LegisTrack
Back to all bills
HR 1194119th CongressIn Committee

Federal Lands and Waters Leasing Transparency Act

Introduced: Feb 11, 2025
Standard Summary
Comprehensive overview in 1-2 paragraphs

The Federal Lands and Waters Leasing Transparency Act would modify the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) and the Mineral Leasing Act to increase transparency and speed in federal land and water leasing processes. Key changes include a new requirement for the Secretary of the Interior to issue a detailed report to bidders when the government determines it will not receive fair market value (FMV) for an offshore lease bid, including how the bid relates to specified valuation measures. The bill also tightens timelines for issuing onshore leases and restricts court orders from delaying lease issuance, while reshaping how civil actions challenging offshore lease sales are handled to avoid halting lease approvals and to require courts to remand noncompliance issues back to the Interior Department for correction. In short, the bill aims to (1) provide bidders with explanations of FMV determinations for offshore leases, (2) clarify and protect lease issuance deadlines from court-induced delays, and (3) limit the disruptive impact of lawsuits on lease validity and permitting processes while ensuring any noncompliance is addressed through a targeted remand process.

Key Points

  • 1Short title: The act may be cited as the “Federal Lands and Waters Leasing Transparency Act.”
  • 2FMV reports for offshore bids: If the federal government determines that a bid for a covered offshore lease tract will not yield FMV, the Secretary must provide the bidder with a report explaining the basis for that determination. If the bid was a qualified bid subject to resource and economic evaluation, the report must explain how the bid relates to specified valuation metrics.
  • 3Covered lease tract defined: The reporting obligation applies to lease tracts for which the Secretary held a lease sale, received at least one bid, and did not issue a lease to the highest responsible qualified bidder.
  • 4Valuation metrics referenced: For qualified bids with economic/resource evaluation, the report must reference Mean Range of Values, Delay-adjusted Mean Range of Values, Adjusted Delayed Value, and Revised Arithmetic Average Measure as they pertain to the tract.
  • 5Onshore lease issuance timelines protected: The act would add a constraint to the Mineral Leasing Act so that no court order may prevent the Secretary from issuing an onshore lease by the established 60-day deadline unless the court finds that the issuance would violate a Federal law.
  • 6Civil actions challenging offshore sales: Civil actions challenging offshore lease sales would not, by themselves, affect lease validity or cause delays in processing related approvals, plans, or permits. If a court finds noncompliance with Federal law, the court must remand the matter to the Interior Secretary to correct the noncompliance, and the Secretary must continue processing all activities and approvals for leases issued under the challenged sale in accordance with the Act.
  • 7Remand and correction obligation: When noncompliance is found, courts are directed not to vacate or enjoin the offshore lease sale or the leases, but to require the Secretary to correct the noncompliance while continuing the ongoing processing of approvals for activities under the challenged lease sale.

Impact Areas

Primary group/area affected- Offshore oil and gas industry participants, including bidders, lessees, and contractors, who engage with leases issued under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act.- Federal agencies administering offshore and onshore leasing (e.g., the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and related Interior Department offices).Secondary group/area affected- Onshore oil and gas leasing processes and timelines (due to the 60-day deadline provision).- Legal practitioners and plaintiffs involved in civil actions challenging offshore lease sales, as the procedural framework and potential remand requirements would shape litigation practices.Additional impacts- Increased transparency for bidders when FMV is not met, potentially affecting bidding strategies and market confidence.- Potential reduction in delays caused by litigation, since lawsuits are constrained from halting leases or necessary approvals, though remand could yield future changes to noncompliant actions.- Possible pushback or additional litigation over the interpretation of FMV metrics and the sufficiency of the Secretary’s reporting.
Generated by gpt-5-nano on Oct 31, 2025