Your feedback ensures we stay focused on the facts that matter to you most—take our survey

Notice of Availability of the Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment for the Miles City Field Office, Montana rule

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
New Administrative State Banner.png
What is a significant rule?

Significant regulatory action is a term used to describe an agency rule that has had or might have a large impact on the economy, environment, public health, or state or local governments. These actions may also conflict with other rules or presidential priorities. As part of its role in the regulatory review process, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) determines which rules meet this definition.


Notice of Availability of the Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment for the Miles City Field Office, Montana
Agency: Bureau of Land Management
Action: Notice
Res. of disapproval status: Passed one chamber
Type: Not deemed significant
Federal code: 89 FR 93650
Estimated cost:[1] $0
Estimated benefit:[1] $0
Policy topics: Land management

The Notice of Availability of the Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment for the Miles City Field Office, Montana notice is a notice issued by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) designed to go into effect on November 27, 2024, that announces the Resource Management Plan for the Miles City Field Office area of Montana.[2]

On July 10, 2025, a resolution of disapproval of this plan under the Congressional Review Act was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives. This resolution passed the House on September 3, 2025.

Timeline

The following timeline details key rulemaking activity:

  • September 3, 2025

    The resolution of disapproval passed the House of Representatives.[3]

  • July 10, 2025

    A resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives.[3]

  • November 27, 2024

    BLM published the notice. According to the text of the notice, it took effect immediately.[2]

  • November 20, 2024

    The BLM Director approved the Resource Management Plan.

Background

Administrative State
Administrative State Icon Gold.png
Five Pillars of the Administrative State
•Agency control
• Executive control
• Judicial control
•Legislative control
• Public Control
Click here for more coverage of the administrative state on Ballotpedia.
Click here to access Ballotpedia's administrative state legislation tracker.

In the 2022 case of Western Organization of Resource Councils, et al. v. BLM, the BLM was ordered to incorporate an analysis of climate change-related risks into its Resource Management Plan (RMP) for the Miles City Field Office area of Montana, where BLM-administered public lands and mineral resources include fossil fuel deposits. According to the text of this notice, this RMP addresses this requirement.

Congressional Review Act

See also: Congressional Review Act

Under the CRA, Congress can nullify recent administrative rules if both the House and the Senate pass a joint resolution of disapproval by a simple majority and the President signs it.

Summary of the notice

The following is a summary of the notice from its entry in the Federal Register:[2]

“ The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) announces the availability of the Record of Decision (ROD) for the Approved Resource Management Plan (RMP) Amendment for the Miles City Field Office located in Miles City, Montana.[4] ”

Summary of provisions

The following is a summary of the provisions from the notice's entry in the Federal Register:[2]

“ The Approved RMP Amendment addresses a United States District Court for the District of Montana order (Western Organization of Resource Councils, et al. v. BLM; CV 00076-GF-BMM; 8/3/2022). The Approved RMP Amendment changes the existing 2015 Miles City Approved RMP.[4] ”

Significant impact

See also: Significant regulatory action

Executive Order 12866, issued by President Bill Clinton (D) in 1993, directed the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to determine which agency rules qualify as significant rules and thus are subject to OMB review.

Significant rules have had or might have a large impact on the economy, environment, public health, or state or local governments. These actions may also conflict with other rules or presidential priorities. Executive Order 12866 further defined an economically significant rule as a significant rule with an associated economic impact of $100 million or more. E.O. 14215, issued on February 18, 2025, by President Donald Trump (R), required independent agencies to comply with all aspects of OMB review, including review by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA).[2]

The text of the notice does not state whether that OMB deemed it economically significant under E.O. 12866.

Text of the notice

The full text of the rule is available below:[2]

See also

External links

Footnotes

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 Note: Estimated costs and estimated benefits here refer to estimated quantitative costs represented by dollar amounts. The estimates are a required part of the rulemaking process and are provided in the rule text. For qualitative costs or benefits, see the summaries of rule purpose and provisions.
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 Federal Register, "Notice of Availability of the Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment for the Miles City Field Office, Montana," accessed September 5, 2025
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 Congress.gov, "House Joint Resolution 104," accessed September 5, 2025
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
v • e
The Administrative State
MainThe Administrative State Project Badge.png
Pillars
Reporting
Laws
Administrative Procedure Act • Antiquities Act • Civil Service Reform Act • Clayton Antitrust Act • Communications Act of 1934 • Congressional Review Act • Electronic Freedom of Information Act • Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 • Federal Housekeeping Statute • Federal Reserve Act • Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914 • Freedom of Information Act • Government in the Sunshine Act • Independent Offices Appropriations Act of 1952 • Information Quality Act • Interstate Commerce Act • National Labor Relations Act • Paperwork Reduction Act • Pendleton Act • Privacy Act of 1974 • Regulatory Flexibility Act • REINS Act • REINS Act (Wisconsin) • Securities Act of 1933 • Securities Exchange Act of 1934 • Sherman Antitrust Act • Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act • Truth in Regulating Act • Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Cases
Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner • A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States • Association of Data Processing Service Organizations v. Camp • Auer v. Robbins • Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council • Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe • Federal Trade Commission (FTC) v. Standard Oil Company of California • Field v. Clark • Food and Drug Administration v. Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation • Humphrey's Executor v. United States • Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) v. Chadha • J.W. Hampton Jr. & Company v. United States • Lucia v. SEC • Marshall v. Barlow's • Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency • Mistretta v. United States • National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) v. Sebelius • National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning Company • National Labor Relations Board v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. • Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan • Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation • Skidmore v. Swift & Co. • United States v. Lopez • United States v. Western Pacific Railroad Co. • Universal Camera Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board • Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council • Wayman v. Southard • Weyerhaeuser Company v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service • Whitman v. American Trucking Associations • Wickard v. Filburn • Wiener v. United States
Terms
Adjudication (administrative state) • Administrative judge • Administrative law • Administrative law judge • Administrative state • Arbitrary-or-capricious test • Auer deference • Barrier to entry • Bootleggers and Baptists • Chevron deference (doctrine) • Civil servant • Civil service • Code of Federal Regulations • Codify (administrative state) • Comment period • Compliance costs • Congressional Record • Coordination (administrative state) • Deference (administrative state) • Direct and indirect costs (administrative state) • Enabling statute • Ex parte communication (administrative state) • Executive agency • Federal law • Federal Register • Federalism • Final rule • Formal rulemaking • Formalism (law) • Functionalism (law) • Guidance (administrative state) • Hybrid rulemaking • Incorporation by reference • Independent federal agency • Informal rulemaking • Joint resolution of disapproval (administrative state) • Major rule • Negotiated rulemaking • Nondelegation doctrine • OIRA prompt letter • Organic statute • Pragmatism (law) • Precautionary principle • Promulgate • Proposed rule • Publication rulemaking • Regulatory budget • Regulatory capture • Regulatory dark matter • Regulatory impact analysis • Regulatory policy officer • Regulatory reform officer • Regulatory review • Rent seeking • Retrospective regulatory review • Risk assessment (administrative state) • Rulemaking • Separation of powers • Significant regulatory action • Skidmore deference • Statutory authority • Substantive law and procedural law • Sue and settle • Sunset provision • Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions • United States Code • United States Statutes at Large
Bibliography
Agencies
Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Notice_of_Availability_of_the_Record_of_Decision_and_Approved_Resource_Management_Plan_Amendment_for_the_Miles_City_Field_Office,_Montana_rule&oldid=10495999"