Public Record Service

Energy and permitting policy, read from the public record.

Register entry No. 0035Report44 FR 46386

BLM proposes rewrite of land use planning rules, 43 CFR Part 1600, RIN 1004-AF53

The proposal would replace the 90-day comment period on draft resource management plans with a 30-day default, cut the Governor's consistency review to 30 days, add a parallel review for local governments and create an emergency amendment track. Comments are due 60 days after the November 10 publication.

Entered by
Public Record Service
Date
Sources
11 cited

Summary

The Bureau of Land Management proposed on November 10, 2026 to revise 43 CFR Part 1600, the regulations that set the procedure for developing, revising and amending resource management plans under section 202 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), in a notice of proposed rulemaking under RIN 1004-AF53, Docket BLM-2026-0298 [1]. The proposal would shorten or remove several fixed comment and review periods, add a consistency review for local governments, and create a new subpart 1611 for amending plans “to address emergencies” [1]. It is signed by Lanny E. Erdos, Director of the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, “Exercising Authority of the Assistant Secretary – Land and Minerals Management,” and comments are due 60 days after publication [1].

What the record shows

Proposed § 1610.55 keeps the rule that “All future authorizations and actions shall conform to the Bureau of Land Management’s approved plan,” and that a nonconforming action that warrants consideration goes “through a plan amendment” [1]. A project on BLM land that falls outside an existing plan’s allocations therefore runs through the amendment procedures this proposal rewrites.

How do the comment periods change?

The current text at 43 CFR 1610.2(e) says “Ninety days shall be provided for review of the draft plan and draft environmental impact statement” [3]. It also requires a Federal Register notice to start a plan, public review of proposed planning criteria, and notice and comment on any significant change made after a protest [3]. The proposal removes all of these [1]. Under proposed § 1610.20, public participation is required at two points only: a general notice at the outset and publication of the proposed plan, which opens the protest window [1]. “Any public comment period provided will be 30 calendar days,” extendable by no more than 30 more, and BLM may hold a public meeting or hearing instead of a comment period “except when a comment period is required by the National Environmental Policy Act” [1].

BLM’s stated reason is the deadline in NEPA as amended: one year for an environmental assessment and two years for an EIS (42 U.S.C. 4336a(g)) [1]. The preamble says “a 90-day public comment period is burdensome to BLM’s ability to comply with NEPA” and that the old period is more than double the one in the Council on Environmental Quality regulations that were rescinded on January 8, 2026 [1].

Proposed § 1601.40 drops the existing requirement to prepare an EIS every time BLM develops or revises a plan; BLM would instead follow Interior’s NEPA procedures published February 24, 2026 (91 FR 8738) [1]. The preamble says this “would not prevent the BLM from preparing an environmental impact statement for a plan revision” [1]. Sections on formulating alternatives, estimating effects and selecting a preferred alternative would be removed as duplicative of NEPA [1].

Before and after, by procedural step

Step Current 43 CFR 1610 Proposed
Draft plan and EIS review 90 days [3] No fixed draft review; any comment period 30 days, plus up to 30 [1]
Governor’s consistency review 60 days, then 30-day appeal to BLM Director [4] 30 days, no appeal [1]
Local government review Inconsistencies with local plans routed through the Governor [1, 4] Direct, 30 days, run concurrently [1]
Protest filing In writing to the Director, within 30 days of EPA’s final EIS notice [5]; paper or electronic [1] Electronic only, through BLM’s NEPA register, received within 30 days, no extension [1]
ACEC proposals Federal Register notice and 60-day comment [6] No separate notice or comment period [1]

Consistency with State and local plans

Proposed § 1610.32 tracks FLPMA section 202(c)(9) and defines “consistent” to mean that “as a general rule, no use of public land should be permitted which is prohibited by approved resource-related plans of State or local governments,” unless BLM finds the use “to be in the national interest” [1]. The definition is drawn from the 1970 Public Land Law Review Commission report [1]. The current rule also lists consistency with plans of “other Federal agencies” and “Indian tribes” [4]; the proposal removes both, and BLM asks for comment on that choice [1].

Under proposed § 1610.41(a)(2), BLM would ask State, local and tribal governments at the start of planning for their approved plans and a summary of the uses each “generally prohibits or restricts.” They would have 45 calendar days to answer for the material to be considered [1]. At the end, if a Governor or local official sends no recommendation within 30 days, inconsistencies “are presumed resolved” [1].

Areas of critical environmental concern

The ACEC text, restored to its pre-2024 form when BLM rescinded the Conservation and Landscape Health Rule in May (91 FR 25787) [6, 7], would be rewritten as § 1610.70. Boundaries “shall encompass the smallest area of public lands necessary to protect and prevent irreparable damage,” and nominations received outside a planning process “will be deferred to an upcoming planning process” [1]. Interior’s announcement describes this as letting BLM “right-size” designations rather than manage “oversized buffer zones” [2].

The emergency track

New § 1611.10 lets any Senate-confirmed official in the Office of the Secretary authorize modified procedures for a plan amendment “to facilitate review of a proposed implementation action to address the emergency circumstances” [1]. The official could shorten participation periods or waive either the opening notice or the protest, “but not waiving both”; waive the coordination invitation; and shorten or waive consistency steps, again not both [1]. The authority lasts “only for the duration of emergency circumstances,” and the State Director must publish the modified procedures at the start [1].

Where it sits in the process

BLM first issued planning regulations on August 7, 1979 (44 FR 46386) and revised them in 1983 and 2005 [1]. A broader 2016 rewrite, “Resource Management Planning” (81 FR 89580), was disapproved under the Congressional Review Act; Public Law 115-12, approved March 27, 2017, provides that it “shall have no force or effect” [8, 9]. Under the Congressional Review Act, a disapproved rule “may not be reissued in substantially the same form” unless a later law specifically authorizes it [11]. The 2026 preamble records the disapproval but does not address that provision [1].

The comment period runs 60 days from the November 10 publication, which by this report’s count ends January 9, 2027 [1]. Comments on the information collections go to OMB within 30 days [1]. BLM will hold a virtual information session on December 3 at 5 p.m. Mountain time [2]. Tribal consultation stays open for the duration of the rulemaking, and BLM says it will email all 575 federally recognized tribes and about 200 Alaska Native Corporations [1].

OIRA designated the rule significant under E.O. 12866 [1]. BLM expects it to be an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action and says it is not expected to have “a significant adverse effect” on energy supply [1]. For NEPA, BLM intends to use the categorical exclusion at 43 CFR 46.210(i) and to document it with the final rule [1].

The rule would not reach lands exempt from FLPMA section 202. The preamble names the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, where BLM is running a separate streamlined permitting rulemaking (earlier coverage) [1].

What the record does not show

The proposed text does not define “emergency circumstances,” and it does not say who determines that an emergency exists or when it ends [1]. Subpart 1611 is limited to amendments “supporting the review of a project(s) that respond to the emergency circumstances,” but the rule does not list project types [1].

The rule does not set a standard for when BLM will offer a comment period beyond the two required participation points, apart from cases where NEPA requires one [1]. It does not define “local government official,” a question BLM puts to commenters [1]. Nor does it say how BLM will make the “national interest” finding that allows a use a State or local plan prohibits [1].

Proposed § 1610.80 says BLM is not required to start planning in areas with no plan or only a management framework plan, except to consider land sales under FLPMA section 203 [1]. The notice does not say how planning efforts already under way would move to the new procedures [1]. BLM’s information-collection estimate projects 16 new annual responses from State, local and tribal governments, a net increase of 455 burden hours to 2,420 [1]; the docket’s Economic Analysis is not described here.

Positions on the record

Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said public lands “should be managed by the people closest to the land, not held back by outdated bureaucracy in D.C.” [2]. BLM Director Steve Pearce said “The current planning process is too slow, too complicated and weighed down by outdated requirements” [2].

The comment period has just opened, and no comments appear in the record cited here. The May rescission shows where commenters divided on one of the same provisions. BLM reported 138,161 submissions, of which 9,132 were unique [7]. Some commenters said reinstating the 60-day ACEC comment period “would reintroduce burdensome steps to the planning process” and hinder NEPA deadlines [7]. Others argued the 2024 ACEC text gave “greater clarity on ACEC designation and management than would the 1983 version” [7].

The National Wildlife Federation wrote that the 2024 rule was designed to put “conservation on par with other uses” and that it will work to ensure administrations understand the importance of conservation on public lands [10]. It said its commitment to “meaningful consultation with Tribes” stands [10]. BLM, in its rescission, said Tribes “maintain the ability to request consultation on future planning decisions,” as the federation’s summary reports [10].

BLM says it seeks comment on “all aspects of this proposed rule,” and specifically on moving protests to electronic-only filing and on what a valid ACEC nomination should include [1].

Reading-room questions

Questions readers bring to this record, answered from the documents cited below.

When are comments due on BLM's proposed planning rule?
Within 60 days of the rule's November 10, 2026 Federal Register publication, which by this report's count is January 9, 2027 [1]. Comments go to regulations.gov under Docket BLM-2026-0298 or by mail to BLM, Director (630), Attention 1004-AF53 [1, 2].
Would BLM still hold a 90-day comment period on draft resource management plans?
No, not as a requirement. The proposal removes the 90-day review of draft plans and EISs and sets any comment period at 30 calendar days, extendable by no more than 30 more [1, 3].
How long would a Governor have to review a proposed BLM plan?
Thirty calendar days, down from 60 [1, 4]. The proposal also drops the Governor's appeal to the BLM Director and the Federal Register publication of the Director's response [1, 4].
Does the BLM planning rule apply to the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska?
No. The proposal says the regulations apply only to BLM lands subject to FLPMA section 202, and names NPR-A lands as exempt under the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act of 1976 [1].
Is there a public information session on the proposed rule?
Yes. BLM says it will hold a virtual session on December 3 beginning at 5 p.m. Mountain time on Microsoft Teams, with registration required [2].

Note on sourcing

This report relies on the public inspection copy of the proposed rule, FR Doc. 2026-22860, filed November 9 for publication November 10; the published Federal Register text and page citation could differ. The public inspection copy states the comment deadline only as 60 days after publication; the January 9, 2027 date given here is this report's count, as is the December 10, 2026 date for information-collection comments to OMB. The Economic Analysis that BLM says is in the rulemaking docket and the plain-language summary on regulations.gov are not described here. The preamble's history section cites the 2016 planning rule as 70 FR 89580; the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations source notes give it as 81 FR 89580, which this report uses. No public comments on Docket BLM-2026-0298 appear in the record this report draws on.

Sources

  1. Revision of Regulations for Planning, Programming, Budgeting, proposed rule, RIN 1004-AF53, Docket BLM-2026-0298 (FR Doc. 2026-22860, public inspection copy, filed November 9, 2026)Bureau of Land Management, November 9, 2026 · public-inspection.federalregister.gov
  2. Interior Proposes to Modernize BLM's Outdated Public Land Planning RulesU.S. Department of the Interior, November 5, 2026 · blm.gov
  3. 43 CFR 1610.2, Public participation (current text)Bureau of Land Management, accessed 2026-11-10 · ecfr.gov
  4. 43 CFR 1610.3-2, Consistency requirements (current text)Bureau of Land Management, accessed 2026-11-10 · ecfr.gov
  5. 43 CFR 1610.5-2, Protest procedures (current text)Bureau of Land Management, accessed 2026-11-10 · ecfr.gov
  6. 43 CFR 1610.7-2, Designation of areas of critical environmental concern (current text)Bureau of Land Management, accessed 2026-11-10 · ecfr.gov
  7. Rescission of Conservation and Landscape Health Rule, final rule, RIN 1004-AF03, 91 FR 25787 (FR Doc. 2026-09386)Bureau of Land Management, May 12, 2026 · govinfo.gov
  8. Resource Management Planning, final rule, RIN 1004-AE39, 81 FR 89580 (FR Doc. 2016-28724)Bureau of Land Management, December 12, 2016 · federalregister.gov
  9. Public Law 115-12 (H.J. Res. 44), disapproving the BLM Resource Management Planning ruleU.S. Congress, March 27, 2017 · govinfo.gov
  10. What Repealing the Public Lands Rule Means for America's Wildlife and Public LandsNational Wildlife Federation, May 13, 2026 · blog.nwf.org
  11. 5 U.S. Code § 801, Congressional reviewU.S. Congress, accessed 2026-11-10 · law.cornell.edu

Subject headings

Cross-references

Other register entries filed under the same subject headings.

  1. No. 0037 · Floor order · 1 shared headingSenate takes up H.R. 2347 after 73-25 cloture vote; Capito substitute SA 6883 carries revised permitting text
  2. No. 0031 · Floor order · 1 shared headingSenate order sets Nov. 9 cloture vote on motion to proceed to H.R. 2347, the vehicle for a permitting package
  3. No. 0030 · Report · 1 shared headingFERC opens scoping on Longboard LNG import terminal off Oʻahu, Docket No. PF26-10-000