BOEM Proposes Revisions to Regulations Governing Hard Mineral Resources on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf

Key Takeaways

• On February 24, 2026, BOEM published proposed revisions to regulations governing prospecting, leasing, and operations for hard minerals on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf.
• While most proposed eliminations and revisions are housekeeping changes, the proposed elimination of 30 C.F.R. § 580.31—which requires notification to adjacent state governors and local governments about environmental issues related to prospecting activities for hard minerals—is likely to prove controversial.
• The proposed changes come amid ongoing and intensifying opposition from territorial governments in American Samoa, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), which have consistently sought stronger transparency guarantees, early consultation, and adequate time to comment on federal actions related to deep-sea mining on the OCS.
• Interested parties have until April 27, 2026, to submit comments on the proposed rulemaking. 

On February 24, 2026, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) published revisions to regulations that govern prospecting, leasing, and operations related to minerals other than oil, gas, and sulphur (referred to as “hard minerals”) on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf (OCS).[1] This represents the latest BOEM action stemming from Executive Order 14285 “Unleashing America’s Offshore Critical Minerals and Resources,” which initiated an aggressive use of U.S. authorities to extract critical minerals from the seabed.[2] The public comment period for these revisions will remain open until April 27, 2026.[3]

The Proposed Revisions Aim To Eliminate and Streamline Outdated Regulations 

The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to oversee energy and mineral development on the OCS. BOEM oversees the OCS hard mineral regulations. The regulations, which were last revised in 1989, cover: 

• Scientific research notices and issuance of prospecting permits (30 C.F.R. Part 580).
• The leasing process for rights to explore, develop, and produce hard minerals on the OCS (30 C.F.R. Part 581).
• Operations (30 C.F.R. Part 582) for hard minerals (other than oil, gas, and sulphur) under a lease. 

BOEM is proposing to eliminate or revise ten provisions from these regulations, most of which do not represent substantive policy changes. The first category of revisions relates to 30 C.F.R. Part 580—the regulations related to geological and geophysical prospecting for and scientific research activities related to OCS critical minerals, other strategic “hard minerals,” and aggregate: 

• Eliminate 30 C.F.R § 580.29 “Will BOEM monitor the environmental effects of my activities?” This provision provides that BOEM will evaluate the proposed prospecting or scientific research activities for adverse impacts to the environment and any required mitigation.
  • Reason. Superfluous provision because BOEM already has a statutory obligation to evaluate all applications, not just those related to prospecting or scientific research, on a technical and environmental basis regardless of this provision.
• Eliminate 30 C.F.R § 580.30 “What activities will not require environmental analysis?” This provision includes a list of activities that typically do not cause significant environmental impacts and would “normally” be categorically excluded from an environmental analysis. This includes ten activities, including (1) gravity and magnetometric observations and measurements; (2) bottom and subbottom acoustic profiling or imaging without the use of explosives; (3) hard minerals sampling of a limited nature, such as shallow test drilling; and (4) shipboard hard mineral assaying and analysis.
  • Reason. Categorical exclusions are separately set out in the Departmental Manual and the recently issued revised DOI NEPA regulations (43 CFR part 46) and NEPA handbook. Moreover, the list could mislead applicants about the ongoing need and practice of case-by-case environmental reviews. (43 C.F.R. Part 46).
• Eliminate 30 C.F.R § 580.31 “Whom will BOEM notify about environmental issues?” This provision applies to prospecting permits and is triggered in three circumstances: (1) in cases where Coastal Zone Management Act consistency is required notice was given to adjacent state governors; (2) in cases where an environmental assessment is to be prepared, notice was given to adjacent state governors to review and provide comments; and (3) in cases where a prospecting permit is issued, notice was given to “affected parties,” including states, federal agencies, local governments, and organizations that expressed interest.
  • Reason. OCSLA does not explicitly require engagement with an adjacent or affected state for prospecting. BOEM will continue to comply with notice requirements that stem from statutory foundations.
• Eliminate 30 C.F.R § 580.33 “How can I appeal a penalty?” This provision cross-references to the regulations governing appeals (e.g., 30 C.F.R. Part 590, Subpart A) and does not include additional appeal procedures.
  • Reason. Redundant cross-reference to 30 C.F.R. Part 590, which provides instruction for appeals.
• Eliminate 30 C.F.R. § 580.34 “How can I appeal an order or decision?” Similarly, this provision cross-references to the regulations governing appeals.
  • Reason. Redundant cross-reference to 30 C.F.R. Part 590, which provides instruction for appeals. 

The second category of revisions apply to 30 C.F.R. Part 581—regulations specific to the leasing process. 

• Eliminate 30 C.F.R § 581.5 “False Statements.” This regulation cross-references 18 U.S.C. § 1001 to note that it is a crime to anyone who knowingly and willfully submits false or fraudulent statements to a federal agency.
  • Reason. Redundant provision that identifies a statute (18 U.S.C. § 1001) without adding any requirements specific to leasing.
• Eliminate 30 C.F.R § 581.9 “Jurisdictional Controversies.” This regulation provides that if there is a controversy between the U.S. and a state over whether certain lands are subject to federal or state jurisdiction, that either the state governor or Secretary of the Interior may initiate negotiations to settle the controversy. The federal government has the authority, with Attorney General concurrence, to enter into an agreement with a state regarding payment, rents, royalties, etc. with respect to offering lands for lease pending settlement.  
  • Reason. This regulation summarizes the OCSLA 43 U.S.C. § 1336. BOEM also noted that the jurisdictional controversies over oil and gas that necessitated this resolution process be included in OCSLA are largely settled and are less relevant when extracting hard minerals. The statutory authority to engage in settlement over these controversies is not affected by deleting this regulation.
• Revise 30 C.F.R § 581.11(b) “Unsolicited Request for a Lease Sale.” Under this regulation, the BOEM Director has a 45-day timeline after receiving an unsolicited lease request to either initiate the steps leading to offer the OCS minerals for lease or inform the applicant for the reasons for not initiating the lease process.
  • Reason. Revising the 45-day timeframe for BOEM Director to decide on an unsolicited request to 28 days. 

The last category of changes relate to 30 C.F.R. Part 582—operations for hard minerals.  

• Eliminate 30 C.F.R § 582.7 “Jurisdictional Controversies.” This regulation contains the exact language from 30 C.F.R. § 581.9.
  • Reason. BOEM provided the same reasoning here as it did for the deletion of 30 C.F.R. § 581.9.
• Eliminate 30 C.F.R § 582.50 “Appeals” This regulation does not include additional appeal procedures and only cross-references 30 C.F.R. Part 590.
  • Reason. Redundant cross-reference to 30 C.F.R. Part 590, which provides instruction for appeals. 

Key Implications From BOEM’s Proposal 

Most of the proposed eliminations or revisions are non-substantive changes that will not impact BOEM’s role and hard mineral processes. The proposed elimination of 30 C.F.R § 580.31, however, may prove to be controversial and is likely to raise alarm given concerns already expressed by territorial governments that BOEM’s processes to date have kept them from meaningful participation.[4] 

As noted above, 30 C.F.R § 580.31 requires the BOEM Director to notify adjacent or affected state governors and local governments and organizations about environmental issues related only to mineral prospecting in three situations. First, if a prospecting permit application requires Coastal Zone Management Act consistency review, the BOEM Director would notify the state governors of adjacent states with a copy of the application for a prospecting permit immediately after it is submitted for approval.[5] Second, if a prospecting permit requires an environmental assessment, the BOEM Director would invite the state governors of adjacent states to review and provide comments.[6] Third, when a prospecting permit is issued, the BOEM Director would notify affected parties, including each affected coastal state, federal agency, local government, and special interest organization that expressed interest.[7] 

BOEM characterizes this deletion as “purely procedural.” BOEM also emphasizes that these notice requirements are not statutorily mandated by OCSLA, which requires notification to adjacent state governors only for lease sales and exploration plans, not prospecting permits. BOEM provides that this deletion does not affect a state’s ability to view a prospecting permit application, participate in NEPA review, or obtain copies of issued prospecting permits.  

This deletion is likely to raise questions rather than streamline the prospecting process. Affected states and territories may view this deletion as the federal government eliminating a critical consultation period early in the project development process. Acting Governor of Guam Joshua Tenorio has already raised concerns about BOEM’s proposed change because it reduces consultation requirements with state and territorial governments.[8]  

These proposed regulatory changes are also offered on the heels of American Samoa, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) consistently seeking stronger transparency and guarantees of early notice, consultation, and adequate time to comment on any federal government action toward deep-sea mining near their waters.[9] For example, in June 2025, after BOEM published the Request for Information (RFI) for the American Samoa OCS, American Samoa Governor Pulaali’i Nikolao Pula requested additional time for the comment period to ensure local perspectives and concerns were considered.[10] BOEM agreed to additional time, and, after considering the information and comments provided, including Governor Pula’s opposition to commercial leasing,[11] BOEM announced on November 12, 2025, that it had identified an area for potential commercial leasing much larger than what was considered in the request.  

BOEM’ Request for Information for commercial leasing on CNMI’s OCS drew similar opposition from the Governor of the CNMI David Apatang, Governor of Guam Lourdes A. Leon Guerrero, and both congressional delegations.[12] BOEM has yet to finalize the Area Identification from this RFI.[13]  

Conclusion 

This represents BOEM’s latest push under Executive Order 14285 to extract critical minerals from the seabed. These actions continue to represent a shift in U.S. foreign and domestic policy towards the development of a competitive regime for permitting exploitation of deep-sea mineral deposits. Given the significant capital requirements, regulatory complexity, and accelerated opposition to any development on the OCS, interested parties should seek the advice of legal counsel to navigate this evolving landscape. 

Endnotes

[1] Administrative Revisions to Regulations Related to Outer Continental Shelf Minerals Other Than Oil, Gas, and Sulphur, 91 Fed. Reg. 8803 (Feb. 24, 2026).

[2] As detailed in an earlier Update, Executive Order 14285 urges the Secretary of the Interior to establish an expedited process for reviewing and approving permits for prospecting and granting leases for exploration, development and production of seabed mineral resources within the U.S. OCS.

[3] Comments on the rulemaking may be submitted either electronically through the portal or by mail. In comments, please reference “Administrative Revisions to Regulations Related to Outer Continental Shelf Minerals Other than Oil, Gas and Sulphur, RIN 1010-AE36.” More details on commenting can be found here.

[4] BOEM also announced on December 12, 2025, that it would commence an official review process for leasing marine minerals offshore Virginia following an unsolicited lease sale request. The request is focused on heavy mineral sands and phosphorites rather than the minerals proposed to be extracted from the deep sea in waters offshore the territories. The next step that BOEM will take is to issue a Request for Information and Interest in the Federal Register.

[5] 30 C.F.R. § 580.31(a).

[6] 30 C.F.R. § 580.31(b).

[7] 30 C.F.R. § 580.31(c).

[8] "GovGuam wary of feds limiting consultations, rushing deep-sea mining lease review," Pacific Daily News, Feb. 25, 2026.

[9] We previously published in-depth analyses of BOEM’s actions relating to the leasing of the OCS to waters offshore American Samoa, CNMI, and Guam, including the bases for opposition. See here and here. After the publication of the revisions to the regulations, residents of the territories have expressed strong opposition to deep sea mining and argued that BOEM has lacked transparency as it moves toward leasing. See, e.g., Protesters demand transparency in CNMI talks on potential seabed mining, Isla Public Media (Feb. 27, 2026).

[10] "American Samoa Raises Concerns as Federal Deep-Sea Mining Review Advances," Pasquines (Nov. 26, 2025).

[11] Leadership United: Governor and Lieutenant Governor Lead Unified Effort on Seabed Mining (June 23, 2025).

[12] We published a detailed Update on November 19, 2025, regarding BOEM’s request for information for the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, including opposition from the government and residents of CNMI and Guam. Objections have continued to gather speed. See, e.g., Guam Senate Resolution No. 132-38 (COR), "Relative to Reaffirming the Guam Legislature's Call for a Moratorium on Deep Sea Mining in Protection of the Legal, Economic, Social, Cultural, and Environmental Rights of the People of Guam, and Objecting to the Proposal and Request For Information (RFI) by The United States Department of Interior's Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) for "Commercial Leasing for Outer Continental Shelf Minerals Offshore The Commonwealth Of The Northern Mariana Islands," introduced December 23, 2025.

[13] See our November Update.