Deep Seabed Mining: Revisions to Regulations for Exploration License and Commercial Recovery Permit Applications

Following publication of the proposed rule, in consideration of public comments, interagency comments, and further review, NOAA has made changes to the regulatory text that were in the proposed rule, which are described in detail in section IV of this final rule. These changes include: in Sec. Sec. 970.200, 971.200, and 971.214, adding a clarifying sentence regarding computation of time for purposes of the Administrator's required response time; in Sec. Sec. 970.208, 971.208, and 971.214, revising how the fee payment is to be described in the application, in light of electronic submission of applications; revising Sec. 971.214(a) to better clarify the applicability of other sections of parts 970 and 971 to the consolidated application process; making clarifying edits to the provisions of Sec. 971.214(b) regarding environmental impact statements; adding minor clarifications to Sec. 971.214(c); correcting an internal reference in Sec. 971.214(d) and making minor clarifying and formatting edits, typographical corrections to the subsections within Sec. 971.214(d); in Sec. 971.214(d)(1), and in corresponding language in Sec. 971.214(e)(1), clarifying language regarding demonstrating that an applicant can pursue commercial recovery activities in an expeditious and diligent manner; in Sec. 971.214(d)(2), adding text directing submission of an estimated schedule of expenditures, as required in DSHMRA, and clarifying that an applicant may submit other types of economic analysis; revising Sec. 971.214(d)(3) to clarify the information regarding technological capability that must be submitted; in Sec. 971.214(d)(4), correcting internal citations and clarifying that applicants may provide an explanation as to why designing and testing system components or mining systems is not necessary; in Sec. 971.214(d)(5), clarifying that environmental safeguards and monitoring systems may evolve over time and that the resource assessment may be preliminary at the time of the consolidated application; in Sec. 971.214(d)(6), clarifying that a monitoring plan may be preliminary at the time of application and making conforming edits to refer consistently to any environmental impact statements that may be prepared on the proposed activities in a consolidated license and permit application; in Sec. 971.214(d)(9), clarifying that “affiliate” has the same definition as in Sec. 970.101(d); in Sec. 971.214(e), adding internal citations that were inadvertently omitted from the proposed rule and clarifying the statutory requirements for approval of the size and location of an exploration and commercial recovery area; and in 971.214(g), clarifying the procedure for processing of an amended application. In section IV of this preamble, NOAA explains why these changes constitute minor technical, clarifying, and/or conforming edits that are consistent with the purpose, scope, and NOAA's intent of the proposed rule and do not alter substantive rights or obligations.

In addition to the changes described in detail in section IV of the final rule, NOAA has made some clarifying or conforming edits to sections throughout parts 970 and 971 to reference the consolidated application process established in Sec. 971.214, where applicable and necessary. These edits, which were inadvertently omitted from the proposed rule, do not result in any

substantive changes and constitute technical conforming amendments. These conforming amendments made to reference the consolidated application process are in the following regulatory sections: Section 970.303, Procedures for new entrants; Section 970.500, General; Section 970.513, Revision of a license; Section 971.101, Definitions; Section 971.400, General; Section 971.407, Safety at sea; Section 971.412, Changes in permits and permit terms, conditions, and restrictions; Section 971.413, Revision of permit; Section 971.503, Diligent commercial recovery; Section 971.701, Criteria for safety of life and property at sea; and Section 971.900, Public disclosure of documents received by NOAA.

III. Response to General Comments on the Proposed Rule, and Comments on the Regulatory Impact Analysis and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis, and Implementation of Executive Order 14294

On July 7, 2025, NOAA published the proposed rule, (90 FR 29806), and comments were due by September 5, 2025. NOAA held two virtual public hearings on September 3 and 4, 2025, to receive oral comments. Public comments and transcripts of the virtual public hearings, including the oral comments, are available on the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal, https://www.regulations.gov/docket/NOAA-NOS-2025-0108.

In this section, NOAA summarizes the general comments that do not relate to a specific regulatory section and provides responses. NOAA also summarizes and responds to comments on the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA)/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) analysis, and the virtual public hearings. NOAA has included comments that relate to specific regulatory sections and responses to those comments after each applicable regulatory section in section IV.

NOAA received a total of 24,441 written and oral comments in response to the Proposed Rule; of these, 24,384 are general comments, in opposition and support, that are addressed in this section. There were 1,736 individual written submissions, with 22,660 attached duplicate or similar comments to several commenters: one commenter attached an Excel spreadsheet with 17,581 entries, and another commenter attached to its comment an additional comment signed by 3,537 of its U.S.-based supporters. Of the 1,736 individual written submissions, 1,477 opposed deep seabed mining and/or NOAA's rulemaking and 203 supported deep seabed mining and NOAA's rulemaking. Of the total number of written and oral comments, 24,156 were the same or similar comments in opposition to deep seabed mining or general opposition to the proposed changes to the DSHMRA regulations. Of the total written and oral comments received, 228 were the same or similar comments in support of deep seabed mining or general support for NOAA's proposed changes to the DSHMRA regulations.

Some of the comments pertaining to specific issues or sections of the regulations are addressed in section IV. Comments can be viewed at the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal for the Proposed Rule, https://www.regulations.gov/docket/NOAA-NOS-2025-0108. Comments containing profane or abusive language or foreign language comments without an English language translation were not posted.

NOAA considered the written and oral comments and appreciates the information provided. The comment summaries present the significant issues raised in public comments and are illustrative of the comments and arguments opposing and supporting deep seabed mining and/or NOAA's rulemaking.

Comment 1. General opposition to deep seabed mining was expressed for a variety of stated reasons, including, but not limited to the following assertions: effects on the environment; effects on seabed habitat and to marine species including undiscovered species especially in the Clarion-Clipperton Fracture Zone; harm to cultural resources and Pacific Islander livelihoods and beliefs; inadequate scientific research and information; inadequate resource protection measures and regulations; uncertainties regarding environmental impacts and a nascent industry; significant technical challenges to deep seabed mining; opposition to deep seabed mining from many U.S. states, countries, and global companies; that deep seabed mining is contrary to international agreements and efforts; the need for moratoria; that deep seabed minerals are not needed to meet U.S. demand for critical minerals and domestic sources and recycling of such minerals should be used instead; the U.S. needs to focus on building domestic refineries; using renewable and alternative resources rather than deep-sea minerals; and jeopardizing vital carbon sinks. Commenters argued that deep-sea minerals are not necessary to address national security issues and that the real problem is foreign dominance in processing critical minerals, not in extracting critical minerals. General opposition was also expressed on the asserted grounds that the regulations inadequately address biodiversity loss, sediment dispersion, sediment plume, and combined mining effects. Commenters also expressed that urgent improvements are needed to strengthen impact assessments, start ongoing monitoring, enhance public consultations, prioritize precaution, and explore sustainable alternatives to mining. Commenters also expressed opposition to deep seabed mining in terms of environmental stewardship, national sovereignty, economic responsibility, constitutional government oversight, and that stewardship over God's creation is a biblical and moral responsibility and deep seabed mining poses a serious and irreversible threat to some of the planet's most mysterious and fragile ecosystems. One commenter argued that a single agency should not be responsible for both exploration licenses and commercial recovery.

Commenters stated that deep-sea ecosystems are important for protecting biodiversity and that the deep sea is the largest biome on Earth, with a unique set of characteristics that make it distinct from all other marine and terrestrial ecosystems. Commenters argued that baseline information regarding the deep sea is limited and that seabed mining could have lasting damage where the deep ocean remains one of Earth's least explored environments, with vast regions never sampled biologically. Commenters stated that deep-sea species are vulnerable to impacts, being often highly specialized, slow-growing, and long-lived. Commenters argued that impacts of deep-sea mining include the direct physical destruction of benthic habitat; diminishment of deep-sea oxygen production; release of methane and sequestered carbon; generation of sediment plumes and the subsequent burial of benthic habitats; toxic releases and geochemical alteration from deep-sea mining operations; and noise, light, and vibration impacts from deep- sea mining. Commenters stated that there could be ocean-wide and cascading effects and that the knowledge gaps and uncertainty demand caution.

Response. NOAA's proposed rule, and this final rule, are for the purpose of updating the DSHMRA regulations to reflect significant technological and information changes since the initial regulations were promulgated in the 1980s and to include a consolidated

license and permit application process in a section of the regulations that was reserved for this purpose. NOAA's rulemaking did not pose the policy question of whether NOAA should authorize deep seabed mining under DSHMRA. The statute itself and implementing regulations not being revised in this rulemaking authorize deep seabed mining in areas beyond national jurisdiction and contain standards that address the issues raised in this comment. No changes to those standards are made via this rulemaking, which is procedural in nature. In addition, DSHMRA designates NOAA as the agency with the authority to issue exploration licenses and commercial recovery permits.

DSHMRA and NOAA's regulations contain substantial requirements for applicants and NOAA to address protection of the environment, conservation of natural resources, and monitoring requirements. See 30 U.S.C. 1419, 1420, and 1424. These requirements include producing an environmental impact statement (EIS) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for the issuance of an exploration license and a commercial recovery permit (or both). 30 U.S.C. 1419(d). As part of a license or permit NOAA also includes terms, conditions, and restrictions (TCRs) that include environmental considerations. 30 U.S.C. 1419(b). NOAA can also, after the issuance or transfer of a license or permit, modify any TCR if required to protect the quality of the environment. 30 U.S.C. 1415(c)(1)(B). See also numerous sections of the DSHMRA regulations regarding environmental, conservation, and monitoring requirements, 15 CFR 970.204, 970.506, 970.518, 970.519, 970.522, 970.700, 970.701, 970.702, and 971.204, 971.406, 971.419, 971.420, 971.424, and 971.600-606.

Moreover, the President can determine by Executive Order that an immediate suspension of a license or permit, or immediate suspension or modification of particular activities under such a license or permit, is necessary for the reasons set forth in 30 U.S.C. 1416(a)(2)(B), or the Administrator determines that an immediate suspension of such a license or permit, or immediate suspension or modification of particular activities under such a license or permit, “is necessary to prevent a significant adverse effect on the environment or to preserve the safety of life and property at sea, and the Administrator issues an emergency order requiring such immediate suspension.” 30 U.S.C. 1416(c). See also 15 CFR 970.511 and 971.417. No changes to those standards are made via this rulemaking, which is procedural in nature.

One commenter attached to its comments numerous scientific papers, pamphlets, articles, web pages, testimony, etc., about deep seabed mining, asserted impacts and use conflicts related to deep seabed mining, DSHMRA, the ISA, and NEPA. NOAA has considered these attachments as supplemental information.

Comment 2. Commenters expressed general opposition to NOAA's rulemaking to establish a consolidated license and permit application process and argued that NOAA should withdraw the consolidated application process from its final regulations and refrain from issuing any commercial recovery permits under DSHMRA. Commenters argued that the proposed regulations violate DSHMRA, stating that Congress structured DSHMRA to create two distinct legal instruments--an exploration license and a commercial recovery permit--each with its own application, plan, review, and decision. Commenters argued that Congress intended for a sequenced process in which exploration was a prerequisite for commercial recovery. In support, a commenter quoted Section 1412(b)(3) of the Act, which provides: “A valid existing license shall entitle the holder, if otherwise eligible under the provisions of this chapter and regulations issued under this chapter, to a permit for commercial recovery.” The commenter also pointed to Section 1413, which the commenter stated distinguishes the content and review of an “exploration plan” for a license from the “recovery plan” for a permit, and which establishes priority of right based on the filing date of license applications in substantial compliance with statutory requirements. The commenter also argued that the Act contemplates EISs linked to each separate license or permit decision. Finally, the commenter argued that the consolidated application process would compress what Congress designed as two distinct notice and comment opportunities into one.

Response. Section 1412(b)(3) of DSHMRA does not preclude a single consolidated application, as described in the proposed rule and this final rule. Rather, Section 1412 is simply a protective measure for the applicant: it assures the applicant that, if it was willing to spend the time and expense in obtaining an exploration license and completing exploration work, and if the applicant was otherwise eligible for a commercial recovery permit under DSHMRA and the implementing regulations, NOAA could not arbitrarily deny a license-holder a permit for commercial recovery. As exploration work by definition will not generate income, and the first opportunity for income-generation will occur only at commercial recovery, this provision helps to encourage investment in deep-sea mining by responsible private companies, in keeping with one of the stated purposes of DSHMRA. See 30 U.S.C. 1401(b)(5).

The opportunity to submit a consolidated application is not at odds with Section 1412(b)(3). First, this final rule only modifies the application process. If the applicant is otherwise eligible, NOAA will issue both a license and a permit to the applicant. Second, the final rule establishes an alternative consolidated method to submit a license and permit application; the final rule does not supplant existing regulations allowing for the sequential application of licenses and permits. Therefore, an applicant can still opt to apply for only a license initially. Such an applicant would therefore still rely upon the protections of Section 1412(b)(3) when making investment decisions and when choosing whether to apply for a commercial recovery permit.

Likewise, Section 1413 does not prohibit a consolidated license and permit application. Section 1413 describes the requirements for an exploration plan and a commercial recovery plan. 30 U.S.C. 1413(a)(2)(B), (C). It also states that “priority of right for the issuance of licenses to applicants shall be established on the basis of the chronological order in which [substantially compliant] license applications . . . are filed.” The final rule requires a consolidated application to seek both a license and a permit and to contain both an exploration plan and a commercial recovery plan, and the regulations are consistent with the requirements for the exploration plan and commercial recovery plan in 30 U.S.C. 1413(a)(2)(A) and (B). Contrary to the comment, the Act does not require that these plans be delivered sequentially-just that the applicant must have the plans for each category of activities, depending on if the applicant is seeking a license, a permit, or both. As to the establishment of priority of right, the final rule is consistent with 30 U.S.C. 1413(b). The Act specifically keys priority of right to the application for a license, but it does not require a license to be obtained prior to the application for a permit.

The commenter also argues that it is impermissible to collapse two applications into a single public hearing or single opportunity for public comment. NOAA respectfully disagrees.

DSHMRA clarifies that “[a]ll time periods for the review of an application for issuance or transfer of a license or permit . . . shall, to the maximum extent practicable, run concurrently.” 30 U.S.C. 1413(f). Thus, the statute actually encourages holding concurrent public review opportunities where practicable. Further, throughout the application process NOAA will continue to ensure ample opportunity for public comment, in keeping with both statutory and regulatory requirements. NOAA retains discretion to hold multiple public hearings, for example, if it deems there is sufficient public interest. Nothing in the proposed rule impermissibly infringes on the public's right to comment on the applications.

Finally, the commenter argues NOAA should refrain from issuing any commercial recovery permits under DSHMRA. However, this suggestion is beyond the scope of this rulemaking. Further, as to license-holders, as noted above, the statute explicitly states that a “valid existing license shall entitle the holder, if otherwise eligible . . . , to a permit for commercial recovery.” 30 U.S.C. 1413(b)(3). So under the statute, NOAA does not have discretion to refuse to issue commercial recovery permits to otherwise eligible applicants. As to applicants seeking to use the consolidated process, NOAA is not precluded from issuing commercial recovery permits subject to satisfaction of all statutory and regulatory requirements, including requirements of the consolidated application process as applicable.

Comment 3. Commenters asserted that proceeding according to the proposed regulations would violate NEPA since NOAA's proposed rule attempts to collapse what Congress designed as two distinct phases-- exploration and commercial recovery--into a single, consolidated licensing process. Commenters argued that a primary purpose of exploration is to generate baseline data to better evaluate reasonably foreseeable impacts of commercial recovery, the environmental baseline for these actions remains incomplete, there is still a significant amount of the seafloor left to be mapped at high resolution, impacts of commercial recovery cannot meaningfully be analyzed in the absence of exploration, and authorizing exploration and commercial recovery simultaneously would undermine NEPA obligations. A commenter argued that NOAA's existing DSHMRA regulations contemplate using information gathered under an exploration license to ensure that commercial recovery operations cannot reasonably be expected to result in a significant adverse effect on the quality of the environment. A commenter also argued that consolidation would foreclose the development and consideration of NEPA alternatives for commercial recovery as informed by the baseline data from exploration. Commenters argued that NOAA must ensure reasonable timeframes for review and input by all relevant agencies implementing statutes related to the coastal and marine environment, including the Endangered Species Act (ESA), Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), and National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). Finally, a commenter argued that under NEPA, NOAA would be required to issue a supplemental EIS after exploration and before commercial recovery even if both proposed actions were initially evaluated in a single EIS.

Response. The final rule ensures that NOAA will comply with its NEPA responsibilities for a thorough environmental review including the development of an environmental baseline and a reasonable range of alternatives to meaningfully analyze the impacts of exploration and commercial recovery. As explained in the preamble to the proposed and final rule, over the past decades NOAA and the industry have obtained a substantial amount of information from deep seabed exploration activities, including detailed mapping of areas of the seabed, scientific testing on polymetallic nodules, and expertise and experience in deep seabed mining exploration. NOAA, for example, conducted the Deep Ocean Mining Environmental Study (DOMES), drafted the Deep Seabed Mining Technical Guidance Document, and prepared a Deep Seabed Mining Programmatic EIS. These studies, along with more recent developments, establish a foundation for considering potential environmental impacts of exploration and commercial recovery, and will ensure that an EIS for a consolidated license and permit application is informed by a robust environmental baseline. NOAA is also required to hold consultations to assure compliance with, as applicable, the ESA, the MMPA, the CZMA, and the MSA, among other statutes. See 15 CFR 970.502 and 971.402. These consultations will also enhance environmental baseline information in furtherance of NEPA compliance.

Indeed, NOAA's final rule requires consolidated applications to demonstrate that the applicant can proceed to commercial recovery in an expeditious and diligent manner, including by describing any exploration activities undertaken prior to application submission, and to include any relevant environmental baseline information obtained during past exploration activities. Therefore, NOAA expects to have the necessary information from prior studies (e.g., the DOMES study, Deep Seabed Mining Technical Guidance, Deep Seabed Mining Programmatic EIS), recent developments, and applicant exploration activities to develop and consider a reasonable range of alternatives for commercial recovery in the EIS. Moreover, as stated in the proposed rule, there may be situations in which two EISs are appropriate, and NOAA will base any determination that a second or supplemental EIS is needed on the record for any specific application and circumstance.

In addition, NOAA is updating its DSHMRA technical guidance in a process that is separate from this rulemaking. Updating the technical guidance is critical for having data acquisition standards for monitoring potential impacts. NOAA expects to release a draft of the revised technical guidance for public review later this year.

The commenter also asserts that Section 1415(b), which requires that an environmental impact statement be prepared before either a license or permit is issued, requires a sequential process and that a “consolidated process that attempts to resolve both exploration and commercial recovery with a single, front-end EIS would frustrate [DSHMRA's] framework.” But again, nothing in Section 1415(b) requires a sequential process. And while it is true that NOAA's previously- issued DSHMRA regulations provide for a sequential process, NOAA has explained in the proposed rule and final rule preambles why a consolidated application option is now appropriate for some applicants given the more mature state of the industry. As noted above, the consolidated application process is an alternative application method and does not supplant existing regulations allowing for the sequential application of licenses and permits. Therefore, an applicant could still opt to apply for only a license initially.

Moreover, the Administrator sets enforceable terms, conditions, and restrictions for, among other things, the protection of the environment on each license and/or permit issued under the Act and its implementing regulations. See 30 U.S.C. 1419(b). Other

environmental safeguards include the applicant's required environmental monitoring plan, TCRs that the Administrator imposes related to the environmental monitoring plan and protection of the environment, and enforcement and license suspension actions that the Administrator can take if there are significant adverse environmental effects. The Act and the DSHMRA regulations describe NOAA's enforcement authority under this regulatory framework and contain several provisions for monitoring compliance with legal requirements and pursuing appropriate enforcement action when necessary. See, e.g., 30 U.S.C. 1424, 1461-1468; 15 CFR part 971, subpart J.

Comment 4. Commenters stated that NOAA cannot finalize the proposed regulations without first complying with NEPA and ESA and that the act of promulgating these regulations is itself a “major federal action” under NEPA requiring an EIS and an “agency action” under ESA Sec. 7, each of which requires advance environmental review. A commenter argued that an EIS is required for this rulemaking because it constitutes a regulatory change with significant consequences for how and when environmental review occurs, and it will make environmental impacts of deep seabed mining more likely. A commenter argued that the term “extraordinary circumstances” appears under the G7 categorical exclusion but remains undefined, creating uncertainty about when a full EA or EIS is required. Commenters argued that NOAA should codify specific triggers--such as impacts on hydrothermal-vent fields, areas designated as critical habitat for listed species, or regions of high seafloor biodiversity--for case-by-case NEPA analysis. Finally, a commenter also argued that issuing these regulations “may affect” numerous ESA-listed species, and NOAA cannot defer consultation to a later stage.

Response. This rulemaking includes only technical and/or procedural changes to the regulatory text and does not change the substantive standards to which applications will be held. NOAA has determined that the rulemaking falls within a category of actions that NOAA has determined normally does not significantly affect the quality of the human environment and therefore may be categorically excluded from the need to prepare a further NEPA analysis. NOAA has also not identified any extraordinary circumstances under NOAA's Companion Manual, Policy and Procedures for Compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act and Related Authorities (effective June 30, 2025) that would preclude this categorical exclusion. The Companion Manual provides examples of extraordinary circumstances under which NOAA has determined further NEPA analysis may be required. Moreover, the use of the NEPA G7 categorical exclusion is only for purposes of this rulemaking, not for DSHMRA applications for exploration or commercial recovery, which require the preparation of an EIS. As required by DSHMRA, NOAA would prepare an EIS before issuing any license or permit.

With respect to ESA Sec. 7, NOAA has determined that the administrative action of a rulemaking that includes only technical and/ or procedural changes will have no effect on ESA-listed species. Before the issuance of any license or permit, NOAA is required to hold consultations to assure compliance with, as applicable, the ESA, the MMPA, and the MSA, among other statutes. See 15 CFR 970.502 and 971.402.

Comment 5. A commenter opposed the proposed consolidation of exploration and commercial recovery licensing under DSHMRA on grounds rooted in indigenous values. The commenter supported efforts to modernize outdated 1980s-era regulations and improve administrative efficiency but opposed the push to fast-track licensing and permitting for deep-sea mining activities for a number of reasons related to religious, spiritual, and/or cultural beliefs and ecological wisdom. The commenter stated that NOAA should uphold its trust responsibilities to indigenous peoples and should reject the proposed consolidation of exploration and commercial recovery licenses; maintain a two-step licensing process to ensure accountability; include Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander cultural practitioners in any future regulatory review process, consistent with executive orders on indigenous consultation; and support only those regulatory updates that improve clarity and fairness without sacrificing oversight or enabling hasty extraction.

Response. NOAA appreciates and respects the commenter's statements regarding Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander cultural beliefs and concerns. As noted in NOAA's response to Comment 1, and as described in this rule's background section, DSHMRA establishes a process for NOAA to issue to U.S. citizens licenses and permits for deep seabed mining of hard mineral resources as defined in the Act. Moreover, as stated in E.O. 14285, there is a critical need for the U.S. to obtain critical minerals from the deep seabed.

The consolidated license and permit process will not erode any environmental, scientific, or cultural considerations. As stated in NOAA's explanation of Sec. 971.214 and in the response to Comment 1, the Act and regulations contain substantial provisions for the protection of the environment and conservation of resources.

Consistent with E.O. 13175, NOAA engages in government-to- government consultation with federally-recognized tribes in the development of federal policies that have tribal implications. NOAA has not identified tribal implications associated with this rule, which is a procedural update to the DSHMRA regulations to establish a consolidated application process in a section previously reserved for that purpose. However, NOAA will fulfill any applicable tribal consultation obligations in future regulatory actions that may have tribal implications under E.O. 13175 for federally recognized tribes.

Comment 6. Commenters argued that this rulemaking did not follow procedures required in DSHMRA, 30 U.S.C. 1468, because NOAA did not undergo formal rulemaking and did not make a determination that the proposed rule was necessary and appropriate to provide for the conservation of natural resources, protection of the environment, and the safety of life and property at sea. A commenter argued that NOAA should rescind its existing seabed mining regulations and prior determinations, which are likewise invalid because they rest on informal rulemaking procedures inconsistent with DSHMRA and the APA.

Response. In proposing and then finalizing this rulemaking, NOAA has followed all applicable procedures required under DSHMRA and the APA. NOAA published a Federal Register notice of the proposed rule, afforded a 60-day comment period for members of the public to provide written comments, held two virtual public hearings to accept oral comments, has considered comments received, prepared a response to comments, and is now issuing a Federal Register notice of the final rule.

The applicable sections of DSHMRA that authorize NOAA to undertake this rulemaking are 30 U.S.C. 1413(a)(2)(A) (License and permit applications, review, and certification) and 30 U.S.C. 1426(a) (Public notice and hearings; Required procedures). Section 1413(a)(2)(A) provides in relevant part that exploration license and commercial recovery permit applications “shall be made in such form and manner as the Administrator shall prescribe in general

and uniform regulations and shall contain such relevant financial, technical, and environmental information as the Administrator may by regulations require as being necessary and appropriate for carrying out the provisions of [DSHMRA].” Section 1426(a) provides that the NOAA Administrator “may issue regulations to carry out this chapter . . . only after public notice and opportunity for comment and hearings in accordance with the following: (1) The Administrator shall publish in the Federal Register notice of . . . all regulations implementing this chapter . . . . Interested person shall be permitted to examine the materials relevant to any of these actions, and shall have at least 60 days after publication of such notice to submit written comments to the Administrator. (2) The Administrator shall hold a public hearing in an appropriate location and may employ such additional methods as the Administrator deems appropriate to inform interested persons about each action specified in paragraph (1) and to invite their comments thereon.” NOAA has implemented each of these steps, as noted above.

This rulemaking process also follows the procedures required by the applicable section of the APA, 5 U.S.C. 553 (Rule making). NOAA issued a general notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register with the information required in 5 U.S.C. 553(b); NOAA offered an opportunity for public comment consistent with 5 U.S.C. 553(c); and NOAA has explained why this rule, which “relieves a restriction,” is effective immediately, consistent with 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1).

The section of DSHMRA cited by the commenter, 30 U.S.C. 1468(c), which requires rulemaking on the record after an opportunity for an agency hearing, is not applicable to this rule. Section 1468(c) applies to amending regulations under DSHMRA “as the Administrator determines necessary and appropriate in order to provide for the conservation of natural resources within the meaning of Section 1420 of this title, protection of the environment, and safety of life and property at sea.” This rulemaking does not constitute a regulatory amendment within the scope of 30 U.S.C. 1468(c). Rather, this rulemaking implements procedural changes to the DSHMRA application process as authorized by 30 U.S.C. 1413(a)(2)(A) and 30 U.S.C. 1426(a).

Nor was formal rulemaking required for the initial regulations promulgated by NOAA. NOAA published its DSHMRA exploration license regulations (15 CFR part 970) in 1981 and its commercial recovery permit regulations (15 CFR part 971) in 1989 pursuant to Section 1468(a) and (b), which required that the NOAA Administrator propose and finalize such regulations as are required by or necessary and appropriate to implement DSHMRA, “in accordance with section 553 of title 5.” See 30 U.S.C. 1468(a) and (b) (emphasis added). Section 553 of title 5 is the section of the APA governing informal rulemaking, which is the process that NOAA followed to issue the original DSHMRA regulations and which it is following for this rulemaking. As such, NOAA has complied with the requirements of DSHMRA and the APA and the existing regulations need not be rescinded.

Comment 7. Commenters argued that the proposed rule is arbitrary and capricious because the administrative record mostly repeats the agency's rationale from 1986 without evidence that the statements are true. Commenters argued that the deep seabed mining industry has not matured and that a single business does not demonstrate a high technology readiness level, nor is there a high market readiness level. Commenters argued that the industry is nascent and no commercial deep- sea mining has yet occurred. Several commenters argued that the administrative record fails to discuss environmental impacts. Commenters further argued that advancing the deep seabed mining industry will result in advancement of industry's impacts to the marine environment, but the proposed rule ignores advancements in environmental science.

Response. When NOAA, in 1986, reserved Sec. 971.214 for potential later development, it anticipated that as the deep seabed mining industry matured and gained experience from exploration activities, implementing a consolidated license and permit application process may be appropriate. NOAA has explained the developments over the last several decades that demonstrate that the industry has indeed matured and gained both technological capability and information, such that implementing a consolidated process is timely. For example, a significant amount of mapping work has already occurred, and is ongoing, in areas where hard mineral resources are known to be concentrated--such as in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone. Many entities have performed substantial deep-sea mining exploration- and development-type work over the last decade, gaining and developing information, technology, and experience which has helped to mature the industry and which means that many eligible entities may now be ready to move to commercial recovery. Additionally, modern technology, such as autonomous underwater vehicles, has increased the speed in which areas can be explored as well as increased the quality of the data that can be collected efficiently. Technologies that could be applied to deep-sea resource recovery have also developed considerably since the promulgation of the original regulations, with at least two companies promoting prototype recovery equipment. Altogether, it is evident that the industry has matured since the 1980s and it is now appropriate to allow for a single consolidated application. NOAA is not relying on the readiness level of any single business but rather the maturation of the industry as a whole.

Comment 8. Several commenters made general comments in opposition based on international considerations and offered specific recommendations. Commenters argued that DSHMRA requires that U.S. seabed mining activities conform to international obligations, including LOSC Articles 192 and 194, and the precautionary principle. Commenters stated that acting unilaterally on deep seabed mining undermines the ISA process, international norms, global stability, and the rule of law, and that it could result in harm to protected areas, such as Areas of Particular Environmental Interest designated by the ISA. One commenter recommended that NOAA revise its regulations to require all exploration and/or commercial recovery permit applicants planning activity in areas beyond national jurisdiction to provide a plan for how the material recovered, knowledge gained, and general outcomes of their operations will “be carried out for the benefit of all mankind” and adhere to LOSC Article 140 and the policies in Article 150 on Development of Resources of the Area. The commenter also stated that NOAA should also notify the ISA Secretariat of applications for activities in areas beyond national jurisdiction.

One commenter argued that NOAA failed to engage with Regional Fishery Management Organizations (RFMOs) in this rulemaking process, including the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission under the Tuna Conventions Act.

Another commenter stated that U.S. deep-sea mining poses an international offshore disconnection with the ISA and the LOSC and that the U.S. has not aligned with growing international consensus on a deep seabed mining moratorium. The commenter asserted

that the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Agreement, adopted in 2023 under the framework of the LOSC, is the first global treaty to address the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity in the high seas and if the U.S. pursues seabed mining without engaging this institutional architecture, it may lack necessary levers to influence emerging conservation and resource regulation frameworks. The commenter stated that geopolitical consequences of not ratifying the LOSC and of acting unilaterally on deep seabed mining would be far-reaching. The commenter argued proceeding under E.O. 14285 risks isolating the U.S. diplomatically, especially from key trading partners and global industries moving toward higher environmental standards.

Another commenter argued that the international legal landscape governing the exploration and exploitation of mineral resources in areas of the sea floor that lie beyond any nation's jurisdiction has changed substantially since NOAA published its DSHMRA exploration license regulations in 1981 and 1989 and it is essential that any updates to U.S. regulations take these changes into account. The commenter asserted that the current legal regime has eliminated the “reciprocating states” regime that existed on an interim basis in the 1980s, to which DSHMRA and the regulations refer, but on which licensees and permittees today may no longer rely and reduces to a small group the potential partner corporations on which a DSHMRA licensee or permittee may rely due to potential conflicts with contracts issued by the ISA. The commenter argued that licenses and permits issued under DSHMRA that conflict with exploration and exploitation contracts issued by the ISA could increase the likelihood of creating “a situation which may reasonably be expected to lead to a breach of international peace and security involving armed conflict,” 30 U.S.C. 1415(a)(3). The commenter then asserted that an applicant working outside the ISA regime cannot demonstrate that it possesses the scientific, technical, and financial resources to pursue commercial recovery activities in an expeditious and diligent manner as required in the new Sec. 971.214(b). The commenter then, based on these international considerations, recommended that NOAA acknowledge in its regulations the substantial changes in the legal landscape since the 1980s, the incompatibility of DSHMRA and its associated regulations with the international legal framework now in place in the Area, and decline to entertain any applications for DSHMRA licenses and permits. If, however, NOAA intends to review applications, the commenter recommended that the agency maintain the current separation between the application processes for exploration licenses and commercial recovery permits. Lastly, the commenter provided suggested changes that NOAA should make to various paragraphs of Sec. 971.214 and throughout 15 CFR part 971. Under the commenter's suggested changes, an applicant would not be required to provide information in its application that involves partnerships with Nations or work performed as part of those partnerships that were done under the LOSC and the ISA regulatory regime.

Response. Under DSHMRA, NOAA may issue licenses and permits to U.S. citizens in areas beyond national jurisdiction, provided all domestic statutory and regulatory requirements are met. The United States is not a party to the LOSC. While the United States views the LOSC provisions relating to traditional uses of the oceans as reflecting customary international law binding on all States, the United States does not consider Part XI of the LOSC or the 1994 agreement relating to Part XI to reflect customary international law. In 1980, the United States enacted DSHMRA, which states “exploration for and commercial recovery of hard mineral resources of the deep seabed are freedoms of the high seas subject to a duty of reasonable regard to the interests of other states in their exercise of those and other freedoms recognized by general principles of international law.” DSHMRA dictates that the U.S. private sector's deep-sea exploration and commercial recovery activities in areas beyond national jurisdiction must be undertaken with strong standards and environmental impact statements, and those activities must not unreasonably interfere with the interests of other states in their exercise of high seas freedoms. The international considerations raised by these comments are not implicated by the changes made in this rulemaking, which consolidate and expedite existing regulatory processes under DSHMRA. Accordingly, no modifications to the regulations are necessary. Regarding notifying the ISA, NOAA notifies the public and provides an opportunity to comment-- worldwide via the Federal Register and regulations.gov--on applications that are in full compliance, and NOAA considers public comments on such applications before NOAA makes final decisions on whether to issue DSHMRA licenses or permits.

Regarding engaging with RFMOs for this rulemaking, these organizations were aware of the rulemaking via the proposed rule Federal Register notice and had the opportunity to submit comments through the public regulations.gov process. As applicable, NOAA and the State Department will work through the appropriate process established in each RFMO to address potential impacts of specific U.S.-authorized deep-sea mining projects on internationally-managed fisheries.

Comment 9. Commenters voiced support for deep seabed mining and asserted the need for critical minerals, strengthening the independence and reliability of U.S. supply chains by advancing U.S. leadership in seabed mineral exploration and responsible commercial recovery, the need for reduced reliance on China and other foreign sources of critical minerals, the need (on environmental and other grounds) to pursue alternatives to land-based mining for critical minerals, and the nature of updated deep seabed mining technology. Some commenters expressed particular support for polymetallic nodule collection from the Clarion-Clipperton Zone. Commenters also supported technological developments for selective harvesting with reduced environmental impacts.

Response: NOAA appreciates the supportive comment.

Comment 10. Commenters supported NOAA's efforts to modernize the DSHMRA regulations to streamline the permitting and licensing process and endorsed NOAA's efforts to consolidate the exploration license and commercial recovery permit into a single, unified application process. Commenters considered that the shift from dual-track reviews to an integrated permitting pathway is a substantial improvement that reduces redundancy, shortens regulatory timelines, and aligns with best practices in modern governance. Commenters also supported NOAA's move to digital applications and stated that it eliminates outdated paper- based requirements, saving applicants time and money while improving transparency and efficiency. A commenter stated that these reforms are particularly beneficial for small businesses, which often struggle with compliance costs and process complexity, and which benefit from regulatory certainty and efficiency. Commenters commended NOAA for advancing a system that enhances

predictability, accelerates access to critical minerals, lowers the cost of capital and unlocks innovation, and promotes fairer participation in offshore economic opportunities and stated that the regulatory changes directly align with national objectives around critical mineral independence, economic competitiveness, and responsible deregulation. Another commenter argued that NOAA should expedite commercial/exploratory applications for two key reasons: current terrestrial mining methods are devastating to the environment, and the biggest threat to the maritime ecosystem is China's unrestricted and unreported fishing.

Response. NOAA appreciates the supportive comment.

Comment 11. A commenter asked how NOAA's current regulatory framework both supports responsible innovation in deep-sea mining and ensures that environmental protections are effectively enforced.

Response. This comment is beyond the scope of this rulemaking. NOAA notes that DSHMRA authorizes NOAA to issue licenses and permits, but does not currently provide NOAA with funding for deep seabed mining technology development and innovation. In reviewing applications for exploration licenses and commercial recovery permits, NOAA considers information presented regarding effectiveness of technology and environmental effects. In addition, the Administrator sets enforceable terms, conditions, and restrictions for, among other things, the protection of the environment on each license and/or permit issued under the Act and its implementing regulations. See 30 U.S.C. 1419(b). The Act and the DSHMRA regulations describe NOAA's enforcement authority under this regulatory framework and contain several provisions for monitoring compliance with legal requirements and pursuing appropriate enforcement action when necessary. See, e.g., 30 U.S.C. 1424, 1461-1468; 15 CFR part 971, subpart J.

Comment 12. One commenter noted many published articles regarding the occurrence of various metals in polymetallic nodules. The commenter asked whether given the slow, cold, and high-pressure environment in which the metal deposition occurs, there is the potential for depletion/enrichment of a lower or higher mass isotopes. The commenter stated that the following additional elements have two or more stable isotopes that are naturally occurring: Fe(4), Si(3), Mg(3), Ti(5), K(2), V(2), Cu(2), Ni(5), Zn(5), and Ba(7). The commenter also recommended that there should be consideration to updated analyses of the heterogeneity of several NORM analytes (e.g., 238U, 235U, 234U, 232Th, 231Pa, 230Th, 226Ra, 214Bi, 214Pb, and 210Pb) in a representative collection of polymetallic nodules. The commenter stated there is an open question whether the concentrations of uranium, thorium, and radium may be sufficient to specifically extract and market.

Response. Pursuing the recommended research is beyond the scope of this rulemaking action. It may be that DSHMRA licensees and permittees may be able to obtain this information as they proceed with their exploration and commercial recovery operations.

Comment 13. A commenter noted that NOAA is analyzing this proposed rule in accordance with NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the NOAA Administrative Order 216-6A, and the NOAA Companion Manual, Policy and Procedures for Compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act and Related Authorities (effective January 13, 2017). The commenter asked if, given E.O. 14154, “Unleashing American Energy,” which directed the Council on Environmental Quality to propose rescinding its NEPA regulations and to provide guidance on implementing NEPA, the referenced NOAA manuals contain the appropriate and updated content.

Response. During the publication of the proposed rule, NOAA finalized revisions to the agency's procedures for implementing NEPA in the NOAA Companion Manual, Policy and Procedures for Compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act and Related Authorities (effective June 30, 2025). This final rule reflects the agency's revised procedures.

Comment 14. Commenters encouraged NOAA to ensure that the process for transferring and/or revising existing licenses and permits is streamlined to at least the same extent as the proposed consolidated license and permit application process. A commenter also expressed concern over NOAA's retention of open-ended discretion across key regulatory touchpoints, including fee adjustments, review timelines, and EIS requirements. The commenter urged NOAA to adopt defined timelines, appeals processes, and transparent criteria to ensure fairness and accountability. The commenter argued that NOAA should establish clear thresholds and procedures in the final rule for determining when separate EIS processes would be required, ensuring predictability and compliance with NEPA requirements. The commenter also stated that NOAA should create a formal mechanism for applicants to challenge or appeal agency actions.

Response. Regarding streamlining the process for the transfer or revision of an existing license, NOAA notes that under Sec. 971.214(g), an existing applicant may submit an amended application in compliance with the consolidated application process. NOAA has not otherwise proposed changes regarding existing licenses as such changes are outside the scope of this rulemaking. Regarding NOAA's discretion at various steps in the regulatory process, the Act and the DSHMRA regulations provide clear and sufficient standards regarding timelines and criteria to provide applicants with a reasonable and expedited path toward completion of NOAA's review. As NOAA gains further experience with processing new DSHMRA license and permit applications as well as the consolidated license and permit applications, NOAA will determine whether to propose further refinements to regulatory procedures, which may include further refinement to EIS processes if necessary and appropriate. Regarding appeal procedures, the Act and regulations contain administrative and judicial appeal procedures. See 30 U.S.C. 1416(b) and (d), and 15 CFR part 971, subpart I.

Comment 15. Some commenters requested that NOAA establish a public dashboard showing where each application stands in the process and making supporting information, such as environmental data, public in real time.

Response. NOAA publishes in the Federal Register notice of all applications for licenses and permits that are in full compliance and the materials relevant to such actions, and will publish the draft and final EISs with the accompanying TCRs. See 30 U.S.C. 1419(d), 1426(a).

Comment 16. A commenter argued that NOAA should provide for more Deep Ocean Mining Environmental Study (DOMES) funds to allow the U.S. to collect necessary data.

Response. The comment is outside the scope of this rulemaking.

Comment 17. A commenter requested that NOAA update Sec. 970.100 to reference the LOSC and E.O. 14285 and to establish a clear strategy for “securing reliable supplies of critical minerals independent of foreign adversary control.”

Response. NOAA did not propose changes to Sec. 970.100 as this section reiterates the Act's stated purposes and provides the flexibility for NOAA to

make changes to the regulations based on changes in the industry over time. See 30 U.S.C. 1401(b).

Comment 18. A commenter argued that the regulations, 15 CFR 971.801, should require collecting, preserving, and making available deep seabed mining data.

Response. The regulations already require licensees and permittees to maintain, make available, and submit specified data and records to NOAA, and NOAA will continue to make these records available to the public in accordance with the applicable regulations. As part of this final rule, NOAA has updated the procedures for the public disclosure of documents received by NOAA, to remove outdated procedures and cross- references for handling records and instead replace the section with a cross-reference to the current regulations which govern public disclosure of documents received by NOAA.

Comment 19. Some commenters provided recommendations on NOAA's environmental review of proposed exploration license or commercial recovery permit activities. Some commenters expressed concern that retaining the possibility of two separate EISs--one for exploration and one for recovery--could lead to duplicative efforts, costly delays, and regulatory uncertainty without delivering additional environmental benefits. A commenter recommended clearer guidelines to avoid unnecessary procedural repetition and to prioritize streamlined, single-track environmental assessments when feasible. Another commenter requested that NOAA establish best available technology requirements in regulation, with independent monitoring and third-party audits.

Response. As stated in Sec. 971.214(b), NOAA may issue a single EIS for a consolidated license and permit application, but there may be instances when other NEPA reviews may be necessary or a supplemental EIS is needed. At this time NOAA is not developing guidelines for when NOAA will prepare one or two EISs, or supplemental EISs, as these are case-specific determinations based on each application, how an applicant amends its application over time, and whether evolving information indicates the potential for significant impacts to the human environment not previously evaluated.

The Act and the regulations contain sufficient monitoring and reporting provisions for NOAA to evaluate environmental impacts. NOAA is not determining through this rulemaking what technology a company should use; rather, the technologies should be developed and selected by each applicant and then NOAA, in the application review process, will consider whether the proposed technologies and other components of the applications meet the requirements in the Act and regulations. The Act and regulations contain sufficient provisions for monitoring, including potentially, observers. As for scaling up a project, the scope of exploration and commercial recovery activities is included in the DSHMRA applications.

Comment 20. One comment pertained to the environmental problem of the great Pacific garbage patch, which the commenter said no one is doing anything about. The commenter stated that if deep seabed mining is commercially successful, resources or profits could be used to deal with the great Pacific garbage patch.

Response: This comment is beyond the scope of the current rulemaking.

Comment 21. One commenter stated that even with digital reforms, NOAA estimates over 4,000 annual burden hours and nearly $478,000 in wage costs per applicant. The commenter viewed this as excessive and a potential deterrent to participation, particularly for small and mid- sized enterprises, and argued that NOAA should do more to reduce these costs through smarter form design, pre-filled templates, and elimination of duplicative information requests.

Response. The burden hours and wage costs are an estimate and NOAA will adjust these as necessary in future actions for this PRA information collection. See the PRA section herein, which describes how NOAA estimated the hours and costs for applicants and NOAA. In addition, NOAA has developed a DSHMRA web page that serves, in part, as a small business compliance guide for purposes of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA). With respect to the request for pre-filled templates or other streamlining forms, NOAA may determine, after reviewing several applications, whether to propose additional guidance. More information on costs is also provided in Responses to Comments 33 and 34 regarding the fee for the consolidated application process.

Comment 22. Several commenters provided comments on NOAA's RIA. One commenter argued that the RIA shows only meager administrative cost savings from the proposed process consolidation. The commenter argued that this minimal amount does not justify expansion of speedy pathways for an untested, high-risk new industry and that the amendments are not about cost savings for the American people--they are about cost savings and shortcuts benefiting only private commercial entities.

Another commenter pointed to the economic analysis in the RIA and considered that the efficiency gains are expected to accelerate America's offshore mineral development capabilities, potentially unlock billions of dollars in untapped seabed resources, and help establish U.S. leadership in the global critical minerals supply chain, particularly for rare earth elements and strategic metals essential for clean energy and defense technologies. Another commenter asserted that the 100-day time savings is non-trivial in commercial cycles and could substantially affect economic viability.

Commenters stated that the consolidated license process and cost savings for small businesses will boost innovation and competitiveness. NOAA's IRFA estimates cost savings of $5,099 for small businesses transitioning to electronic applications and a 100-day reduction in review time for consolidated applications, enabling faster market entry. A commenter stated that these efficiencies will attract additional U.S. companies to the sector, fostering a competitive and innovative industry ecosystem. Other commenters expressed concern that the consolidated application fee was too high and risks entrenching the largest operators at the expense of small businesses.

Response. The RIA is an objective evaluation of the information to which NOAA has access to evaluate the economic impacts of a rulemaking. NOAA uses the RIA to comply with E.O. 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and the RFA. As a result of the public comments and additional public data available, NOAA has revised the RIA as follows.

First, NOAA has partially monetized the benefit of 100 days saved through the consolidated license and permit application process. NOAA has monetized the cost savings for the applicant's administrative labor overhead that would be incurred during this waiting period and has found an annual cost-savings benefit of $2,411,192. Second, NOAA revised the applicant's wage burden benefit calculated using the PRA Supporting Statement OMB Control # 0648-0145, Section 12 to find a cost savings benefit of $43,125 for transitioning from a sequential to a consolidated permit application. NOAA has also included the calculation of the government's reduced wage burden using the PRA

Supporting Statement OMB Control # 0648-0145, Section 14, by reviewing a single consolidated instead of a sequential exploration and commercial recovery application, showed a benefit to NOAA of $119,803 in cost savings per year. Third, NOAA updated the Final RIA benefit calculations including the 100-day cost savings and reduced government wage burden. NOAA also updated the FRFA to include the 100-day cost savings only.

For additional information, please refer to the Final RIA and FRFA, available at the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov/docket/NOAA-NOS-2025-0108, as well as the summary pertaining to the RFA in Section V, Miscellaneous Rulemaking Requirements, below. See also NOAA's Responses to Comments 33 and 34 below, regarding the fee for the consolidated application process.

Comment 23. One commenter stated that on September 3, 2025, the virtual public hearing platform failed to load and would not allow members of the commenter's coalition to join the virtual public hearing. The commenter argued the lack of reliable access effectively denied them the opportunity to participate in the hearing and share their input in real time. The commenter asserted that public hearings are a crucial part of the democratic process, especially when it comes to federal regulations that impact communities, stakeholders, and the environment and that it is essential that all interested members of the public have a fair and functional opportunity to engage in the regulatory process. The commenter requested that NOAA schedule an additional public hearing using a more accessible and reliable platform.

Response. On September 3, 2025, NOAA experienced technical difficulties with the virtual public hearing platform, which was scheduled to commence at 3:00 p.m. eastern time (ET) and run through 7:00 p.m. ET. At the outset of the hearing, many members of the public as well as NOAA staff were unable to access the hearing. NOAA staff immediately contacted the platform provider to troubleshoot the issue and sent the following message to all registered hearing participants at approximately 4:50 p.m. ET, informing them of the technical issues: “Dear Hearing Registrant--NOAA is aware of the technical difficulties with today's hearing. We are working to resolve this issue and we will follow up with additional information within the next hour. We apologize for any inconvenience.” Soon after that, the problem was resolved, and NOAA decided to hold the hearing from 5:45-7:30 p.m. ET. At 5:30 p.m. ET, NOAA sent an updated message to all registered participants with that information and a working virtual public hearing room link. The message also reminded participants of the second hearing on September 4 and encouraged them to register for that one, if preferred. The September 3 hearing began at 5:45 p.m. ET and proceeded without incident until there were no additional oral comment requests, ending at approximately 7:15 p.m. ET. All participants who joined the hearing and who requested to speak had the opportunity to do so. About 99 of the 268 registrants attended at least part of the hearing. On September 4, NOAA conducted the second virtual public hearing, as scheduled, from 3:00 p.m. ET until there were no additional oral comment requests, at approximately 5:10 p.m. ET. All participants who attended and requested to speak had the opportunity to do so. All comments shared during both hearings were transcribed and posted to the regulations.gov e-Portal docket for the proposed rulemaking. Members from the group making this comment spoke at the September 3, 2025, virtual public hearing. No additional virtual public hearing is necessary.

Comment 24. A commenter requested an extension to the 60-day public comment period and stated that there was insufficient publicity on this critical matter.

Response. NOAA declines to extend the public comment period because there was ample publicity and opportunity for public comment in this rulemaking process. As required by DSHMRA, 30 U.S.C. 1426, and consistent with the APA, 5 U.S.C. 553, NOAA provided notice in the Federal Register of the proposed rule, afforded a 60-day period for public comments, and has considered comments received. DSHMRA requires that the Administrator shall hold a public hearing on proposed regulations, 30 U.S.C. 1426; NOAA conducted two virtual public hearings. NOAA also published a Federal Register notice of the virtual public hearings (90 FR 36425, Aug. 4, 2025) in addition to the notice regarding the proposed rule (90 FR 29806), and NOAA's DSHMRA website (https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/deep-seabed-mining/) discusses the rulemaking.

In this section, NOAA explains the changes to the DSHMRA regulations implemented by this final rule. Some of the changes are in response to comments on the proposed rule. NOAA has included public comments on specific sections of the proposed rule and NOAA's responses at the end of each applicable section. For a summary of other conforming changes that are necessary to reference the consolidated application process, as applicable, throughout parts 970 and 971, see section II. Changes from Proposed to Final Rule.

Sec. 970.200(b) Place, Form and Copies

NOAA revises paragraph (b) to remove the requirement for mailing 30 hard copies, replace it with a requirement to submit electronically only, and remove addresses that are no longer valid. NOAA also adds a requirement that applications must be formatted according to regulatory sections and topics, which will help ensure that an application contains the required information and will allow NOAA to complete its review of an application in an expeditious manner. At this final rule stage, NOAA has also added a clarifying sentence to paragraph (b) stating: “For applications received electronically after the close of business, for purposes of computing the Administrator's required response time, the application shall be deemed to be received at 8 a.m. ET on the next business day.” This change is consistent with the proposed rule language transitioning to electronic submission of applications and with existing language in the DSHMRA regulations on computation of time (15 CFR 971.805). This change pertains to the Administrator's response time computation only and does not alter substantive rights or obligations of applicants. As such, this is a clarifying change.

Sec. 970.208(b) Fee

NOAA made corresponding changes to the required application description of the fee payment in Sec. Sec. 970.208, 971.208, and 971.214(d)(1), in light of the new electronic submission requirements for applications (described above). Since there will no longer be a physical application that can be “accompanied” by a physical payment (such as a check), NOAA is simply requiring the fee payment to be made prior to or concurrent with the submission of the electronic application and explaining that the application should contain a description of when and in what manner the fee was paid. Other provisions of Sec. 970.208, such as the amount of the fee, were left unchanged. This is a clarifying change that does not alter substantive rights.

Comment 25. A commenter supported the proposed changes to the text at Sec. 970.200(b) to remove the requirement for applicants to mail hard copies of exploration license applications to NOAA and to replace it with a requirement for electronic submission of applications only. The commenter asserted that this change would considerably increase efficiency in the application process and reduce the resource burden on both applicants and NOAA. The commenter requested further clarity on what NOAA means by “The application format shall be organized according to the specific regulatory topics and sections” and invited NOAA to consider developing a template or guidelines for exploration license applications for applicants to use in future.

Response. NOAA is specifying that applications must be formatted so that they follow the specific regulatory topics and sections included in the part 970 and 971 regulations, which describe the application requirements. If applications are otherwise organized into headings of the applicant's own design, then it is difficult for the applicant and NOAA to determine that the application contains the required information addressing each applicable section of the regulations. NOAA has also developed a DSHMRA web page that serves, in part, as a small business compliance guide for SBREFA purposes. NOAA may determine, after reviewing several applications, whether to propose additional guidance or regulatory changes.

Sec. 970.209 Substantial Compliance With Application Requirements

NOAA revises Sec. 970.209 by making clarifying changes regarding substantial compliance and to reference the Sec. 971.214 consolidated license and permit procedure. NOAA notes that this section applies to “new entrants,” which is defined in Sec. 970.101(m) as any applicant with respect to any application or amendment that has not been accorded a pre-enactment explorer priority of right. A holder of an exploration license who then applies for an exploration license or consolidated license and permit for a new area would be considered a “new entrant” with respect to the application for a new area. NOAA is not changing how to determine priority of right; the submission date of the exploration license application that is found to be in substantial compliance (rather than payment of the administrative fee) determines priority of right under the terms of Sec. 970.200(e), which also describes how priority of right may be lost during the application process. NOAA is also not changing the 30-day and 60-day time periods for determining substantial and full compliance as these time periods facilitate expedited review.

Sec. 970.210 Reasonable Time for Full Compliance

NOAA revises Sec. 970.210 to reference the new Sec. 971.214 consolidated license and permit procedure.

Comment 26. A commenter supported the proposed revision to the text at Sec. 970.210 to expressly include reference to consolidated license and permit applications filed under Sec. 971.214.

Response. NOAA appreciates the supportive comment.

Sec. 971.200(b) Place, Form and Copies

NOAA revises paragraph (b) to remove the requirement for mailing 25 hard copies, replace it with a requirement to submit electronically, and remove addresses that are no longer valid. NOAA also adds a sentence that applications must be formatted according to regulatory sections and topics. Formatting an application by the regulatory sections and topics will help ensure that an application contains the required information and will allow NOAA to complete its review of an application in an expeditious manner. At this final rule stage, NOAA has also added a clarifying sentence to paragraph (b) stating: “For applications received electronically after the close of business, for purposes of computing the Administrator's required response time, the application shall be deemed to be received at 8 a.m. ET on the next business day.” This change is consistent with the proposed rule language transitioning to electronic submission of applications and with existing language in the DSHMRA regulations on computation of time (15 CFR 971.805). This change pertains to the Administrator's response time computation only and does not alter substantive rights or obligations of applicants. As such, this is a clarifying change.

Sec. 971.208(b) Fee

NOAA made corresponding changes to the description of the required application fee payment in Sec. Sec. 970.208, 971.208, and 971.214(d)(1) in light of the new electronic submission requirements for applications (described above). Since there will no longer be a physical application that can be “accompanied” by a physical payment (such as a check), NOAA is requiring the fee payment to be made prior to or concurrent to the submission of the electronic application and explaining that the application should contain a description of when and in what manner the fee was paid. Other provisions of Sec. 971.208, such as the amount of the fee, were left unchanged. This is a clarifying change that does not alter substantive rights.

Comment 27. A commenter requested further clarity on what NOAA intends to mean by “The application format shall be organized according to the specific regulatory topics and sections” and invited NOAA to consider developing a template or guidelines for CRP applications for applicants to use in future.

Response. NOAA is specifying that applications must be formatted so that they follow the specific regulatory topics and sections included in the part 970 and 971 regulations. If applications are otherwise organized into headings of the applicant's own design, then it is difficult for the applicant and NOAA to determine that the application contains the required information for each section of the regulations. NOAA has also developed a DSHMRA web page that serves, in part, as a small business compliance guide for SBREFA purposes, https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/deep-seabed-mining/. NOAA may determine, after reviewing several applications, whether to propose additional guidance or regulatory changes.

Sec. 971.214 Consolidated License and Permit Procedures

NOAA is using this reserved section to add a process whereby U.S. citizens who are qualified for these consolidated procedures may concurrently apply for an exploration license and a commercial recovery permit. A U.S. citizen is qualified to use these consolidated procedures if it can demonstrate that the applicant possesses the scientific, technical, and financial resources to pursue commercial recovery activities in an expeditious and diligent manner.

Under the consolidated license and permit process, a qualified applicant does not submit two, sequential applications (one for the exploration license and one for the commercial recovery permit) but, rather, submits one application for both the exploration license and commercial recovery permit at the same time that meets the requirements of the new Sec. 970.214. The Administrator then conducts a consolidated review through one process, not two separate reviews, and,

where necessary, publishes separate proposals to issue a license and permit; TCRs on the licenses and permits; and the licenses and permits.\2\ The Administrator provides an opportunity for public comment and will hold a public hearing on the consolidated license and permit application. NOAA expects that the Administrator will likely prepare a single EIS that would evaluate the impacts of both exploration activities and commercial recovery activities as opposed to separate EISs. However, there may be situations in which two EISs are appropriate. See 30 U.S.C. 1419(d).

\2\ As under the existing regulations, and pursuant to DSHMRA, priority of right shall be based on “the chronological order in which license applications which are in substantial compliance with the requirements established under subsection (a)(2) of this section are filed with the Administrator.” 30 U.S.C. 1413(b).

While paragraph (g) will require that an applicant with a pending license application file an amended consolidated application if the applicant seeks to use the consolidated license and permit procedure, it would not be a new application and would not negate work completed to date. To the contrary, NOAA would apply whatever work has been done to date, and then continue under Sec. 971.214, supplementing already- completed steps as necessary to account for changes and additions in the consolidated application, including for example, substantial changes (if any) to the exploration plan as well as new plans and information regarding a commercial recovery permit. If any existing applicant wishes to take advantage of the consolidated application process, that applicant would be directed to submit an amended application consistent with Sec. Sec. 970.213 and 971.213. And under Sec. 970.213, priority of right established by the filing of the original application would generally not be affected by the filing of the amended application unless the amended application proposes new coordinates outside of the area of the proposed exploration area of the original application. If the amended application proposes new coordinates, the applicant would maintain priority of right over any proposed area in the original application that is also in the amended application, and, if there are no conflicts with the new proposed areas in the amended application, the applicant would obtain priority of right over new areas as of the date of submission of the amended application, as long as the amended application is determined to be in substantial compliance. NOAA has added to paragraph (g) a clause at the end of the last sentence that states, “except that any work, actions or decisions by NOAA, including required findings at various stages of the application process, shall continue to apply to the extent still applicable.”

The Administrator may issue the exploration license and commercial recovery permit at the same time, thereby confirming the priority of right required that would otherwise be established through the licensing process and the ability of the permit holder to proceed to commercial recovery. The Administrator would issue the license and permit when the TCRs are finalized and if the requirements of 15 CFR part 970, subpart E, part 971, subpart D, and Sec. Sec. 970.509 and 971.410 are satisfied and the applicant is otherwise eligible for a license and permit. That priority of right continues through the commercial recovery permit. The length of the terms for an exploration license (10 years) and commercial recovery permit (20 years) does not change nor does the ability to extend these terms as described in the regulations and the Act. Once the Administrator issues the license and permit under the consolidated process, the applicant may immediately proceed to commercial recovery of hard mineral resources, if it wishes, but in any event must begin to diligently pursue its commercial recovery plan. See 30 U.S.C. 1417(b), 1418. Similarly, the applicant must diligently pursue its exploration plan. 30 U.S.C. 1418. However, if an applicant determined that it no longer needed to conduct further exploration, it could decide to not extend its exploration license or it could opt to relinquish its license early without penalty. See 30 U.S.C. 1425(a).

NOAA recognizes that there may be instances where an applicant for a consolidated license and permit is found to qualify for a license only. In such instances, NOAA may issue an exploration license while withholding the granting of a permit.

The fee for the consolidated application has been set at $350,000, which partially accounts for inflation that has occurred in the time since the fee was set at $100,000 for a license application and $100,000 for a permit application. Additionally, NOAA has clarified that, given the electronic submission of the application, the fee payment must be made prior to or concurrent with the submission of a consolidated application and that the application should describe when the payment was made and the method of payment.

NOAA has made some technical and clarifying changes to Sec. 971.214 based on comments on the proposed rule, and these changes are addressed in the responses to comments below.