter indicated that the BLM's stated rationale that the
2024 NPR-A Rule ``conflicts with and exceeds the BLM's statutory
authority,'' ``undermines the purposes'' of the NPRPA, and ``is
inconsistent with National energy policy'' is unsupported and often
unexplained. The commenter

[[Page 51477]]

stated that the BLM failed to explain its disregard for prior factual
findings and its change in position in violation of the APA. The
commenter indicated that when the BLM adopted the 2024 NPR-A Rule, the
Agency was clear that its purpose was to aid in effective management of
surface resources and ensure compliance with legal mandates by
developing ``a more cohesive framework'' for implementing its mandates.
The commenter expressed that the BLM now claims the 2024 NPR-A Rule is
``unnecessary to effectively manage surface resources'' but provides no
explanation for this statement, failing to explain why or how the 2024
NPR-A Rule is unnecessary or complicates the BLM's management of the
NPR-A. An individual commenter said that the proposed rule is arbitrary
and capricious under the APA because it lacks sufficient justification
based on statutory and regulatory principles established under the
NPRPA, fails to provide a rational basis, disregards critical public
input, and undervalues significant surface resources. The commenter
stated that the current proposal does not provide sufficient scientific
or factual evidence to refute or meaningfully question the earlier
findings; it merely references unspecified comments alleging
underestimated economic impacts without detailing how concerns outweigh
documented environmental and subsistence protections. They stated that
the proposed rule wrongly claims that the 2024 NPR-A Rule imposes
unnecessary procedural burdens, yet it fails to substantively
demonstrate how these purported burdens outweigh the established
benefits to surface resources and ecological values, or how reverting
to regulations originally promulgated in 1977 better serves
contemporary management goals. The commenter said that reverting to
regulations developed five decades ago without comprehensive
reevaluation under contemporary conditions is both arbitrary and lacks
a rational basis.
BLM Response: The BLM is changing policy direction to be consistent
with national energy policy, in particular E.O. 14153 Unleashing
Alaska's Extraordinary Resource Potential, E.O. 14154 Unleashing
American Energy, and E.O. 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through
Deregulation, and to ensure that the regulation is consistent with the
plain language of the NPRPA. Further, while the 2024 NPR-A Rule did not
explicitly make factual findings, any findings that may have been made
in the previous rule have not been disregarded in this final rule, and
this final rule has not made any new or superseding factual findings.
As explained above, the purpose of the final rule is to rescind the
2024 NPR-A Rule because the BLM has determined that rule conflicts with
the authorizing statute, is unnecessary to comply with the NPRPA and
other applicable Federal laws, unnecessarily constrains the BLM's
discretion for management of the NPR-A, and is inconsistent with the
national energy priorities of this administration.
The 2024 NPR-A Rule fundamentally upended the BLM's management of
the NPR-A by distorting the statutory mandate under the NPRPA. The
statute's dominant purpose is that of oil and gas exploration and
development and includes a subordinate clause to implement appropriate
safeguards for environmental protection. However, while the 2024 NPR-A
Rule may appear to support development, it operationally prioritizes
preservation over development as the default, thereby subordinating the
NPRPA's core mandate for the Secretary to authorize oil and gas
leasing, exploration, development, and production with appropriate
safeguards, as he determines appropriate.
Therefore, rather than implementing NPRPA's mandate to manage the
NRP-A primarily for oil and gas exploration and development, and
ensuring maximum protection of surface resources to the extent
consistent with that dominant use, the 2024 NPR-A Rule inappropriately
reoriented the framework to subordinate development to protection--
noting that the NPR-A has three coequal mandates--and thereby failing
to give full effect to the Act's core purpose.
The NPRPA is a dominant-use statute that directs the BLM to manage
the NPR-A primarily for oil and gas leasing, exploration, development,
and production. Under the NPRPA, the BLM must adhere to several
specific directives. First, BLM must undertake an expeditious program
of competitive leasing of oil and gas in the NPR-A (42 U.S.C.
6506a(a)). Within that context, exploration and development activities
within special areas must be conducted in a manner which will ensure
the maximum protection of significant subsistence, recreational, fish
and wildlife, or historical or scenic values to the extent consistent
with the requirements of the Act for exploration and production (42
U.S.C. 6504(a); 6506(n)(2)). While the NPRPA requires the BLM to apply
``maximum protection'' for significant surface values within special
areas, that management objective is limited by the primary statutory
directive to expeditiously pursue an oil and gas leasing program and to
authorize exploration of, and production from, the reserve. Finally,
the NPRPA directs the Secretary of the Interior to provide for such
conditions, restrictions, and prohibitions as deemed necessary or
appropriate to mitigate reasonably foreseeable and significantly
adverse effects on the surface resources of the NPR-A (42 U.S.C.
6506a(b)). However, this final direction does not include discretion
not to lease but rather gives the Secretary discretion to develop
restrictions necessary to mitigate adverse impacts on the NPR-A as are
appropriate. By establishing a regulatory framework that would
generally prohibit new leasing and new oil and gas infrastructure
development in areas that the BLM had designated as open to leasing or
available for new infrastructure just 2 years earlier the 2024 NPR-A
Rule effectively nullifies existing management decisions, creates
uncertainty for industry and frustrates the congressional policy
objective of expeditious oil and gas leasing, exploration, development,
and production in the NPR-A. And as explained above and below in more
detail, this framework is contrary to the purposes and plain language
of the NPRPA.

IV. General Discussion of Public Comments on the Proposed Rule

This section of the preamble briefly summarizes broad and general
comments on the proposed rule and the BLM's responses. Comment
responses within this section of the preamble have been grouped and
summarized by category that would apply to one or more sections of this
final rule. You will find additional comments that are more specific to
sections of this final rule, and their responses, in Section V.
Section-by-Section Discussion of this preamble.

Comments on Public Comment Period

Comment: An individual commenter stated that the BLM has already
rescinded three documents that enable the 2024 NPR-A Rule, indicating
its disregard for any dissenting input.
BLM Response: Though the commentor did not provide any detail on
what three rescinded documents they were referring to, they are likely
referencing the rescission of the Federal Register notice request for
information (RFI) titled ``special areas within the National Petroleum
Reserve in Alaska'' that published in the Federal Register in July 2024
(89 FR 58181); a report titled ``Maximizing Protection in the National
Petroleum Reserve--Alaska'' published in January 2025 (BLM

[[Page 51478]]

Report); and a BLM memorandum entitled ``BLM Interim Management of
Special Areas within the National Petroleum Reserve--Alaska'' published
in January 2025 (Interim Measures Guidance). To clarify, these
documents were issued at the very end of the previous administration as
a last-minute attempt to implement some portion of the 2024 NPR-A Rule.
They were issued as a result of the rule and did not enable the 2024
NPR-A Rule. Nothing in the 2024 NPR-A Rule limited the BLM's authority
to rescind those policies, nor was there any requirement in that
regulation for any public engagement for that process.
Further, E.O. 14153 specifically directed the Department to rescind
the RFI published in the Federal Register on July 17, 2024 (89 FR
58181), and to rescind the BLM's guidance on the protection of
subsistence resource values in the existing special areas and proposed
new and modified special areas in the NPR-A that were issued on January
16, 2025. On July 30, 2025, the BLM published a notice in the Federal
Register implementing that direction and providing the BLM's rationale
for rescinding those documents (90 FR 35916). One of the reasons that
the BLM highlighted in the Federal Register notice for the recission
was that the BLM Report did not evaluate and respond to the many public
comments received that opposed the expansion of special areas, opposed
the addition of new significant resource values, or generally opposed
any change in management or protections in the NPR-A. This lack of
consideration for dissenting input did not comply with the requirement
in 43 CFR 2361.30(b)(3) to evaluate and respond to public input on
changes or additions to special areas. Not giving due consideration to
opposing viewpoints called into question the BLM's determinations in
the BLM Report and the Interim Measures Guidance.

Comments on Climate Change

Comment: Commenters opposed the proposed rule and expressed concern
for potential climate change impacts that they assert could be
exacerbated by rescinding the 2024 NPR-A Rule. Commenters stated that
the need to maintain protections for the NPR-A is strengthened by the
intensity and rate of impacts that climate change is having on the
Arctic, which they state is warming at four times the rate of the rest
of the world. The commenters mentioned that threats to food security
are increasing (especially for populations that rely on subsistence
lifestyles), animal migration patterns and abundance are shifting, and
there are numerous unpredictable conditions such as thawing permafrost,
coastal erosion, and melting sea ice that are already having serious
repercussions on the communities, lands, and animals of the Arctic. The
commenters said that the NPR-A's globally significant habitat for polar
bears, caribou, migratory birds, and numerous other species are already
being impacted by climate change and could be further adversely
impacted by oil and gas development and infrastructure. One of the
commenters expressed that the 2024 NPR-A Rule was a step toward climate
responsibility by providing a vehicle for the BLM to consider
cumulative greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in making decisions, while
the BLM's proposed rule is likely to worsen these adverse climate
effects by opening up substantial new areas of the NPR-A for oil and
gas development and increasing GHG emissions.
BLM Response: This final rule restores the legally appropriate
management framework within the NPR-A to the purpose for which it was
designated in the NPRPA. Specifically, the regulatory framework will
allow the BLM to support an expeditious program of oil and gas
exploration and development that also provides for the protection of
surface resources consistent with the requirements of the NPRPA.
However, this rule is not self-executing and provides the BLM the
discretion to appropriately consider future on-the-ground actions,
through the separate IAP process, consistent with the NPRPA and other
laws, pursuant to the applicable decision-making framework for the
Bureau. This final rule does not change the agency's requirements to
analyze and account for the impacts to surface resources and
subsistence activities, whether from a project or as part of the
analysis for an IAP, under NEPA, section 810 of ANILCA, or section 7 of
the ESA. Management decisions, including which stipulations and
required operating procedures are necessary to ensure proper protection
of surface resources and consideration of special areas, are made
through the IAP process. The 2024 NPR-A Rule introduced unnecessary
procedural complexity that conflicts with the NPRPA's statutory
framework and impedes the BLM's ability to carry out its
responsibilities--namely, to ensure the timely leasing, exploration,
development, and production of oil and gas resources in the NPR-A while
also protecting surface resources and accommodating other authorized
uses. Further, neither the 2024 NPR-A Rule nor this final rule have any
bearing on how the BLM will consider GHG emissions for decisions it
makes in the NPR-A. Any potential effects on GHG emissions that could
occur from this rule are too broad, speculative, or conjectural to lend
themselves to meaningful analysis at this time. Rather, these effects
would, to the extent required by law, be analyzed in a NEPA analysis,
supporting IAP or in site-specific project approval decisions. These
analyses will continue to follow the requirements of applicable law and
regulations as appropriate based on the decision to be made.
Comment: A commenter said that North Slope development presents
several environmental advantages. The commenter described the North
Slope oil and gas development as having lower GHG intensity than
conventional onshore development. The commenter stated that projects
like Santos' Pikka possess a GHG intensity of 14 tCO2e/mboe, much lower
than the industry average of 46 tCO2e/mboe, and the onshore industry
average of 30 tCO2e/mboe.
BLM Response: This final rule is not self-executing, meaning that
it does not itself make any substantive changes on the ground and will
not restrict the BLM's discretion to take or authorize future on-the-
ground actions. The BLM acknowledges the information provided by the
commentor, but this final rule does not regulate GHG levels related to
oil and gas development. However, the final rule provides for the BLM's
discretion to appropriately consider future on-the-ground actions
consistent with the NPRPA and other laws, pursuant to the applicable
decision-making framework for the Bureau.

Comments on Special Areas

Comment: Commenters stated that the 2024 NPR-A Rule provides
necessary protections for special areas within the NPR-A, including the
Teshekpuk Lake Special Area, Colville River Special Area, and Utukok
River Uplands Special Area. The commenters stated that the protections
for these special areas are based on the best available science, the
importance of these areas to the region's fish, wildlife, and other
renewable resource values, and that these protections are consistent
with the BLM's obligation to provide maximum protection for special
areas based on their significant subsistence, recreational, fish and
wildlife, historical, and scenic values. An individual commenter said
that the special-area restrictions of the 2024 NPR-A Rule are
consistent with the NPRPA. Another commenter said that without the 2024
NPR-A Rule, there

[[Page 51479]]

could be industrial sprawl in areas such as the Teshekpuk Lake Special
Area or the Colville River Special Area, which are vital to wildlife
and subsistence users.
BLM Response: This final rule has no effect on the BLM's ability to
designate special areas or to provide maximum protection for the
significant surface values found therein, to the extent consistent with
the exploration and production requirements of the Act. Further, this
final rule does not itself change any of the protections for existing
special areas that were put in place by the 2022 IAP. If the BLM
changes any of those protections, the BLM will rely on a process to
make changes to the relevant decisions in the IAP--a process that is
separate and independent of this rule. Designation of special areas
where significant surface values exist in NPR-A is a fact-based
inventory determination based on the best available information during
preparation of an IAP. As such, the special area boundaries that result
are not areas set aside specifically for non-development, but simply a
recognition of where certain management prescriptions may be necessary
to accomplish ``maximum protection'' of those surface values, while
allowing development to occur. Note that this process, not the process
detailed in the 2024 NPR-A Rule, is the process by which the boundaries
of all current special areas were designated.
The NPRPA is a dominant-use statute that directs the BLM to manage
the NPR-A primarily for oil and gas leasing, exploration, development,
and production, and provides the BLM with discretion to determine the
appropriate framework for protecting surface resources throughout the
NPR-A. Further, the maximum protection of significant surface values
within special areas, while required by the NPRPA, only applies to the
extent consistent with the exploration and production requirements of
the Act. While the NPRPA provides for maximum protection of significant
surface values in special areas, it is clear from the text of the
statute and its legislative history that Congress envisioned special
areas may need such protection precisely because they have significant
surface values and could be subject to exploration for and production
of oil and gas. The maximum protection, however, is limited by statute
to the extent that such is consistent with the requirements of the
NPRPA for the exploration for and production of oil and gas resources
in the NPR-A. This rule correctly reflects this statutory mandate.
Provisions in the 2024 NPR-A Rule that would unnecessarily restrict
the leasing, exploration, development, and production of oil and gas
resources within the NPR-A are contrary to the congressional direction
in the NPRPA to develop lands within the NPR-A, including special
areas, as part of an expeditious oil and gas leasing program. As has
been the standard since long before the 2024 NPR-A Rule, special area
designation, including boundaries and management restrictions, are made
through the IAP process, which is separate and independent from this
rule.
Further, protection of surface values within special areas is not
limited to those protections provided in the rule, the IAP, or other
Secretarial decisions relating to the establishment of special areas.
For example, polar bears are protected by the Marine Mammal Protection
Act, 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq., and the ESA, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq., and
nesting birds and raptors are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty
Act, 16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.
Finally, the 2024 NPR-A Rule incorrectly asserted that the NPRPA
codified the boundaries of the Utukok River special area and the
Teshekpuk Lake special area such that they could not be reduced without
an act of Congress (89 FR 38712, 38736) (June 6, 2024). That incorrect
assertion was based on an unreasonable interpretation of language in
section 104(b) of the NPRPA, codified at 43 U.S.C 6504(a), that
provides that any exploration within the Utukok River, the Teshekpuk
Lake areas, and other areas designated by the Secretary of the Interior
containing any significant subsistence, recreational, fish and
wildlife, or historical or scenic value, shall be conducted in a manner
which will assure the maximum protection of such surface values to the
extent consistent with the requirements of this Act for the exploration
of the reserve.
There is nothing in that provision of the NPRPA that explicitly
codifies the boundaries of those special areas. In fact, the boundaries
of the Utukok River special area and the Teshekpuk Lake special area
were not defined at the time of enactment, but rather, were later
established by the Secretary in 1977 (42 FR 28723). Further, the
boundaries for both the Utukok River special area and the Teshekpuk
Lake special area have been modified in the ensuing decades to add more
lands to the boundaries (64 FR 167470). Therefore, the BLM's novel
interpretation of section 104(b) of the NPRPA in the 2024 NPR-A Rule
was unreasonable based on both the plain language of the law and the
BLM's prior long-standing interpretation of the language which has
supported the modification of the boundaries for the Utukok River
special area and the Teshekpuk Lake special area. As such, that
unreasonable interpretation, which created unnecessary management
constraints, is reversed by this final rule.
Comment: A commenter expressed support for the 2024 NPR-A Rule that
codifies that special areas (like the Teshekpuk Lake Special Area) must
be managed for maximum protection of their significant values,
including fish habitat. The commenter said that they cannot afford to
lose these commitments. The commenter stated that the 2024 NPR-A Rule
requires the BLM to prepare a statement of adverse effect when proposed
oil activity would harm a special area, describing the values at stake,
nature of harm, avoidance measures considered, and required mitigation.
The commenter expressed that this process is valuable because it
acknowledges impacts on subsistence and culture, provides Indigenous
communities formal input, and increases transparency and accountability
in agency decisions. The commenter said that rescinding the 2024 NPR-A
Rule means the BLM would no longer have to do a public accounting of
harms to special areas. The commenter stated that rescission of the
2024 NPR-A Rule would make it more difficult for the BLM to fulfill its
mandate to protect significant subsistence resources under the NPRPA.
The commenter referenced the BLM's determination that subsistence is a
Significant Resource Value (SRV) in all existing special areas and in
lands proposed for protection, and noted that under section 6504(a) of
the NPRPA, the BLM must ``assure the maximum protection'' of the
subsistence SRV across those landscapes. The commenter emphasized that
once the BLM identifies a value as ``significant,'' the NPRPA leaves
the Agency no discretion to ignore it, and maximum-protection measures
are mandatory.
BLM Response: The NPRPA is a dominant-use statute that directs the
BLM to manage the NPR-A primarily for oil and gas leasing, exploration,
development, and production, and provides the BLM with discretion to
determine the appropriate framework for protecting surface resources
throughout the NPR-A. Further, this rule restores the standard that the
maximum protection of significant surface values within special areas,
while required by the NPRPA, only applies to the extent consistent with
the exploration and production

[[Page 51480]]

requirements of the Act. This rule correctly reflects this statutory
mandate.
This final rule will not affect the BLM's ability to identify
special areas or to provide maximum protection for the significant
resource values found therein, consistent with the requirements of the
NPRPA. The BLM will continue to follow the process it has used for
decades regarding special area identification, including boundaries and
management restrictions, taking public comment, and designation, if
appropriate through the separate IAP process. The identification of
``special'' areas where significant values exist in NPR-A is a fact-
based inventory determination based on the best available information
during preparation of an IAP. As such, the special area boundaries that
result are not areas set aside specifically for non-development but
simply a recognition of where certain management prescriptions may be
necessary to accomplish ``maximum protection'' of those surface values,
while allowing development to occur. Note that this process, not the
process detailed in the 2024 NPR-A Rule, is the process by which the
boundaries of all current special areas were designated.
Further, the 2024 NPR-A Rule is not required by law, creates
uncertainty for uses of the NPR-A, conflicts with the national energy
policy, and is unnecessary to effectively manage surface resources
therein. The 2024 NPR-A Rule interferes with the IAP process that the
BLM has used for decades to determine appropriate management decisions,
including which stipulations and required operating procedures are
necessary to ensure proper protection of surface resources. The 2024
NPR-A Rule added unnecessary procedures that complicate the BLM's
ability to make timely decisions for protection of surface resources
and for authorized uses within the NPR-A. For example, soon after the
rule was issued, the BLM was required to complete a statement of
adverse effect under 43 CFR 2361.40(g)(6) before approving the renewal
of CPAI's annual environmental monitoring permit for 2024, part of the
environmental monitoring and baseline studies in the required operating
procedures for the 2022 NPR-A IAP ROD. The statement of adverse effect
largely summarized information that had already been presented to the
public and analyzed by the BLM in previously completed NEPA analysis,
ANILCA section 810 analysis, and ESA consultation related to the
approval of the project years earlier. This extra step delayed the
BLM's renewal of CPAI's monitoring permit and impacted CPAI's ability
to begin its seasonal monitoring on time.
Finally, with regard to subsistence as a significant resource
value, the NPRPA itself provides that oil and gas activities must be
conducted in a manner that ensures maximum protection of significant
subsistence values (among others) within special areas, consistent with
the requirements of the Act to provide for an expeditious program of
oil and gas leasing. This final rule is consistent with that directive
and identifies subsistence as one of the values for which maximum
protection measures shall be taken within special areas, but consistent
with the language in the NPRPA, such measures only apply to the extent
consistent with the exploration and production requirements of the Act.
Comment: A commenter stated that the BLM has ignored regional
geology and evidence of where hydrocarbon entrapment for oil is most
likely to occur in the NPR-A when creating preferred alternatives and
stipulations. The commenter described how the Barrow Arch geological
feature extends from Utqiagvik to Point Thomson and has been the focal
point for hydrocarbon migration resulting in giant oilfield
accumulations. The commenter expressed that the highly prospective
Nanushuk-Torok Play Fairway extends from recently discovered giant
oilfields northwestward along the southern flank of the Barrow Arch to
the Chukchi Sea, but the expanded Teshekpuk Lake Special Area has
designated this entire region as ``unavailable for leasing,'' ignoring
the geological science. The commenter requested that restrictions
covering the region south of Teshekpuk Lake and the South Coast of
Smith Bay be reconsidered and reopened to exploration and development.
BLM Response: This final rule rescinds the 2024 NPR-A Rule;
however, that does not change the special area boundaries. The
designation or de-designation of special areas or revision of the
boundaries or management provisions are decisions that are historically
determined through the IAP process--which is distinct and separate from
this rulemaking--and includes its own public input and environmental
analysis requirements.

Comments on Protection of Surface Resources

Comment: A commenter said that the NPR-A is home to extraordinary
complexes of lakes, ponds, and other waterways teeming with fish, and a
myriad of other irreplaceable resources. The commenter said that it
would be disastrous for the region to repeal the 2024 NPR-A Rule, which
the commenter asserted ensures responsible management of the Western
Arctic. Similarly, a commenter stated that the NPR-A's rivers, lakes,
and coastal waters sustain their rich fisheries as well as waterfowl
and marine mammals that are part of their subsistence. They expressed
concern about increased industrial activity due to the proposed rule,
such as excessive water withdrawal for ice roads and drilling, can
lower the water levels in lakes and streams, potentially leading to
these water bodies no longer being deep enough for fish to overwinter,
killing the fish, or forcing them to relocate.
BLM Response: The final rule is not self-executing, meaning that it
does not itself make any substantive changes on the ground and will not
restrict the BLM's discretion to undertake or authorize future on-the-
ground actions. This final rule provides the BLM with discretion to
appropriately consider future on-the-ground actions, consistent with
the NPRPA and other laws, pursuant to the applicable decision-making
framework for the Bureau. The final rule will continue to ensure the
protection of surface resources within the NPR-A, to the extent
consistent with carrying out the congressionally directed
prioritization of oil and gas leasing, exploration, development, and
production. The BLM would consider and address impacts to surface
resources within the NPR-A during the IAP process or project-level
decisions. As an example, the BLM would analyze the condition of
surface resources, including changing ecological conditions or specific
surface resources when determining when or how to update the IAP.
Comment: Commenters mentioned that the NPR-A is crucial for the
Western Arctic Caribou Herd's calving habitat and provides critical
denning habitat for threatened polar bears, which are sensitive to the
disturbance, displacement, and mortality that would occur from expanded
oil development. Additionally, commenters noted that the NPR-A contains
seven Audubon of Alaska Important Bird Areas, with six designated for
global importance due to waterbird and raptor concentration areas.
Commenters also stated that the Teshekpuk Lake Special Area provides
critical nesting, molting, and breeding habitat for birds, while the
Kasegaluk Lagoon Special Area boasts the highest abundance and
diversity of bird life in all of the Arctic Alaska coastal lagoons and
serves as a migration area for as much as half of the Pacific Brant
population. Commenters asserted that

[[Page 51481]]

oil and gas activities in the NPR-A would not only destroy and fragment
essential wildlife habitat for polar bears, migratory birds, caribou,
and other species but also threaten nesting, molting, and breeding
habitat and changes to nesting site availability.
BLM Response: The final rule is not self-executing, meaning that it
does not itself make any substantive changes on the ground and will not
restrict the BLM's discretion to take or authorize future on-the-ground
actions. Instead, the final rule provides the BLM with discretion to
appropriately consider future on-the-ground actions, consistent with
the NPRPA and other laws, pursuant to the applicable decision-making
framework for the Bureau. The rule will continue to ensure the
protection of surface resources within the NPR-A, to the extent
consistent with carrying out the congressionally directed
prioritization of oil and gas leasing, exploration, development, and
production. Management decisions, including which stipulations and
required operating procedures are necessary to ensure proper protection
of surface resources are appropriately made through the IAP process, as
well as project-specific decisions.
Additionally, the protections for surface values in the NPR-A are
not limited to those protections in the IAP. For example, polar bears
are protected by the Marine Mammal Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. 1361 et
seq., and the ESA, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq., and nesting birds and
raptors are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 16 U.S.C. 703
et seq.

Comments on Wildlife and Subsistence Resources

Comment: Several commenters described the NPR-A as a region with
incomparable wildlife and ecology, home to three caribou herds,
threatened polar bears, fish, and millions of globally significant
migratory birds. The commenters said that its treasured wildlife and
wilderness are central to the subsistence livelihood of Indigenous
communities and to the Nation's conservation heritage. A commenter
mentioned that birds from all four North American flyways migrate to
the NPR-A, including Brants from the Pacific Flyway, Tundra Swans from
the Atlantic Flyway, White-fronted Geese from the Mississippi Flyway,
and Pintails from the Central Flyway. Commenters mentioned that
rescinding the 2024 NPR-A Rule would reduce habitat protections for
dozens of avian species dependent on the ecologically intact lands of
the NPR-A managed by the BLM. A commenter stated that migratory birds
have important economic value for the States that they migrate to and
from. The commenter said that oil and gas development in the NPR-A will
increase bird mortality which will result in economic loss.
BLM Response: We acknowledge the comments highlighting the
ecological importance of the NPR-A, including its role as habitat for
migratory birds, caribou herds, polar bears, and other wildlife, as
well as its significance to subsistence communities. However, this
final rule is not self-executing, meaning that it does not itself make
any substantive changes on the ground and will not restrict the BLM's
discretion to take or authorize future on-the-ground actions. Instead,
this final rule provides for the BLM's discretion to appropriately
consider future on-the-ground actions, consistent with the NPRPA and
other laws, pursuant to the applicable decision-making framework for
the Bureau. As directed by the NPRPA, this final rule will continue to
ensure the protection of surface resources within the NPR-A, to the
extent consistent with carrying out the congressionally directed
prioritization of oil and gas leasing, exploration, development, and
production. Under this final rule, management decisions, including
which stipulations and required operating procedures are necessary to
ensure proper protection of surface resources, will be appropriately
made through the IAP process, as well as project-specific decisions.
Additionally, the protections for surface values in the NPR-A are
not limited to those protections in the IAP. For example, migratory
birds are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, 16 U.S.C.
703-712.
While migratory birds are undoubtedly valuable to many communities,
the assertion that this final rule would cause economic harm is based
on a series of assumptions that go well beyond what is supported by
evidence. It assumes that this final rule by itself and without
intervening actions, will lead to more development, that such
development will significantly harm bird populations, and that this
harm will be large enough to affect economies in other States. Each of
these steps is uncertain, and together they make the argument
speculative and conjectural. Given the multiple procedural steps
required before any new areas within the NPR-A can be leased or
developed--including planning, public engagement, tribal consultation,
environmental review, NHPA section 106 consultation, ESA section 7
consultation, ANILCA section 810 processes, and permitting--combined
with the vast size of the NPR-A, the limited footprint of potential
development, and the subsequent site-specific environmental analysis,
with any resulting associated protection measures, there is no credible
basis to assert that this rule change would result in measurable
economic loss stemming from impacts on migratory birds. Although the
concerns raised are important and could be addressed through
appropriate future analyses, they are not directly relevant to the
scope or function of this rulemaking.
Comment: Commenters discussed the importance of the NPR-A and said
that it is not just land to them--it is their home, and the source of
their food, water, and spiritual sustenance. One of the commenters
mentioned that the 2024 NPR-A Rule took steps toward recognizing that
protecting subsistence means protecting people, not just animals in
isolation. Commenters stated that the 2024 NPR-A Rule is necessary to
protect and maintain access to long-standing subsistence activities in
and around the NPR-A by establishing a process for designating, de-
designating, and changing boundaries of lands in special areas
containing subsistence values and directs the BLM to seek opportunities
to engage federally recognized Tribes in co-stewardship of special
areas and subsistence resources. A commenter stated that the 2024 NPR-A
Rule is necessary to protect and maintain access to long-standing
subsistence activities in and around the NPR-A.
BLM Response: We acknowledge the comment expressing interest in
maintaining and protecting subsistence activities within the NPR-A,
among other important uses. This final rule does not change the
agency's requirements to analyze and account for the impacts to
subsistence activities under ANILCA section 810 whether from a project-
level decision making process or as part of the analysis for an IAP.
Management decisions, including which stipulations and required
operating procedures are necessary to ensure proper protection of
surface resources and consideration of special areas, are made through
the IAP process and associated ANILCA section 810 analysis. The 2024
NPR-A Rule inappropriately added unnecessary procedural complexity
intended to generally preclude development in special areas rather than
regulate development in a manner that ensures maximum protection of
subsistence and other significant surface values to the extent
consistent with the exploration and production requirements of the Act,
which is inconsistent with the statutory

[[Page 51482]]

framework of the NPRPA. As a result, the 2024 NPR-A Rule unreasonably
restricted the BLM's ability to fulfill its statutory responsibilities
under the NPRPA and further the rule is inconsistent with the national
energy policy.
As an example, before approving the renewal of ConocoPhillips
Alaska, Inc's (CPAI) annual environmental monitoring permit for 2024--
part of the environmental monitoring and baseline studies in the
required operating procedures for the 2022 NPR-A IAP ROD--the 2024 NPR-
A Rule mandated that the BLM complete a statement of adverse effect
that largely summarized information that was already presented to the
public in previously completed NEPA analysis, ANILCA section 810
analysis, and ESA consultation. This extra step delayed the BLM's
renewal of CPAI's monitoring permit and impacted CPAI's ability to
begin its seasonal monitoring on time. Rescinding the 2024 NPR-A Rule
removes this unnecessary requirement.
Comment: Commenters stated that the BLM is required to comply with
ANILCA section 810, which recognizes that subsistence uses are an
important public interest and provides procedural and substantive
requirements to consider and protect subsistence uses in agency
decision-making processes. Another commenter stated that repealing the
2024 NPR-A Rule would ``dismantle that procedural scaffold,'' making it
easier for future applications for permit to drill, rights-of-way, or
IAP amendments to proceed without adequate analysis, directly
undermining ANILCA's purpose. A commenter stated that the BLM's
proposal would substantially reduce the protections for subsistence
resources, use, and access, which would adversely affect subsistence
uses and users. Therefore, the commenter said that the BLM must fully
comply with the procedures required under ANILCA section 810, including
conducting hearings to ensure it minimizes adverse effects on the
impacts to subsistence.
BLM Response: This final rule does not change the agency's
requirements to analyze and account for the impacts to subsistence
activities under ANILCA section 810 whether from a project or as part
of the analysis for an IAP. Management decisions, including which
stipulations and required operating procedures are necessary to ensure
proper protection of surface resources and consideration of special
areas, are made through the IAP process and associated ANILCA section
810 analysis.
In addition, this final rule--like the 2024 NPR-A Rule--is not
self-executing, meaning that it does not itself make any substantive
changes on the ground, and does not make any decisions for surface
resources or projects within the NPR-A. Because this final rule does
not involve decisions regarding the tangible use, occupancy, or
disposition of public lands, section 810 of ANILCA does not apply. The
final rule provides for the BLM's discretion to appropriately consider
future on-the-ground actions, consistent with the NPRPA and other
laws--including ANILCA, pursuant to the applicable decision-making
framework for the Bureau. This final rule will continue to ensure the
protection of surface resources within the NPR-A, to the extent
consistent with carrying out the congressionally directed
prioritization of oil and gas leasing, exploration, development, and
production. Management decisions, including which stipulations and
required operating procedures are necessary to ensure proper protection
of surface resources, are appropriately made through the IAP process,
as well as project-specific decisions.

Comments on Oil & Gas Production

Comment: Commenters stated that oil development in and around their
community has already caused significant harm to their physical health,
food security, and cultural practices. They described several specific
impacts they believe have resulted from that development, including:
caribou deflection and habitat fragmentation, fish habitat loss and
water pollution, and food contamination. Further, the commenter
described the decline in air quality in Nuiqsut due to oil development,
stating that community members now live with frequent exposure to
industrial air emissions from gas flaring, diesel engines, dust, and
leaks. The commenter mentioned that hazardous air pollutants released
by nearby operations pose serious health risks, including cancer,
respiratory illnesses, heart problems, and developmental disorders.
BLM Response: This final rule is not self-executing, meaning that
it does not itself make any substantive changes on the ground and will
not restrict the BLM's discretion to take or authorize future on-the-
ground actions. Instead, this rule provides the BLM with the
appropriate level of discretion to consider future on-the-ground
actions--through the IAP process or project-specific decision making to
analyze and account for the impacts to surface values and subsistence
activities--consistent with the resource protection provisions of the
NPRPA. These management decisions, including which stipulations and
required operating procedures are necessary to ensure proper protection
of surface values under the NPRPA (both within and outside special
areas), are appropriately made through the IAP process, as well as
project-specific decisions.
Nothing in the 2024 NPR-A Rule recission changes the statutory
requirements to analyze and account for the impacts to subsistence
resources or access under ANILCA section 810 whether from a project or
as part of the analysis for an IAP. Management decisions, including
which stipulations and required operating procedures are necessary to
ensure proper protection of surface resources and consideration of
special areas, are made through the IAP process and associated ANILCA
section 810 analysis.
The BLM would consider and address impacts to surface resources
within the NPR-A during the IAP process or project-level decisions on
proposals considered subsequent to this rule. As an example, the BLM
could analyze the condition of surface resources, including changing
ecological conditions or impacts to specific surface resources as
appropriate when determining when or how to update the IAP.
Comment: A commenter expressed concern that repealing the 2024 NPR-
A Rule would mean reopening millions of acres of undisturbed public
land to oil and gas drilling, which could bring environmental harm such
as seismic blasting, oil spills, gas leaks, habitat destruction, and
contamination of water and soil. A commenter stated that oil and gas
activities have already resulted and will result in significant adverse
effects (including carbon pollution) that will compound if new
development activities expand on the ConocoPhillips Willow Project in
the NPR-A. ConocoPhillips has submitted applications to the BLM seeking
to explore additional reservoirs within the project area.
BLM Response: The final rule is not self-executing, meaning that it
does not itself make any substantive changes on the ground and will not
restrict the BLM's discretion to take or authorize future on-the-ground
actions. Rather, this rule provides the BLM with the appropriate level
of discretion to consider future on-the-ground actions--through the IAP
process or project-specific decision making to analyze and account for
the impacts to surface values and subsistence activities--

[[Page 51483]]

consistent with the resource protection provisions of the NPRPA. The
final rule will continue to ensure the protection of surface values
within the NPR-A while providing for a competitive oil and gas program.
Future proposals for oil and gas activity in the NPR-A will be subject
to the requirements of the NPRPA, must comply with the management
provisions of the applicable IAP, and will be presented to the public
for input and evaluated by the BLM to the extent required by NEPA,
ANILCA section 810, section 106 of the NHPA, and ESA section 7 as part
of the decision making process.

Comments on Economic Effects

Comment: Commenters stated that the 2024 NPR-A Rule would have
devastating economic effects on local communities, the State of Alaska,
and industry by restricting development opportunities and leaseholder
rights. The commenters expressed that the 2024 NPR-A Rule failed to
properly account for the economic role that responsible oil and gas
development plays in sustaining North Slope governance and self-
determination. The commenters mentioned that the North Slope Borough
relies on property taxes from infrastructure associated with NPR-A
projects, including pipelines, roads, and well pads to fund essential
services, and the 2024 NPR-A Rule would diminish the Borough's future
tax base, threatening its delivery of clean water, education,
sanitation, public safety, and housing to its citizens. A commenter
mentioned that 50 percent of all sales, rentals, bonuses, and royalties
on NPR-A leases are paid to the State of Alaska for public facilities
and services. The commenter noted that in 2021, the State of Alaska
awarded local communities over $10 million through grants from funds
received from leases in the NPR-A, and these economic impacts were not
fully considered in the 2024 NPR-A Rule's economic analysis.
BLM Response: The 2024 NPR-A Rule and associated economic analysis
characterized the regulatory changes as primarily clarifying in nature
and concluded that the rule would not result in significant economic
impacts. At that time, the BLM received approximately 89,254 document
submissions on <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> which entailed approximately 239,565
total comments on the 2024 NPR-A Rule proposal, including many from
industry representatives, Tribes, and the State of Alaska. A
substantial number of these comments raised concerns that the economic
impacts of the rule may have been materially underestimated. These
comments raised questions about the adequacy of the original economic
analysis, particularly regarding the potential effects on local
economies, tax revenues, and community services in the North Slope
region. Regarding effects from this final rule, the BLM anticipates the
rescission of regulatory red-tape will remove internal procedural
hurdles which will, at a minimum, restore the regulatory status quo and
provide a management framework for the NPR-A relative to surface
resource protection, to the extent consistent with exploration and
development, that has been in place for nearly the entire period of oil
and gas development and production in the NPR-A. In doing so, the
regulations will provide increased certainty and predictability for the
State of Alaska, users in the NPR-A, potentially affected ANCSA
Corporations, local governments and federally recognized Tribes. The
BLM anticipates that the perception of market conditions and confidence
will return to baseline, leading to pass-through indirect economic
benefits realized by agency efficiency and improved predictability.
Comment: A commenter stated that the 2024 NPR-A Rule creates a maze
of new substantive and procedural requirements applicable to all areas
of the NPR-A, establishing strict impediments to development outside
special areas and effectively prohibiting future development within
special areas by presuming that such development should not be allowed.
The commenter also stated that the complexity of the 2024 NPR-A Rule
and the bias against production undermine the conditions necessary for
a successful oil and gas leasing program, such as regulatory clarity,
predictability, and limited exposure to subsequent litigation. A
commenter who holds nearly a million acres of leases within the NPR-A
expressed concerns about impacts to existing leases, specifically that
development of and access to existing leases may be restricted,
delayed, or denied as an outcome of the 2024 NPR-A Rule. The commenter
mentioned that the BLM had suspended their leases in the NPR-A due to
impacts of the 2024 NPR-A Rule and subsequently released the suspension
upon the announcement that the 2024 NPR-A Rule was to be rescinded. A
commenter said they have spent considerable time and money investing in
their leases and are ready to re-commence exploration drilling subject
to the rescinding of the 2024 NPR-A Rule, which they stated effectively
prohibits any economic path forward to further development. The
commenter expressed concern that the ``maximum protection'' provisions
of the 2024 NPR-A Rule, especially the presumption against permitting
oil and gas infrastructure in special areas, create a high bar for any
new oil and gas development. The commenter also stated that since the
resumption of leasing in the NPR-A during 1999, the oil and gas
industry has witnessed a steady decline in the availability of
prospective NPR-A acreage for exploration and development due to the
expansion of special areas and implementation of more onerous BLM
stipulations. The commenter expressed that exploration drilling and
seismic acquisition in the NPR-A is very expensive, and without
reasonable certainty that development can proceed after a significant
oil discovery, the cost and excessive stipulations have become
prohibitive to investment.
BLM Response: The 2024 NPR-A Rule and associated economic analysis
characterized the regulatory changes as primarily clarifying in nature
and concluded that the rule would not result in significant economic
impacts. At that time, the BLM received approximately 89,254 document
submissions on <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> which entailed approximately 239,565
total comments, including many from industry representatives, Tribes,
and the State of Alaska. A number of these comments raised concerns
that the economic impacts of the rule may have been materially
underestimated. Under this final rule, the BLM has re-evaluated the
2024 NPR-A Rule and taken a closer look at the public input received.
These comments raise questions about the adequacy of the original
economic analysis, particularly regarding the potential effects on
local economies, tax revenues, and community services in the North
Slope region.
Based on comments received and subsequent decisions by industry to
suspend leases in the NPR-A, it is clear that the additional regulatory
requirements introduced by the 2024 NPR-A Rule contributed to a
perception of uncertainty and reduced opportunities for exploration and
development within the NPR-A. While the agency cannot determine or
verify the extent to which these perceptions influenced investment or
development decisions, it recognizes the potential for such perceptions
to affect market behavior. With the rescission of the duplicative and
unnecessary procedural requirements under the 2024 NPR-A Rule, the BLM
will reduce internal regulatory burdens and restore the NPR-A's
management framework to one that provides for surface resource
protection

[[Page 51484]]

while prioritizing leasing, exploration, development, and production,
consistent with applicable laws. This restoration is expected to
improve regulatory clarity and predictability, which may help return
market confidence to baseline levels.
In response to one specific comment, the BLM clarifies here that
there were five oil and gas companies that requested a voluntary
suspension of their leases within the NPR-A while the 2024 NPR-A Rule
was being analyzed. At each company's request, the BLM approved a
suspension. Subsequently, three of those companies requested a
continued voluntary suspension prior to the expiration of their first.
All five companies have current suspensions in place.
Comment: A commenter criticized the BLM for failing to evaluate the
economic costs and environmental damage from increased GHG emissions in
its Draft Economic Analysis. The commenter stated that the BLM's
analysis never mentioned GHG emissions or climate change, only noting
that increased flexibility for oil and gas management could lead to
relative increases in revenues but possible negative impacts on climate
and habitat. The commenter referenced court decisions rejecting agency
refusals to properly quantify the costs of GHG emissions, including
estimating the social cost of carbon, and stated that the BLM must
analyze and disclose the actual climate effects caused by GHG
emissions. The commenter also stated that the BLM failed to account for
the loss of access to subsistence resources and adverse effects on
ecosystem services in the NPR-A. An advocacy organization stated that
drilling in the Arctic poses significant economic risks, as it is one
of the most expensive regions for oil and gas production due to its
harsh climate, geographic remoteness, and limited infrastructure. The
commenter said that recent lease sales have failed to attract oil
company bids, reflecting skepticism about the region's financial
viability. Additionally, the commenter said the fiscal watchdogs and
congressional budget analysts have highlighted a track record of
economic failure for Arctic oil ventures, noting that the most recent
Federal lease sale yielded no revenue and increased the U.S. deficit by
$1 billion.
BLM Response: As described in other responses to comments, this
final rule does not, by itself, make any substantive, on-the-ground
changes or take or authorize future on-the-ground actions. Instead,
this final rule provides the BLM with discretion to consider future on-
the-ground actions--through the IAP process or project-specific
decision making to analyze and account for the impacts to surface
values and subsistence activities--consistent with the resource
protection provisions of the NPRPA. These management decisions,
including which stipulations and required operating procedures are
necessary to ensure proper protection of surface resources under the
NPRPA (both within and outside special areas), are appropriately made
through the IAP process, as well as project-specific decisions.
Therefore, the BLM is not analyzing or specifically considering under
NEPA the climate impacts of oil and gas development as part of this
rulemaking process. The environmental effects of GHG emissions that may
result from any changes to oil and gas consumption that may be
influenced by the production of oil and gas from the NPR-A are separate
in time and place from this rulemaking. Cf. Seven County Infrastructure
Coalition v. Eagle County, 145 S. Ct. 1497 (2025). Such downstream
emissions that could occur as a result of future projects would not
occur as a direct result of this rulemaking and would be analyzed by
future programmatic or project-specific decision-making processes.
Further, given the multiple procedural steps required before any new
areas within the NPR-A could be leased or developed--including
planning, public engagement, tribal consultation, environmental review,
NHPA section 106 consultation, Endangered Species Act section 7
consultation, ANILCA section 810 processes, and permitting--combined
with the vast size of the NPR-A, the limited footprint of potential
development, and the subsequent site-specific environmental analysis,
with any resulting associated protection measures, there is no
requirement to prepare an environmental analysis of an action arising
from an entirely separate and speculative project (or projects) that is
well downstream of this rulemaking under NEPA.
Comment: A commenter expressed support for the BLM's proposal to
rescind the 2024 NPR-A Rule, stating it would help eliminate roadblocks
established under the Biden Administration and reverse lost job and
private investment opportunities. The commenter stated that future oil
and gas production in the NPR-A is vital to Alaska's economic health,
the State's residents, and the Nation's energy independence and
security. A commenter stated that the rescission supports an approach
allowing responsible energy development while maintaining necessary
environmental safeguards under existing frameworks such as the 2020
NPR-A IAP. The commenter expressed that communities closest to the land
can continue to benefit from jobs, infrastructure, and revenue derived
from resource development in the NPR-A. A commenter described Alaska's
energy challenges, particularly the declining gas supplies in Cook
Inlet that threaten energy stability and affordability for most
Alaskans. The commenter expressed that North Slope oil and gas
development could address this energy gap by providing cheaper gas for
Alaskans. The commenter stated that regulatory certainty for North
Slope development would allow conventional oil plays to yield decades
of production while providing jobs and economic activities to nearby
Native villages. The commenter also stated that the U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS) increased its estimate to more than 14 billion barrels of
recoverable oil underlying Federal lands on the North Slope in June
2025, along with 104 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Based on its
experience and knowledge, the commenter estimated that the NPR-A could
hold over 20 billion barrels of recoverable oil. The commenter
expressed that neither the 2022 NPR-A IAP Record of Decision nor the
2024 NPR-A Rule's economic analysis appropriately accounted for the
likely recoverable oil within the NPR-A.
BLM Response: The 2024 NPR-A Rule and associated economic analysis
characterized the regulatory changes as primarily clarifying in nature
and concluded that the rule would not result in significant economic
impacts. At that time, the BLM received approximately 89,254 document
submissions on <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> which entailed approximately 239,565
total comments, including many from industry representatives, Tribes,
and the State of Alaska. A number of these comments raised concerns
that the economic impacts of the rule may have been materially
underestimated. Under this rule, the BLM re-evaluated the 2024 NPR-A
Rule and took a closer look at the public input received. These
comments raised questions about the adequacy of the original economic
analysis, particularly regarding the potential effects on local
economies, tax revenues, and community services in the North Slope
region. In considering 2025 Final Rule, the BLM anticipates the
rescission of regulatory red-tape will remove internal procedural
hurdles which will, at a minimum, restore the regulatory management
framework for

[[Page 51485]]

the NPR-A relative to surface resource protection to the extent
consistent with exploration and development. In doing so, the BLM
anticipates that perception of market conditions and confidence will
return to baseline.
Comment: A commenter said that the BLM's Draft Economic Analysis
for the proposed rescission is inadequate and omits significant
economic effects. The commenter stated that the BLM's baseline
assumptions are inconsistent, as the BLM claims decisions in the 2022
IAP are unaffected while simultaneously initiating a process to
consider changes to that plan. The commenter said the BLM must evaluate
economic costs of rescission in light of returning to management under
the 2020 IAP. They also stated that the BLM's analysis found few
economic costs associated with rescission and failed to quantify costs
while discussing only benefits in depth. A commenter stated that the
economic analysis ignores or misstates costs to I[ntilde]upiat life,
health, safety, tradition, and culture. The commenter said the BLM
wrongly stated that repeal ``does not impose direct regulatory cost on
any . . . community'' and excluded costs that matter locally: loss of
caribou and fish, additional fuel required to hunt farther, medical
bills from pollution-related illness, and cultural loss. They stated
that by comparing the rescission only to the 2024 NPR-A Rule and
asserting the 2024 NPR-A Rule itself had ``no major economic impacts,''
the BLM self-justifies a finding of negligible effects. A company
commented that the BLM claims that rescission would have little
economic effect because it would revert management of the NPR-A back to
the 2022 IAP. However, the BLM also indicates that the rescission will
actually revert management to the older 2020 IAP, under which more land
would be subject to fluid mineral leasing and development. The
commenter said that this explains why the BLM's analysis appears to
show minimal adverse effects on the human environment compared to the
2024 regulations and 2022 IAP baseline, and yet significant economic
gains for local entities and global energy markets compared to the 1977
regulations and the 2020 IAP baseline. Therefore, the commenter said
that the BLM must analyze a new IAP and consider not only the
potentially minor impacts of moving from the 2024 NPR-A Rule to the
2022 IAP, but the further impacts of moving to the 2020 IAP. Finally,
one commenter submitted a detailed economic report outlining potential
economic impacts of GHG emissions that it asserted could occur as a
result of assumed future development in the Reserve.
BLM Response: While the BLM received and reviewed multiple comments
pertaining to the potential economic impacts of this rule, as well as
economic data related to GHG impacts, these are speculative and would
not directly result from the regulatory changes in this rule, because,
as explained elsewhere, this regulatory change is not self-executing,
does not change management decisions, and does not have any on-the-
ground impacts. To help further explain this, the BLM notes that
regulatory updates can influence how public lands are managed by
clarifying procedures, streamlining reviews, or adjusting how types of
uses may be considered. These changes can shape the range of
possibilities for future land use, but they do not directly result in
new projects or developments. Actual land-use decisions depend on a
variety of real-world factors. These include market demand, the cost of
development, and whether a proposed use is technically feasible. In
many cases, these factors are more influential than the regulations
themselves in determining what ultimately happens on the ground.
Therefore, while a regulatory change might make certain types of
projects easier to propose or evaluate, it does not guarantee that
those projects will occur.
As has been the standard since long before the 2024 NPR-A Rule,
landscape level surface management decisions, including special area
boundaries and management restrictions, are made apart, and
independently from this final rule, through the IAP process. As such,
IAP decisions are not linked with this rule. The economic analysis for
this final rule acknowledges that the updated regulatory framework, the
reduced process for leasing in special areas is unlikely to spur
significant development. Therefore, negative environmental impacts as
well as increased economic activity are unlikely to occur from the 2025
Final Rule.
Specific to the comment about evaluating the economic costs of
rescission in light of returning to management under the 2020 IAP,
since the IAP process is separate from the regulatory process, this
request would be pre-decisional under NEPA and is outside of scope of
this rulemaking.

Comments on Tribal Consultation and Co-Stewardship Opportunities

Comment: A commenter stated that the 2024 NPR-A Rule represented a
framework that respected both Western science and I[ntilde]upiat
Traditional Knowledge in land management, giving Indigenous knowledge a
rightful place in setting management priorities and mitigation
measures. The commenter expressed that the 2024 NPR-A Rule was a
tangible reflection of the DOI's trust responsibility by putting
substantive protections in place for subsistence and cultural values
and mandating consultation with Tribes, and to rescind those
protections would be a ``betrayal'' of the Department's trust
obligation. The commenter said that by rescinding the 2024 NPR-A Rule,
the BLM would effectively be ``elevating industry convenience'' over
the lives of I[ntilde]upiat people, which is the opposite of what a
trustee should do. Instead, the commenter said that the agency should
be strengthening co-stewardship mechanisms, incorporating Indigenous
Knowledge at every step, and ensuring that future generations can
continue to thrive on these lands. Other commenters expressed support
for the proposed rule and stated that the North Slope I[ntilde]upiat
have lived in the Arctic for over 10,000 years and are proud of their
self-determination efforts to ensure future generations of
I[ntilde]upiat continue to reside in their communities and have access
to essential services. The commenters said they want the opportunity to
continue to assert their self-determination on their homelands for the
preservation of their economy, communities, and culture, and for this
to happen, they need to be included in the decision-making process to
produce durable, long-lasting policies. The commenter expressed that
the 2024 NPR-A Rule's implementation undermined trust in the
government-to-government relationship and sidelined the voices of those
most affected. The commenter suggested that repealing the 2024 NPR-A
Rule would reaffirm the BLM's commitment to tribal consultation and
intergovernmental coordination.
BLM Response: This final rule does not affect the BLM or DOI's
requirements or commitment to consult with federally recognized Tribes
and Alaska Native Corporations nor does it reduce opportunities for co-
stewardship agreements. These opportunities remain available to
federally recognized Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations and Federal
agencies pursuant to E.O. 13175 Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments, Department policy (Joint S.O. 3403 Joint
Secretarial Order on Fulfilling the Trust Responsibility to Indian
Tribes in the Stewardship of Federal Lands and Waters) and the Indian
Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (Pub. L. 93-638). There

[[Page 51486]]

are multiple examples across Alaska of these types of agreements, which
were enacted without the regulatory direction in the 2024 NPR-A Rule,
including: a multi-year, self-governance funding agreement to transfer
a portion of the BLM's cultural resource activities and functions to
Kawerak, Inc., a Tribal non-profit consortium representing 20 Tribal
governments in the Bering Strait Region; a multi-bureau self-governance
funding agreement for education and outreach programs that further
subsistence and Indigenous Knowledge with the Tanana Chiefs Conference,
a consortium of federally recognized Indian Tribes; and a multi-year
self-governance funding agreement with Ahtna, Inc, the Alaska Native
Regional Corporation with lands stretching across the southcentral
interior of Alaska, to improve management of easements that provide
access to public lands and waters across privately owned Ahtna lands.
To clarify however, the BLM has modified the language in 2361.10(d) to
include references to Indian Tribes, and Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act of 1971 (ANCSA) Corporations as part of the BLM's
obligation to consult on protection of the environment when making
management decisions in the NPR-A.
Comment: Another commenter stated that the BLM has binding legal
duties to protect the NPR-A's unique values and the subsistence rights
of Indigenous people, and that the 2024 NPR-A Rule was carefully
crafted to comply with and implement these duties. The commenter
expressed that revoking the 2024 NPR-A Rule would put the BLM at odds
with its statutory mandates and the Federal Government's obligations to
Indigenous peoples.
BLM Response: This final rule does not affect the BLM or DOI's
requirements or commitment to consult with federally recognized Tribes
and Alaska Native Corporations nor does it reduce opportunities for co-
stewardship agreements. These opportunities remain available to
federally recognized Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations and Federal
agencies pursuant to E.O. 13175, Joint S.O. 3403, and the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act (Pub. L. 93-638).
Furthermore, this final rule does not affect the BLM's requirements to
analyze and account for the impacts to subsistence activities under
ANILCA section 810 whether from a project or as part of the analysis
for an IAP. Management decisions, including which stipulations and
required operating procedures are necessary to ensure proper protection
of surface resources and consideration of special areas, will still be
made through the separate IAP process and associated ANILCA section 810
analyses. The NPRPA is a dominant-use statute that directs the BLM to
manage the NPR-A primarily for oil and gas leasing, exploration,
development, and production, and provides the BLM with discretion to
determine the appropriate framework for protecting surface resources
throughout the NPR-A. Further, the maximum protection of significant
surface values within special areas, while required by the NPRPA, only
applies to the extent consistent with the exploration and production
requirements of the Act. This rule correctly reflects this statutory
mandate. To clarify however, the BLM has modified the language in Sec.
2361.10(d) to include references to Indian Tribes, and ANCSA
Corporations as part of the BLM's obligation to consult on protection
of the environment when making management decisions in the NPR-A.

V. Section-by-Section Analysis for Part 2360

This rule makes the following changes to part 2360. The language
found in subpart 2361 of the existing regulations is rescinded and, for
the most part, reverts to the original regulatory language that
published in the rule promulgated in 1977 (42 FR 28721, June 3, 1977).
The 1977 regulations were in place until May 7, 2024, when the 2024
NPR-A Rule published. Through this final rule, the BLM has reviewed,
evaluated, and provided responses to the substantive comments received
during the public comment period and through Tribal consultation. Where
appropriate, the BLM made technical changes, corrections, and
clarifications to the proposed rule, including in response to certain
public comments. A more in-depth discussion of the comments and changes
made is provided in the discussion below.
In addition, in compliance with the Office of the Federal
Register's Document Drafting Handbook's requirements for citation
references, the BLM is revising proposed Sec. Sec. 2361.0-1 through
2361.0-7 as Sec. Sec. 2361.1 through 2361.7 in the final rule, and
proposed Sec. Sec. 2361.1 through 2361.3 as Sec. Sec. 2361.10 through
2361.30 in the final rule. The following table is provided to help
readers cross-reference changes made from the 2024 NPR-A Rule to the
proposed rule's section designations and headings and how they appear
in the final rule's section designations and headings. The regulation
citations throughout the remainder of this preamble reflect the right-
hand column shown in the table below labeled ``2025 Final Rule
Section'' and are not further referenced in each of the Summary of Key
Changes sections below.

Table 1 to V--Section-by-Section Changes Made From the 2024 Rule to the 2025 Proposed and Final Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2024 Rule section 2025 Proposed rule section 2025 Final rule section
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2361.1 Purpose. 2361.0-1 Purpose. 2361.1 Purpose.
2361.3 Authority. 2361.0-2 Objectives. 2361.2 Objectives.
2361.4 Responsibility. 2361.0-3 Authority. 2361.3 Authority.
2361.5 Definitions. 2361.0-4 Responsibility. 2361.4 Responsibility.
2361.6 Effect of law. 2361.0-5 Definitions. 2361.5 Definitions.
2361.7 Severability. 2361.0-6 [RESERVED]. 2361.6 [RESERVED].
2361.10 Protection of surface resources. 2361.0-7 Effect of law. 2361.7 Effect of law.
2361.20 Existing Special Areas. 2361.1 Protection of the environment. 2361.10 Protection of the
environment.
2361.30 Special Areas designation and 2361.2 Use authorizations. 2361.20 Use authorizations.
amendment process.
2361.40 Management of oil and gas 2361.3 Unauthorized use and occupancy. 2361.30 Unauthorized use
activities in Special Areas. and occupancy.
2361.50 Management of subsistence uses
within Special Areas.
2361.60 Co-stewardship opportunities in
management of Special Areas and
subsistence.

[[Page 51487]]

2361.70 Use authorizations.
2361.80 Unauthorized use and occupancy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subpart 2361--Management and Protection of the National Petroleum
Reserve in Alaska

2361.1 Purpose

The existing regulation states that the purpose of the regulations
in this subpart is to provide procedures for protection and control of
the environmental, fish and wildlife, and historical and scenic values
of the NPR-A from significantly adverse effects of oil and gas
activities on the surface resources of the NPR-A and assuring maximum
protection of significant resource values in special areas pursuant to
and consistent with the provisions of the NPRPA, ANILCA and other
applicable authorities.
The BLM proposed to reinstate the prior 1977 language for the
Purpose to ensure statutory consistency with the NPRPA.

Public Comments on the Proposed Rule

No substantive public comments were received on the specific
language of this section.

Summary of Key Changes Between the Proposed and Final Rule

The BLM updated this section of the proposed rule in the final rule
to account for all applicable Federal laws.

2361.2 Objectives (2025 Rule)

The existing regulations removed this section of the 1977
regulations.
The BLM proposed to reinstate the prior 1977 language for the
Objectives to ensure consistency with the NPRPA requirements for
petroleum exploration and development in the NPR-A.

Public Comments on the Proposed Rule

No substantive public comments were received on the specific
language of this section.

Summary of Key Changes Between the Proposed and Final Rule

The BLM updated this section of the proposed rule in the final rule
to account for the language in the 1981 Appropriation Act amendment to
the NPRPA.

2361.3 Authority

The existing rule identifies the NPRPA; the Department of the
Interior Appropriations Act, Fiscal Year 1981 (Pub. L. 96-514), which
amended the NPRPA; FLPMA and ANILCA, including the caveat that the land
use planning and wilderness study requirements of FLPMA do not apply to
lands within the NPR-A, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6506a(c).
The BLM proposed to rescind and revert to the original regulatory
language that published in the rule promulgated in 1977 (42 FR 28721,
June 3, 1977).

Public Comments on the Proposed Rule

Substantive public comment was received identifying specific
statutory authority relevant to being included in this section to
ensure comprehensive understanding of these statutory objectives. See
Section II--NPR-A Background of this preamble.

Summary of Key Changes Between the Proposed and Final Rule

We have updated the final rule section to include the Department of
the Interior Appropriations Act, Fiscal Year 1981 (Pub. L. 96-514), as
an additional primary statutory authority with the NPRPA, and listed
other applicable authorities including ANILCA and FLPMA, exclusive of
sections 202 and 603, which do not apply pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
6506a(c).

2361.4 Responsibility

The existing rule states that the BLM is responsible for the
surface and subsurface management of the NPR-A, including protecting
surface resources from environmental degradation and assuring maximum
protection of significant resource values in special areas. The Act
authorizes the BLM to prepare rules and regulations necessary to carry
out surface-management and protection activities.
The BLM proposed to remove unnecessary, redundant, and potentially
misleading language and to revert to the original language that
appeared in the rule promulgated in 1977 (42 FR 28721, June 3, 1977),
which is a better distillation of BLM's statutory responsibilities. For
example, the 2024 Rule noted that that BLM must ``assur[e] maximum
protection of significant resource values in Special Areas'' without
stating that protection is required only ``to the extent consistent
with the requirements of [the NPRPA],'' the exclusion of which is
potentially misleading. The remainder of the 2024 Rule's additions to
2361.4 are unnecessary and redundant.

Public Comments on the Proposed Rule

No substantive public comments were received on the specific
language of this section.

Summary of Key Changes Between the Proposed and Final Rule

To better align the regulatory text with BLM's statutory
responsibilities, the BLM enhanced the 1977 language by emphasizing
that BLM's management of the NPR-A--including the protection of surface
resources--must align with statutory requirements to conduct an
expeditious oil and gas leasing program. Additionally, paragraph (b)
from the 1977 language was removed because the USGS is no longer
responsible for managing exploration in the NPR-A (S.O. 3071, 47 FR
4751 (Feb. 2, 1982); S.O. 3087, 48 FR 8982-83 (Mar. 2, 1983)). New
language was added to clarify that the BLM now holds the responsibility
for managing exploration and development in the NPR-A. The BLM also
updated this section with minor stylistic and grammatical edits.

2361.5 Definitions

The existing rule includes 13 definitions. The BLM proposed to
simplify this section by removing unnecessary definitions, such as
Bureau and significant resource value, and to revert to the original
language that appeared in the rule promulgated in 1977 (42 FR 28721,
June 3, 1977). To the extent that certain terms were introduced by the
2024 Rule, such as ``infrastructure,'' definitions of those terms are
also no longer necessary.

Public Comments on the Proposed Rule

Comment: A commenter stated that the BLM's definition of
``significant resource value'' in the 2024 NPR-A Rule is impermissibly
overbroad. The commenter said that the definition includes ``any
surface value'' that the BLM identifies as significant, which
contradicts the NPRPA's closed list of specific values (subsistence,
recreational, fish and wildlife, historical, or scenic). The commenter

[[Page 51488]]

expressed that this definition gives the BLM ``unbridled discretion''
beyond explicit statutory authority. The commenter expressed that when
combined with the definition of special areas, these definitions could
potentially encompass the entire NPR-A since virtually any portion
contains ``surface values'' that the BLM could label as
``significant.'' The commenter said this broad definition could allow
the BLM to thwart the congressionally mandated oil and gas leasing
program in which private investments have already been made. A
commenter stated that the updated definition of special areas in the
2024 NPR-A Rule exceeds the BLM's statutory authority by providing that
such designated areas would be protected to a ``maximum protection
standard.'' The commenter expressed that while the NPRPA exempted the
NPR-A from FLPMA's planning requirements, it does not exempt the
applicability of FLPMA's other provisions that allow reasonable impacts
associated with oil and gas development.
BLM Response: This final rule includes rescission of the 2024 NPR-A
Rule definition for ``significant resource values.'' Furthermore, the
final rule is consistent with the direction in the NPRPA that
exploration and production within areas designated by the Secretary of
the Interior containing any significant subsistence, recreational, fish
and wildlife, or historical or scenic value, would be conducted in a
manner which assures the maximum protection of such surface values to
the extent consistent with the requirements for the exploration and
production of the NPR-A (42 U.S.C. 6504(a)).
Comment: A commenter requested that the BLM define what constitutes
a Special Value warranting consideration to be designated as a special
area.
BLM Response: Section 104(b) of the NPRPA (42 U.S.C. 6054((a))
provides the definition for values that could be considered for
designation of a special area, specifically, any significant
subsistence, recreational, fish and wildlife, or historical or scenic
value.
Comment: A commenter stated that the 2024 NPR-A Rule's definition
of ``infrastructure'' is arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law.
The commenter expressed that the 2024 NPR-A Rule designates new oil and
gas locations for commercial development as restricted for
``infrastructure'' while exempting exploratory wells drilled in a
single season. The commenter said that this definition fails to
recognize the reality of development timelines in the NPR-A, where a
leaseholder might spend hundreds of millions of dollars on exploratory
drilling but could never actually develop its leases due to
restrictions on infrastructure for commercial development.
BLM Response: This final rule includes rescission of the 2024 NPR-A
Rule definition for ``infrastructure.''

Summary of Key Changes Between the Proposed and Final Rule

The BLM updated this section in the final rule with minor
grammatical edits.

2361.6 [RESERVED] (2025 Rule)

The existing regulations removed this section of the 1977
regulations.
The BLM proposed to reinstate Sec. 2361.6 and revert to the
regulatory language that appeared in the rule promulgated in 1977 (42
FR 28721, June 3, 1977).

Public Comments on the Proposed Rule

No public comments were received on the specific language of this
section.

Summary of Key Changes Between the Proposed and Final Rule

The BLM did not change this section of the proposed rule in the
final rule.

2361.7 Effect of Law (2025 Rule)

Existing Sec. 2361.6 is redesignated to Sec. 2361.7 in the final
rule.
The existing regulations included provisions to implement the
Department of the Interior Appropriations Act, Fiscal Year 1981, Public
Law 96-514 (Dec. 12, 1980), 94 Stat. 2957, 2964, and the Barrow Gas
Field Transfer Act of 1984, Public Law 98-366 (July 17, 1984), 98 Stat.
468, 470.
The BLM proposed to reinstate Sec. 2361.7 and revert to the
original regulatory language that published in the rule promulgated in
1977 (42 FR 28721, June 3, 1977).

Public Comments on the Proposed Rule

No substantive public comments were received on the specific
language of this section.

Summary of Key Changes Between the Proposed and Final Rule

The BLM updated this section with minor grammatical edits.

2361.7 Severability (2024 Rule)

Existing Sec. 2361.7 is removed in the final rule.
The existing rule established that if any provision of part 2360 is
invalidated, then all remaining provisions would remain in effect.
The BLM proposed to revert to the original regulatory language that
published under the rule promulgated in 1977 (42 FR 28721, June 3,
1977).

Public Comments on the Proposed Rule

No substantive public comments were received on the specific
language of this section.

Summary of Key Changes Between the Proposed and Final Rule

The BLM did not change this section of the proposed rule in the
final rule.

2361.10 Protection of the Environment

The title of this section is changed from ``protection of surface
resources'' to ``protection of the environment'' in the final rule.
The 2024 NPR-A Rule included standards and procedures for managing
and protecting surface resources in the NPR-A from the reasonably
foreseeable and significantly adverse effects of oil and gas
activities, including that, in some circumstances, the BLM may delay or
deny proposed activities that would cause reasonably foreseeable and
significantly adverse effects on surface resources. The existing
regulations spelled out procedures for protecting surface resources in
the NPR-A and directed the BLM to manage oil and gas activities in
accordance with the IAP. Additionally, paragraph (b)(2) of the existing
regulations required the BLM, in each decision concerning oil and gas
activity in the NPR-A, to adopt measures to mitigate the reasonably
foreseeable and significantly adverse effects on surface resources,
taking particular care with surface resources that support subsistence.
Paragraph (b)(3) requires the documentation and consideration of any
uncertainty concerning the nature, scope, and duration of potential
effects on surface resources, and assurance that any conditions or
restrictions on proposed oil and gas activities account for and reflect
any such uncertainty.
As described above, these standards and procedures largely
conflicted with the statutory direction in the NPRPA, as amended, or
were not necessary to comply with that statutory direction, and were
not consistent with the current national energy policy as articulated
in, among other things, E.O. 14153. Specifically, Sec. 2361.10(a)
requires the BLM to consider community access and infrastructure needs
as part of mitigation for proposed projects, Sec. 2361.10(b)(2)
requires the BLM to take particular care to account for, and mitigate
adverse effects on, surface resources that support subsistence uses and
needs when considering a proposed activity; and Sec. 2361.10(b)(3)
requires the BLM to document consideration of any uncertainty with
regard to potential effects on surface resources and shall

[[Page 51489]]

ensure that any conditions, restrictions, or prohibitions account for
and reflect any such uncertainty. None of these provisions is required
by statute, and collectively they have the potential to impermissibly
delay the BLM's ability to implement the purpose of the NPRPA for
exploration and production of oil and gas resources and frustrate
furtherance of this Administration's National Energy Policy. The BLM
also proposed to revise Sec. 2361.10 by removing unnecessary language
(e.g., 2361.10(b)(1)) and to ensure consistency with the NPRPA
requirements for petroleum exploration and development in the NPR-A and
to ensure the language of the regulations is consistent with current
national energy policy.

Public Comments on the Proposed Rule

Comment: A commenter recommended that the BLM note in its
regulation that the discretion of the authorized officer (AO) is
limited ``[t]o the extent consistent with the requirements of this Act
for the exploration of the reserve'' and avoid granting unchecked
authority to ``limit, restrict, or prohibit use of and access to lands
within the Reserve.'' The commenter stated that the NPRPA explicitly
directs the BLM to ``make such dispositions of mineral materials and
grant such rights-of-way, licenses, and permit as may be necessary to
carry out his responsibilities under this act'' and recommended that
the BLM align its management more closely with congressional intent and
law.
BLM Response: The BLM AO's delegated authority will be exercised
consistent with applicable law(s) and policy under the Department and/
or Bureau. To the extent the commenter felt that the 2024 NPR-A Rule
increased the discretion of the AO through phrases such as ``the Bureau
must protect surface resources by adopting whatever conditions,
restrictions, and prohibitions [BLM] deems necessary,'' 2361.10(a),
this rule removes any ambiguity.
Comment: A commenter stated that the 2024 NPR-A Rule unlawfully and
retroactively impacts existing operations and valid existing lease
rights by providing the BLM with the requirement that it ``must protect
surface resources by adopting whatever conditions, restrictions, and
prohibitions it deems necessary.'' They said this direction directly
contravenes FLPMA's charge that the BLM prevent ``unnecessary or undue
degradation of public lands'' and cited DOI court decisions stating
that FLPMA's non-impairment standard ``cannot be used to defeat a
lessee's valid existing right to develop a lease.'' The commenter
stated that the BLM cannot unilaterally modify the terms of an existing
lease to impose the 2024 NPR-A Rule to protect surface resources, as
valid existing rights are not pre-empted by the BLM's future
determinations for resource protection. The commenter cited Federal
court interpretations that valid existing rights mean Federal agencies
cannot impose stipulations that make development on existing leases
uneconomic or unprofitable, and that any application of the 2024 NPR-A
Rule to constrain development of existing leases would constitute a
material breach or regulatory taking.
BLM Response: This final rule rescinds the 2024 NPR-A Rule.
However, the NPRPA provides that activities undertaken within the NPR-A
may include or provide for such conditions, restrictions, and
prohibitions as the Secretary (acting through the BLM) deems necessary
or appropriate to mitigate reasonably foreseeable and significantly
adverse effects on the surface resources of the NPR-A (42 U.S.C.
6506a(b)). As such, this provision remains a requirement of law and not
the 2024 NPR-A Rule. The BLM will implement that provision subject to
valid existing rights and other applicable law.

Summary of Key Changes Between the Proposed and Final Rule

The BLM updated this section with minor grammatical edits and
clarifications. In addition, the BLM changed the final rule by deleting
paragraph (b) from the 1977 language because the USGS is no longer
responsible for managing exploration in the NPR-A (S.O. 3071, 47 FR
4751 (Feb. 2, 1982); S.O. 3087, 48 FR 8982-83 (Mar. 2, 1983)); updating
language to use modern nomenclature and practices including the need to
consult with both Tribes and ANCSA Corporations; and updating to take
into account laws related to historic properties and archaeological
sites that were enacted after the 1977 rule was promulgated. These laws
have taken the place of what used to be called a Federal Antiquities
permit.

2361.20 Existing Special Areas (2024 Rule)

Existing Sec. 2361.20 is removed in the final rule.
The 2024 NPR-A Rule required any lands designated as a special area
to continue to be managed as such for the already-identified values and
any additional values identified through the process set forth in
existing Sec. 2361.30. The existing rule specified that a map of each
special area would be available at the Arctic District Office, which is
the BLM office that currently oversees the NPR-A. The BLM would also
publish and maintain copies of these maps on its website.
The BLM proposed to revert to the original regulatory language that
published in the rule promulgated in 1977 (42 FR 28721, June 3, 1977),
which did not include a specific section on existing special areas.
This section is unnecessary to effectively manage surface resources in
the NPR-A. Management decisions, including the boundaries of special
areas, the significant surface values to be protected, and which
stipulations and required operating procedures are necessary to ensure
proper protection of surface resources, have historically been made
through the IAP process. This allows for maximum flexibility. The
existing rule codifies which resource values should receive protection
in existing special areas, which could complicate the BLM's ability to
make timely decisions for protection of surface resources and for
authorized uses within the NPR-A. The IAP process or project-level
decisions remain superior vehicles for explaining how exploration and
development within designated areas should occur.

Public Comments on the Proposed Rule

No substantive public comments were received on the specific
language of this section.

Summary of Key Changes Between the Proposed and Final Rule

The BLM did not change this section of the proposed rule in the
final rule.

2361.30 Special Areas Designation and Amendment Process (2024 Rule)

Existing Sec. 2361.30 is removed in the final rule.
The existing rule added a new section that provided redundant
standards and procedures for designating and amending special areas, a
process that has historically been addressed through the IAP process.
The existing rule establishes a rigid framework for the BLM's decisions
to designate special areas based almost entirely on whether significant
resource values already codified in Sec. 2361.20 are present, and
prohibited the BLM from considering the existence of measures to
protect or otherwise administer those values. This approach limits the
BLM's ability to quickly adapt management of surface resources to
changes in technology or the changing development landscape in order to
implement an expeditious program of oil and gas leasing. The

[[Page 51490]]

identification of ``special'' areas where significant values exist in
NPR-A is a fact-based inventory determination based on the best
available information during preparation of an IAP. As such, the
special area boundaries that result are not areas set aside
specifically for non-development but simply a recognition of where
certain management prescriptions may be necessary to accomplish
``maximum protection'' of those surface values, while allowing
development to occur. The IAP process uses current resource surveys, an
understanding of where future development may occur, and public input
to consider how best to set special area boundaries, identify
significant surface resources in need of protection, and develop
appropriate protection measures for those values based on the best
available data. This process, not the process detailed in the existing
rule, is the process by which the boundaries of all current special
areas were designated. Also, 2361.30(c)'s unnecessary constrains on
removal of land from special areas prohibits the BLM from considering
site-specific factors other than the values being present (e.g., a
determination that those values are no longer significant) in
determining whether to remove lands from special areas, again in
frustration of the NPRA-s primary and dominant purpose: oil and gas
exploration and production.
The BLM proposed to revert to the original regulatory language that
published in the rule promulgated in 1977 (42 FR 28721, June 3, 1977).
As has been the standard since long before the 2024 NPR-A Rule, special
area identification, including boundaries and management restrictions,
are made through the IAP process. This section is unnecessary to
effectively manage surface resources in the NPR-A. Management
decisions, including which stipulations and required operating
procedures are necessary to ensure proper protection of surface
resources and consideration of special areas, are made through the IAP
process. Additionally, many of the procedures outlined in Sec. 2361.30
are the same as those used in the IAP process, including the use of
best available scientific information in Sec. 2361.30(a)(1), the
public notice and comment requirement in Sec. 2361.30(a)(2), and the
consultation requirements in Sec. 2361.30(a)(3). Further, the BLM's
public input obligations for special areas in Sec. Sec. 2361.30(b)(3)
and 2361.30(c)(2) are captured by Sec. 2361.10(c) of this final rule.
The existing rule either reiterates already-existing processes or adds
additional, unnecessary processes that could complicate the BLM's
ability to make timely decisions for protection of surface resources
and for authorized uses within the NPR-A.

Public Comments on the Proposed Rule

Comment: A commenter expressed support for the requirement to
perform a review every 10 years. The commenter said that, critically,
the 2024 NPR-A Rule requires the BLM to invite Tribes, local residents,
and the public to recommend lands or values for protection during each
review. The commenter said that this process creates an ongoing
dialogue where our knowledge can directly inform land management, which
is community planning in action. Rescinding the 2024 NPR-A Rule would
cut off that dialogue, according to the commenter.
BLM Response: Under this final rule, the BLM is free to review
special areas at any time and may do so through a full IAP revision
process, or through a targeted amendment to the IAP. Further, the final
rule requires the BLM to seek comments on recommendations from the
public and submit these comments along with the recommendation to the
Secretary on any proposed special area. In addition, this final rule
does not affect the BLM or DOI's requirements or commitment to consult
with federally recognized Tribes and ANCSA Corporations nor does it
reduce opportunities for co-stewardship agreements. These remain
available to federally recognized Tribes, ANCSA Corporations, and
Federal agencies pursuant to E.O. 13175 Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments, Department policy (Joint S.O. 3403
Joint Secretarial Order on Fulfilling the Trust Responsibility to
Indian Tribes in the Stewardship of Federal Lands and Waters) and the
Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (Pub. L. 93-
638). To clarify however, the BLM has modified the language in
2361.10(d) in the final rule to include references to Indian Tribes and
ANCSA Corporations as part of the BLM's obligation to consult on
protection of the environment when making management decisions in the
NPR-A.
While rescinding the rule does eliminate certain provisions that
created a specific schedule for public input and consultation during
decision-making processes, particularly for special areas, the BLM's
public input obligations remain unchanged both as required by
Sec. Sec. 2361.10(c) and 2361.10(d)(1) of this final rule and as a
part of future IAP and project-specific decision-making processes.
Comment: A commenter expressed support for the 2024 NPR-A Rule's
codification that special areas like the Teshekpuk Lake Special Area,
which includes Fish Creek, must be managed for maximum protection of
their significant values, including fish habitat. The commenter stated
that the 2024 NPR-A Rule provides for new special areas to be
designated to protect places like Fish Creek explicitly for subsistence
fishing. The commenter urged the BLM to strengthen protections for fish
and water by prohibiting infrastructure in key fish habitats and
strictly limiting water withdrawals, or at minimum retain the 2024 NPR-
A Rule's protective baseline.
BLM Response: The NPRPA is a dominant-use statute that directs the
BLM to manage the NPR-A primarily for oil and gas leasing, exploration,
development, and production, and provides the BLM with discretion to
determine the appropriate framework for protecting surface resources
throughout the NPR-A. Further, the maximum protection of significant
surface values within special areas, while required by the NPRPA, only
applies to the extent consistent with the exploration and production
requirements of the Act. This rule correctly reflects this statutory
mandate.
As has been the standard since long before the 2024 NPR-A Rule,
special area identification, including boundaries and management
restrictions, are made through the IAP process and that will be
unaffected by this rule. As discussed earlier, subsistence use is one
of the significant surface values for which the BLM may apply maximum
protection measures within special areas, to the extent consistent with
the exploration and production requirements of the Act.
The final rule returns management of the NPR-A to the primary
purpose of oil and gas leasing, exploration, development, and
production, but--like the 2024 NPR-A Rule--it is not self-executing,
meaning that it does not itself make any substantive changes on the
ground and will not restrict the BLM's discretion to take or authorize
future on-the-ground actions. Instead, this rule provides the BLM with
the appropriate level of discretion to consider future on-the-ground
actions--through the IAP process or project-specific decision making to
analyze and account for the impacts to surface values and subsistence
activities--consistent with the resource protection provisions of the
NPRPA. These management decisions, including which stipulations and
required operating procedures are necessary to ensure proper protection
of

[[Page 51491]]

surface resources under the NPRPA (both within and outside special
areas), are appropriately made through the IAP process, as well as
project-specific decisions.

Summary of Key Changes Between the Proposed and Final Rule

The BLM did not change this section of the proposed rule in the
final rule.

2361.40 Management of Oil and Gas Activities in Special Areas (2024
Rule)

Existing Sec. 2361.40 is removed in the final rule.
The existing rule added a section that detailed mechanisms for
maximum protection of significant resource values in special areas by
establishing new standards and procedures for achieving maximum
protection of special areas, with a specific focus on oil and gas
activities. It required the BLM to take such steps to avoid the adverse
effects of oil and gas activities on special areas, including by
conditioning, delaying action on, or denying proposals for activities
(2361.40(a-c)). The rule codified that leasing and new infrastructure
must conform to maps published as of June 6, 2024 (2361.40(d)) and
established a presumption against leasing and new infrastructure on
lands in special areas, even if the area is allocated as available for
those activities (2361.40(f)). The rule limited the use of lands within
special areas that were allocated as closed to leasing or unavailable
to new infrastructure as of June 6, 2024 to certain circumstances, such
as where new infrastructure would ``primarily be used by and provide a
benefit to communities'' in the Reserve, or where a new lease would
address drainage (2361.40(e)). The rule required certain additional
documentation in an Environmental Assessment (EA) beyond what the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires for EAs, including
that the rule required the BLM to document and consider any uncertainty
regarding potential adverse effects on special areas and ensure that
any approvals account for such uncertainty (2361.40(g)). It also
required the BLM to prepare a statement of adverse effect whenever it
cannot avoid adverse effects on a special area. In each statement, the
BLM was required to describe the significant resource values that may
be affected; the nature, scope, and duration of the effects; measures
the BLM evaluated to avoid those effects; a justification for not
requiring those measures; and measures it would require to minimize and
mitigate the adverse effects on significant resource values.
The BLM proposed to remove this section as it would unnecessarily
restrict the leasing, exploration, development, and production of oil
and gas resources within the NPR-A, which is contrary to the
congressional direction in the NPRPA to develop lands within the NPR-A,
including special areas, as part of an expeditious oil and gas leasing
program. For example, 2361.40(a) directs the authorized officer to
consider ``conditioning, delaying action on, or denying proposals for
activities, either in whole or in part'' as necessary to avoid the
adverse effects on significant resource values of Special Areas.
Further 2361.40(e) directs the authorized officer to ``presume that
proposed oil and gas activities should not be permitted'' within
special areas unless certain findings are made. This would effectively
prohibit any new oil and gas leasing and new infrastructure, unless
required for existing leases, in areas that the BLM had designated as
open to leasing or available for new infrastructure in the 2022 IAP.
The presumption against oil and gas leasing and new infrastructure
established in the 2024 NPR-A Rule coupled with the adoption by rule of
the 2022 IAP maps is contrary to the plain language direction of the
NPRPA because it creates a framework that would effectively prohibit
new leasing and new oil and gas infrastructure in certain areas the BLM
had already determined, through the IAP process, should be available
for leasing and new infrastructure just two years earlier. In doing so,
the 2024 NPR-A Rule circumvents the analysis and public process that
went into developing the decisions in the 2022 IAP, particularly the
decisions to leave certain portions of special areas open to oil and
gas leasing and new infrastructure. While the 2024 NPR-A Rule provides
a process for de-designating or modifying the management restrictions
within special areas, the rule would require additional analysis and
findings that go beyond what otherwise would be required by the NPRPA
or NEPA. This regulatory sleight of hand is by is contrary to the to
the purposes of the NPRPA that the BLM implement an expeditious oil and
gas leasing, exploration, development, and production in the NPR-A, and
contravenes decades of agency practice. This restriction is therefore
contrary to the purposes and plain language of the NPRPA and creates
uncertainty for industry.
In addition, this section is unnecessary to effectively manage
surface resources in the NPR-A and is inconsistent with the national
energy policy of this Administration. The additional procedures in this
section do not further the purposes of the NPRPA and instead create
delays and limit both the BLM and operators' ability to effectively
carry out their obligations. For example, soon after the rule was
issued, the BLM was required to complete a statement of adverse effect
under 43 CFR 2361.40(g)(6) before approving the renewal of CPAI's
annual environmental monitoring permit for 2024, part of the
environmental monitoring and baseline studies in the required operating
procedures for the 2022 NPR-A IAP ROD. The statement of adverse effect
largely summarized information that had already been presented to the
public and analyzed by the BLM in previously completed NEPA analysis,
ANILCA section 810 analysis, and ESA consultation related to the
approval of the project years earlier. This extra step delayed the
BLM's renewal of CPAI's monitoring permit and impacted CPAI's ability
to begin its seasonal monitoring on time. Further, NEPA and the
Department's NEPA implementing procedures detail all that is needed for
EAs.

Public Comments on the Proposed Rule

Comment: Commenters stated that the BLM lacks authority to require
compensatory mitigation in the NPR-A under Sec. 2361.40(g). One
commenter pointed out that a bedrock principle of administrative law is
that agency regulations must be based on statutory authority, and
congressional statutes define the permissible bounds of a Federal
agency action. The commenter stated that NPRPA and FLPMA do not
authorize or contemplate compensatory mitigation, contrary to the
position BLM took in the 2024 Rule.
BLM Response: The provision under Sec. 2361.40(g) discussing
compensatory mitigation is removed from the final rule as part of this
process.
Comment: A commenter stated that the 2024 NPR-A Rule requires that
the BLM face any trade-offs openly. They expressed that under the 2024
NPR-A Rule, if a proposed oil activity would harm a special area, the
BLM must prepare a statement of adverse effect describing the
significant subsistence or environmental values at stake, the nature
and duration of the harm, all the avoidance measures considered, and
why those measures could not be adopted. The commenter stated that the
statement must also detail what mitigation the BLM will require to
minimize the damage (including compensatory mitigation, if needed). The
commenter expressed that this

[[Page 51492]]

document cannot be tucked away--the 2024 NPR-A Rule makes it public and
subject to community review and comment, and the BLM must consult with
affected Tribes before finalizing it. The commenter stated that this
process is invaluable as it forces the BLM to acknowledge the real-
world impacts on subsistence and culture, on the record, before
approving any project in a special area. In addition, an individual
commenter said that this requirement that activities have ``no or
minimally adverse effects'' is not an obstruction to development but
rather a necessary filter that ensures wildlife and cultural values are
not irreparably harmed by short-sighted industrial expansion.
BLM Response: After thorough consideration, the BLM has determined
that a standalone statement of adverse effect is unnecessary because
the BLM's existing legal obligations under NEPA, ESA, ANILCA, and the
NHPA, as well as other laws, already require comprehensive analysis,
public transparency, and tribal consultation. Further, requiring
additional processes that are duplicative and overly complex introduced
procedural inefficiencies and uncertainty that unreasonably restricted
the leasing, exploration, development, and production of oil and gas
resources contrary to the purposes of the NPRPA and the national energy
policy.
As an example, for the 2024 renewal of CPAI's annual environmental
monitoring--a requirement of the environmental monitoring and baseline
studies required by the 2022 NPR-A IAP ROD Required Operating
Procedures--the BLM was required to write a statement of adverse effect
document in addition to the NEPA, ANILCA section 810 analysis, and ESA
consultation. This statement was a regurgitation of the information
already analyzed in the other three documents. Rescinding the 2024 NPR-
A Rule removes this burdensome and redundant practice.
Therefore, this final rule rescinds the procedural complexity
created by the requirement for a statement of adverse effect which
deters development rather than appropriately regulating development
consistent with the statutory framework under the NPRPA.

Summary of Key Changes Between the Proposed and Final Rule

The BLM did not change this section of the proposed rule in the
final rule.

2361.50 Management of Subsistence Uses Within Special Areas (2024 Rule)

Existing Sec. 2361.50 is removed in the final rule.
The 2024 NPR-A Rule added a new section that required special areas
to be managed to protect and support fish and wildlife and their
habitats and the associated subsistence use of those areas by rural
residents as defined in 50 CFR 100.4, the DOI's subsistence management
regulations for public lands in Alaska. The rule also required the BLM
to provide appropriate access to and within special areas for
subsistence purposes and explicitly referenced assuring maximum
protection of the significant resource values of the special areas in
the context of providing that access.
The BLM proposed to remove this section as it is unnecessary to
effectively manage surface resources in the NPR-A. Management
decisions, including which stipulations and required operating
procedures are necessary to ensure proper protection of surface
resources and consideration of special areas, are made through the IAP
process and associated ANILCA section 810 analysis. The existing rule
simply adds additional, unnecessary processes that could complicate the
BLM's ability to make timely decisions for protection of surface
resources and for authorized uses within the NPR-A.

Public Comments on the Proposed Rule

No substantive public comments were received on the specific
language of this section.

Summary of Key Changes Between the Proposed and Final Rule

The BLM did not change this section of the proposed rule in the
final rule.

2361.60 Co-Stewardship Opportunities in Management of Special Areas and
Subsistence (2024 Rule)

Existing Sec. 2361.60 is removed in the final rule.
The existing rule added a new section that specified co-stewardship
opportunities for special areas, including co-management, collaborative
and cooperative management, and tribally led stewardship.
The BLM proposed to remove this section as it is redundant to
existing E.O. 13175 Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments and Department policy (Joint S.O. 3403 Joint Secretarial
Order on Fulfilling the Trust Responsibility to Indian Tribes in the
Stewardship of Federal Lands and Waters). In addition, it is
unnecessary to effectively manage surface resources in the NPR-A.

Public Comments on the Proposed Rule

Comment: A commenter expressed support for the 2024 NPR-A Rule's
creation of an explicit pathway for Tribal co-management of the NPR-A.
The commenter stated that Sec. 2361.60 directs the BLM to ``seek co-
stewardship opportunities'' in managing special areas and subsistence
resources, establishing shared stewardship as an obligation flowing
from DOI's trust responsibility and Joint S.O. 3403. The commenter
expressed concern that repealing the 2024 NPR-A Rule would eliminate
this formal commitment to co-management and return to a piecemeal
approach.
BLM Response: This final rule, that in part rescinds regulations
specifying co-stewardship opportunities within the NPR-A, does not
affect legal requirements nor the BLM's commitment to consult with
federally recognized Tribes and ANCSA Corporations. Furthermore, this
final rule does not eliminate the BLM's ability to consider or
establish co-stewardship agreements. These processes will remain
available to Federally recognized Tribes and ANCSA Corporations, the
same as they have been available and utilized in the past, via existing
E.O. 13175 and Joint S.O. 3403, or via the Indian Self-Determination
and Education Assistance Act (Pub. L. 93-638). To clarify however, the
BLM has modified the language in 2361.10(d) to include references to
Indian Tribes, and ANCSA Corporations as part of the BLM's obligation
to consult on protection of the environment when making management
decisions in the NPR-A.
Demonstrated examples of BLM co-stewardship agreements across
Alaska, which were established without the 2024 NPR-A Rule, include,
but are not limited to: a multi-year, self-governance funding agreement
to transfer a portion of the BLM's cultural resource activities and
functions to Kawerak, Inc. (a Tribal non-profit consortium representing
20 Tribal governments in the Bering Strait Region); a multi-bureau
self-governance funding agreement for education and outreach programs
that further subsistence and Indigenous Knowledge with the Tanana
Chiefs Conference (a consortium of federally recognized Indian Tribes);
and a multi-year self-governance funding agreement with Ahtna, Inc.
(the ANCSA Regional Corporation) with lands stretching across the
southcentral interior of Alaska, to improve management of easements
that provide access to public lands and waters across privately owned
Ahtna lands.

[[Page 51493]]

Summary of Key Changes Between the Proposed and Final Rule

The BLM did not change this section of the proposed rule in the
final rule.

2361.20 Use Authorizations (2025 Rule)

Existing Sec. 2361.70 is redesignated to Sec. 2361.20 in the
final rule.
The existing regulations reiterated purposes and descriptions of
the BLM's duties to protect surface resources and assure maximum
protection of special areas significant resource values in the NPR-A.
The BLM proposed to revert to the original regulatory language that
published in the rule promulgated in 1977 (42 FR 28721, June 3, 1977).

Public Comments on the Proposed Rule

No substantive public comments were received on the specific
language of this section.

Summary of Key Changes Between the Proposed and Final Rule

The BLM updated this section to update cross references, and make
minor grammatical edits to correct a typographical error in the 1977
regulation text.

2361.30 Unauthorized Use and Occupancy (2025 Rule)

Existing Sec. 2361.80 is redesignated to Sec. 2361.30 in the
final rule. No substantive changes were proposed to this section.

Public Comments on the Proposed Rule

No substantive public comments were received on the specific
language of this section.

Summary of Key Changes Between the Proposed and Final Rule

The BLM did not change this section of the proposed rule in the
final rule.

VI. Procedural Matters

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

The Secretary of the Interior certifies that this final rule will
not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
The requirements of the rule are imposed on the BLM to govern their
procedures. Private entities, including small entities, are not subject
to the requirements of the rule and therefore will not incur costs or
benefits from the changes. As such, the BLM is not required to prepare
a final regulatory flexibility analysis with this final rule.
As assessed in the final rule economic analysis threshold analysis,
this rule simply changes the BLM's internal procedures, which do not
impose direct regulatory costs on any small entities. While beneficial
impacts may accrue to small entities from BLM decisions made after the
rule is issued, those benefits will be realized only if future
decision-making processes result in increased production. Specifically,
following finalization of the rule, the BLM would have to hold a
successful lease sale, approve any necessary geologic or geophysical
exploration, and approve an application for permit to drill and any
right of way permits necessary for development.
Thus, any small entities trying to bid on or develop a lease may
benefit from the recission of the 2024 NPR-A Rule only if those future
decisions result in project approvals at each stage. Any benefits are
unlikely to flow directly from the rule change. As a result, the BLM
determined that the final rule will not have a ``significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.''
Additionally, the BLM's analysis of the economic impacts of the
rule demonstrates that, even if this rule were to have any effects on
small businesses, it would not have a significant negative economic
effect on a substantial number of small businesses. The Small Business
Administration (SBA) has developed size standards to carry out the
purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. The size standards
can be found at 13 CFR 121.201. For a specific industry identified by
the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS), small
entities are defined by the SBA as an individual, limited partnership,
or small company considered at ``arm's length'' from the control of any
parent company, which meet certain size standards.
If it has any effect, the final rule is most likely to affect
business currently operating in the oil and gas sector in or near the
NPR-A. Through a search of publicly available information, on the
ground knowledge, and public comments, the BLM found that between two
and four of the eight businesses holding leases in the NPR-A may be
small entities according to the size standards in 13 CFR 121.201.
While these small businesses will not experience any impacts from
the requirements of this rule, they may read the rule to be
familiarized with it. These small businesses likely earn greater than
$20 million in annual revenue and therefore will not experience a
significant impact from familiarization, estimated to be roughly $270
for a manager to spend 2 hours reading the rule.
The SBA size standards identify small business in crude petroleum
extraction (NAICS 211120) and natural gas extraction (NAICS 211130) to
be those with 1,250 or fewer employees. In addition to those companies
currently operating in the NPR-A, the 2025 Final Rule may impact other
small businesses in oil and gas adjacent industries operating in
Alaska. These businesses may be interested in expanding to the NPR-A if
there are new opportunities to do so.
Other industries in the oil and gas sector as well as their
respective SBA size standards are NAICS 213111 Drilling Oil and Gas
Wells (1,000 employees) and NAICS 213112 Support Activities for Oil and
Gas Operations ($47 million annual receipts). The U.S. Census Bureau's
Statistics of U.S. Businesses (SUSB) reports the number of firms
operating in each State by industry and employment size category.
According to the Statistics of U.S. Businesses, there are approximately
30 to 40 small businesses involved in extraction, drilling, or support
activities in the oil and gas industry in Alaska. In the broader sector
of Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction in Alaska, there are
105 small employers as well as 234 non-employers (2025 Office of
Advocacy Alaska Small Business State Profile). These small businesses
are not subject to the rule and do not experience any impacts from this
rule.
In the proposed rule, the BLM also solicited additional information
from the public regarding the potential impacts to small businesses
from the rescission of the 2024 NPR-A Rule. Out of more than 250,000
public comments, fewer than 10 mentioned impacts to small businesses or
governments. While the vast majority of these comments generally
discussed the potential for positive impacts, they did not include
specific information or supporting evidence that the regulatory change
will cause these benefits. One comment, not from a small business,
speculated that the rule change could have a negative economic impact
on small ecotourism businesses. However, this is inconsistent with the
general patterns of tourism (hunting and general recreation guide
permits) within the NPR-A. Therefore, according to the BLM's analysis
and public comments received, the final rule would not negatively
impact a substantial number of small businesses in the NPR-A.
In addition, the BLM identified five small governmental
jurisdictions that likely qualify as small entities according to the
Regulatory Flexibility Act as they

[[Page 51494]]

are governments of a population with less than 50,000 people. These
governments include the North Slope Borough, the City of Wainwright,
the City of Utqiagvik, the City of Atqasuk, and the City of Nuiqsut.
These small entities rely on revenue from property taxes levied on oil
and gas infrastructure in the NPR-A. Because the requirements of the
rule are imposed on the BLM to govern their procedures, these small
entities will not experience any change in impact from this rule. No
small non-governmental organizations in the NPR-A commented that the
rule would impact their ability to do business or advocacy. Therefore,
the BLM determines that no small organizations independent and not
dominant in their field will experience any impact from this rule.
Public Comments Received
Comment: A commenter stated that the economic analysis failed to
consider the I[ntilde]upiat people as affected economic actors,
discussing small entities exclusively in terms of oil-field contractors
while ignoring impacts on North Slope residents, particularly those in
Nuiqsut who live within the NPR-A. Similarly, an individual commenter
said that the BLM considered the economic opportunities for small
companies that worked directly on and ``adjacent to'' oil and gas
exploration and extraction, but did not consider economic impacts to
small companies or residents that work in other disciplines, such as
tourism, hunting, recreation, arts, subsistence, etc.
BLM Response: The RFA aims to minimize the regulatory burden placed
on small entities by Federal agencies by requiring Federal agencies to
account for the cost of compliance with agency rules. The RFA applies
to three types of small entities: small businesses as defined by
section 3 of the Small Business Act (Pub. L. 85-536); small nonprofits
that are independently owned and operated and not dominant in its
field; and small governmental jurisdictions, such as governments of
cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or
special districts with a population of less than 50,000. The IRFA
analyzed potential impacts to small businesses and potential economic
impacts to small government jurisdictions, including Wainwright,
Utqiagvik, Atqasuk, and Nuiqsut. Detail has been added on other
potential small entities that were identified through public comment
including the North Slope Borough. Additional information on hunting
and general recreation guide businesses was collected and the BLM
determined the rule would not negatively affect these businesses.
Ultimately, this final rule does not directly regulate small
businesses, therefore there are no compliance costs for the final rule.
While there may be beneficial impacts to small entities that may that
occur as a result of downstream decisions made after the rule is
issued, the BLM determined that the final rule will not have a
``significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.'' Thus, a certification under section 605(b) of the RFA is
appropriate.

Congressional Review Act

Based upon the economic analysis prepared for this rule, this rule
is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), subtitle E of the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. This rule:
(a) Will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million
or more.
(b) Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for
consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government
agencies, or geographic regions.
(c) Will not have significant adverse effects on competition,
employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of
U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or
Tribal governments, or the private sector of more than $100 million per
year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State,
local, or Tribal governments or the private sector. A statement
containing the information required by UMRA (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is
not required for the final rule. This final rule is also not subject to
the requirements of section 203 of UMRA because it contains no
regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect
small governments, because it contains no requirements that apply to
such governments, nor does it impose obligations upon them.

Takings (E.O. 12630)

This rule does not affect a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under E.O. 12630. Section 2(a) of E.O. 12630
identifies policies that do not have takings implications, such as
those that abolish regulations, discontinue governmental programs, or
modify regulations in a manner that lessens interference with the use
of private property. The rule will not interfere with private property.
A takings implication assessment is not required.

Federalism (E.O. 13132)

Under the criteria in section 1 of E.O. 13132, this rule does not
have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a
federalism summary impact statement.

Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988)

This rule complies with the requirements of E.O. 12988.
Specifically, this rule:
(a) Meets the criteria of section 3(a) requiring that all
regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and be
written to minimize litigation; and
(b) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all
regulations be written in clear language and contain clear legal
standards.

Paperwork Reduction Act

The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521) generally
provides that an agency may not conduct or sponsor and not withstanding
any other provision of law a person is not required to respond to, a
collection of information, unless it displays a currently valid Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. Collections of
information include any request or requirement that persons obtain,
maintain, retain, or report information to an agency, or disclose
information to a third party or to the public (44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5
CFR 1320.3(c)).
This final rule contains information-collection requirements that
are subject to review by OMB under the PRA. The information-collection
requirements pertaining to submitting recommendations to designate
lands as a special area within the NPR-A are generally approved by OMB
under OMB Control Number 1004-0221 with a current expiration date of
October 31, 2027.
The final rule rescinds and revises the information collection
requirements pertaining to submitting special area recommendations
within the NPR-A. The previous information collection requirements have
been moved from 43 CFR 2361.30 to 2361.10(c). The change to the
information collection requirements, along with the estimated
associated burdens, are discussed below.
Recommendations for Special Areas (43 CFR 2361.10(c))
The prior regulations at Sec. 2361.30(b)(3) contain one (1) non-
form information collection requirement that is subject to the PRA. The
prior regulations provided that the following information be provided
when a

[[Page 51495]]

member of the public recommends lands for a special area designation:
<bullet> The size and location of the recommended lands;
<bullet> The significant subsistence, recreational, fish and
wildlife, historical, or scenic resource values that are present within
or supported by the recommended lands;
<bullet> Measures that may be necessary to assure maximum
protection of those values; and
<bullet> Any other pertinent information.
The revised information collection requirements located in Sec.
2361.10(c) are as follows:
<bullet> A description of the values which make the area special;
<bullet> The significant subsistence, recreational, fish and
wildlife, historical, or scenic resource values that are present within
or supported by the recommended lands (See Sec. 2361.5(f));
<bullet> The size and location of the area on appropriate USGS
quadrangle maps; and
<bullet> Any other pertinent information.
The BLM does not believe that the revised information collection
requirements for special area recommendations would result in a change
in public burdens under this OMB Control Number 1004-0221. The only
significant change from the prior to final information collection
requirement for special area recommendations is the simplification of
the administrative process and the specific request for USGS quadrangle
maps. Additionally, we adjusted the estimated number of annual
responses from 100 to 10 as we believe that it is unlikely that the BLM
would receive more than 10 recommendations per year. This adjustment
reduces the annual estimated burden hours associated with special area
recommendations from 1,500 to 150.
The total burdens under this OMB Control Number are summarized
below.
Title of Collection: Management and Protection of the National
Petroleum Reserve in Alaska--Recommendations for Special Reserve Areas
(43 CFR 2361.10(c)).
OMB Control Number: 1004-0221.
Form Numbers: None.
Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.
Respondents/Affected Public: Participants within the oil and gas
exploration program.
Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.
Frequency of Collection: On occasion.
Estimated Completion Time per Response: 15 hours.
Number of Respondents: 10.
Annual Responses: 10.
Annual Burden Hours: 150.
Annual Burden Cost: None.
The BLM received one comment in response to the proposed rule that
addressed the information collection aspects of the rule. The commentor
was generally supportive of the changes introduced by the rule and
noted that the changes will be substantially less burdensome on
stakeholders than the efforts detailed in the 2024 Final Rule. A copy
of this comment is included with the information collection request
submitted to OMB in association with this final rule. If you want to
comment on the information-collection requirements in this final rule,
please send your comments and suggestions on this information-
collection request within 30 days of publication of this final rule in
the Federal Register to OMB by going to <a href="http://www.reginfo.gov">www.reginfo.gov</a>. Click on the
link, ``Currently under Review--Open for Public Comments.''

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

This final rule meets the criteria set forth at 43 CFR 46.210(i)
for a Departmental categorical exclusion (CE). The CE covers policies,
directives, regulations, and guidelines that are of an administrative,
financial, legal, technical, or procedural nature or whose
environmental effects are too broad, speculative, or conjectural to
lend themselves to meaningful analysis and will later be subject to the
NEPA process, either collectively or case-by-case. Further, the
proposed rule does not implicate any of the extraordinary circumstances
listed in 43 CFR 46.215. A copy of the final CE is available at
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov/docket/BLM-2025-0002">www.regulations.gov/docket/BLM-2025-0002</a>.
Public Comments Received
Comment: A commenter stated that the BLM's reliance on a CE is
unexplained and unsupported. A commenter stated that the BLM's reliance
on a CE to evade conducting further NEPA review is unlawful given the
2024 NPR-A Rule's rescission would eliminate measures intended to
reduce environmental harm. A commenter expressed that a wholesale
rollback of protections in the 23-million-acre NPR-A is exactly the
kind of major Federal action that requires rigorous environmental
review and public involvement and skipping an analysis would violate
NEPA. The commenter asserted that rescinding the 2024 NPR-A Rule would
have foreseeable, significant environmental effects by stripping away
requirements to mitigate harm, likely leading to more habitat loss,
pollution, and unrestrained development. The commenter said that the
BLM acknowledged the proposed rule would enable additional
opportunities for energy development through new energy infrastructure
projects that would exacerbate environmental changes already burdening
the North Slope. The commenter added that the BLM itself recognized in
1977 that promulgating rules to address management of resources in the
NPR-A requires an EA at minimum. The commenter added that failing to
conduct an NEPA analysis would marginalize Indigenous voices, because
NEPA is one of the key processes through which they can make their
concerns heard. An individual commenter said that applying the CE now
is already presupposing the outcomes of the NEPA process.
BLM Response: The BLM disagrees with comments that environmental
analysis under NEPA is required, or that extraordinary circumstances
apply to this rulemaking. The BLM has determined that the CE set out at
43 CFR 46.210(i) (which did not exist at the time the BLM promulgated
the rule in 1977) applies to this rulemaking. That provision excludes
from NEPA analysis and review actions that are of an administrative,
financial, legal, technical, or procedural nature; or whose
environmental effects are too broad, speculative, or conjectural to
lend themselves to meaningful analysis and will later be subject to the
NEPA process, either collectively or case-by-case. That CE applies
because, like the 2024 NPR-A Rule, this final rule is not self-
executing, meaning that it does not itself make any substantive changes
on the ground and will not restrict the BLM's discretion to take or
authorize future on-the-ground actions. Instead, this final rule allows
the BLM to exercise its discretion to appropriately consider future on-
the-ground actions, consistent with the NPRPA, NEPA, and other laws,
under future agency decisions. As such, the rule fits within the CE for
rules, regulations, or policies to establish bureau-wide administrative
procedures, program processes, or instructions. There are ample
opportunities to comment on BLM's decisions regarding the management of
the NPR-A as required by Sec. Sec. 2361.10(c) and 2361.10(d)(1) of
this final rule and as a part of future IAP and project-specific
decision-making processes.
The 2024 NPR-A Rule did not include any specific mitigation
requirements but rather acknowledged that any measures necessary to
mitigate harm would be developed through future IAP processes or
project-specific authorizations. Therefore, rescinding the 2024 NPR-A
rule would not strip

[[Page 51496]]

away requirements to mitigate harm as asserted by the commenter.
Further, this final rule, by itself, does not enable additional
opportunities for energy development because any new energy
infrastructure projects would need to be considered through a future
decision-making process. The environmental effects of future actions
that may be undertaken consistent with the requirements of this final
rule are too speculative or conjectural to be meaningfully evaluated at
this time but will be subject to the appropriate level of NEPA review
prior to making a decision, which also justifies the use of this CE.
That BLM prepared an EA in 1977 when it promulgated that final rule
in no way limits its authority to utilize a categorical exclusion now.
Indeed, the purpose of a categorical exclusion is to eliminate the need
to prepare an environmental assessment. See 43 U.S.C. 4336(b)(2)(``an
agency shall prepare an environmental assessment. . . . . unless the
agency finds that the proposed agency action is excluded pursuant to
one of the agency's categorical exclusions . . .'').
Further, the 2024 NPR-A Rule explicitly relied on the same CE the
Department seeks to rely on now. As background, the BLM completed an
extensive NEPA analysis to support the 2020 IAP ROD--specifically a
Final EIS issued by the agency in 2020 that evaluated a range of
alternatives for managing oil and gas activities and resources in the
NPR-A (NPR-A IAP Final EIS, available at <a href="https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/project/117408/">https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/project/117408/</a>570). That same NPR-A IAP Final EIS was
later used to support the 2022 IAP ROD and was referenced as relevant
to the 2024 NPR-A Rule in that rule's preamble. However, the preamble
for the 2024 NPR-A rule explicitly stated that the EIS was unnecessary
because the rule qualified for a CE. In as much as the NPR-A IAP Final
EIS was relevant to the 2024 rule, it is relevant here. However, just
like the 2024 NPR-A IAP, this final rule does not alter any current on-
the-ground management, and it meets the criteria set forth at 43 CFR
46.210(i) for a Departmental categorical exclusion in that this rule is
``of an administrative, financial, legal, technical, or procedural
nature;'' and, as described above, the environmental effects of future
actions that may be undertaken consistent with the requirements of this
final rule are too speculative or conjectural to be meaningfully
evaluated at this time but will be subject to the appropriate level of
NEPA review prior to making a decision. Additionally, the final rule
does not involve any of the extraordinary circumstances listed in 43
CFR 46.215 that would preclude the application of the categorical
exclusion. As such, the BLM has complied with NEPA by relying on this
categorical exclusion.
Comments: A commenter stated that the BLM failed to adequately
consider alternatives to full rescission of the 2024 NPR-A Rule. The
commenter explained that NEPA requires agencies to ``study, develop,
and describe technically and economically feasible alternatives'' to a
proposed action, and that the alternatives analysis is the ``linchpin''
of environmental analysis.
BLM Response: The alternative consideration for the regulatory
process is not the same as NEPA alternatives. In Federal rulemaking,
alternatives are considered to improve regulatory efficiency and reduce
burdens, focusing on economic and practical impacts. Under NEPA,
alternatives are analyzed to assess environmental consequences and
ensure informed decision-making, with a required ``no action'' option
and emphasis on environmental protection.
As stated in the NPRM RFA section, BLM appropriately considered two
alternatives to the NPR-A proposed rule to assess whether benefits
could be further increased for small entities. First, the BLM
considered a partial rescission of 2024 requirements that would meet
BLM's statutory objectives and provide more benefits to small entities.
Such a rescission was not selected because it would not be authorized
under BLM's authority and is inconsistent with the national energy
policy. Second, the BLM considered delaying the repeal of requirements
over time for affected small entities. This option was not selected
because this would unnecessarily delay the benefits available for small
entities, does not achieve BLM's objectives, is inconsistent with the
national energy policy, and would not be authorized under BLM's
authority.
Comment: A commenter expressed that the BLM's failure to explain or
provide support for its use of a categorical exclusion under the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) violates the APA, and it is
not sufficient to document the applicability of the CE concurrently
with the 2024 NPR-A Rule because it provides no opportunity for public
comment.
BLM Response: The BLM has determined that the CE set out at 43 CFR
46.210(i) is appropriate for this rulemaking activity as it was for the
2024 NPR-A rule. The BLM's CE authority precludes the need for more
robust environmental analysis and review under NEPA for actions that
are of an administrative, financial, legal, technical, or procedural
nature; or whose environmental effects are too broad, speculative, or
conjectural to lend themselves to meaningful analysis and will later be
subject to the NEPA process, either collectively or case-by-case. That
CE applies because the final rule realigns the regulatory framework to
appropriately administer the BLM's future intended focus of oil and gas
exploration and development, but is not self-executing, meaning that it
does not itself make any substantive changes on the ground and will not
restrict the BLM's discretion to take or authorize future on-the-ground
actions.
The final rule allows for the BLM's discretion to appropriately
consider future on-the-ground actions, consistent with the NPRPA and
other laws, under future agency decisions. As such, the rule fits
within the CE for rules, regulations, or policies to establish bureau-
wide administrative procedures, program processes, or instructions.
This final rule does not authorize any project or other on-the-ground
activity and therefore will have no significant individual or
cumulative effects on the qu

[…truncated; see source link]

View on FederalRegister.gov →Plain-text source

Indexed from Federal Register on November 17, 2025.

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.