Full opinion text
PER CURIAM. Appellants in this case are companies that submitted high bids on certain oil and gas leases at a Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) auction (collectively, the “Energy Companies”). After the auction but before the leases were issued, newly appointed Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar decided not to lease the parcels at issue. Salazar announced his decision at a February 4, 2009, press conference and memorialized his determination in a February 6 memorandum to the BLM’s Utah State Director. On February 12, 2009, a subordinate BLM official mailed letters to the high bidders indicating that the leases would not be issued. Exactly ninety days later, the Energy Companies filed suit challenging the Secretary’s authority to withdraw the leases. The district court dismissed their suit as time-barred under the Mineral Leasing Act (“MLA”), which provides that “[n]o action contesting a decision of the Secretary involving any oil and gas lease shall be maintained unless such action is commenced or taken within ninety days after the final decision of the Secretary relating to such matter.” 30 U.S.C. § 226-2. A majority of the panel agrees with the district court that the Secretary’s final decision in this matter occurred no later than February 6, and thus, the suit is time-barred. As explained in their separate concurrences, however, the panel majority would employ somewhat differing analyses in reaching this result. Judge Lucero would hold that under the plain text of the MLA, the Secretary’s decision was final on February 6 regardless of whether plaintiffs’ claims under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) had accrued at that time. Judge Seymour would hold that the word “final” bears the same meaning in the phrase “final decision of the Secretary,” 30 U.S.C. § 226-2, as it does in the phrase “final agency action” under the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 704, and that final agency action occurred no later than February 6. Judge Tymkovich agrees with Judge Seymour’s conclusion that final agency action is necessary, but disagrees with the majority’s conclusion that the suit is time-barred as explained in his dissent. The panel majority also agrees with the district court that the Energy Companies are not entitled to equitable tolling in this matter. The BLM notified the high bidders just six days after the Secretary made his decision. And the government notified the Energy Companies of its position that February 6 was the operative date during agency proceedings. Although the Energy Companies had time to prepare their claims before the limitations period expired, they gambled that a court would accept their proffered limitations theory. Equitable tolling is not required under these circumstances. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm. I On November 4, 2008, the BLM announced that it would hold a competitive auction of oil and gas leases on certain federal lands in Utah. The auction was scheduled for December 19, 2008. The National Park Service objected to the decision to lease many of the parcels, and after consulting with that agency, the BLM revised its auction to include 132 rather than 241 parcels as originally planned. Several environmental organizations, including intervenor Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (“SUWA”), filed administrative protests of the proposed lease sales. The notice of auction informed potential bidders that the BLM could not actually issue any leases until such protests were resolved. It stated that protested leases would nonetheless be auctioned and that the high bidder would be refunded any monies paid in the event that a parcel was withdrawn as a result of an administrative protest. Shortly before the scheduled auction, SUWA and other conservation groups filed suit in the D.C. District Court seeking to halt the planned sale. See S. Utah Wilderness Alliance v. Allred, 2009 WL 765882, at *1, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30664, at *4 (D.D.C. Jan. 17, 2009) (unpublished). On December 19, 2008, the auction went forward as planned and the BLM accepted bids on 116 lease parcels. The Energy Companies were recognized as high bidders for several of these parcels — thirty-six of which are located in counties that were also parties to this action below. Subsequently, the BLM recognized the appropriate high bidders and accepted payment for the parcels, with the express caveat that the leases could not actually be issued until all protests were resolved. On January 17, 2009, the D.C. District Court granted a temporary restraining order prohibiting the BLM from issuing leases on 77 parcels, including those for which the appellants were the highest bidders. See S. Utah Wilderness Alliance, 2009 WL 765882, at *2, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30664, at *9. It found that the environmental groups were likely to succeed on their claims under the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) because the government did not conduct a proper air quality analysis. Id. at *1-2, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30664 at *7. The court further concluded that the environmental groups were likely to prevail on their National Historic Preservation Act and Federal Land Policy and Management Act (“FLPMA”) claims because the BLM failed to consider impacts on historic resources. Id. The court made the restraining order effective “until further order of the court” and ordered the parties to submit briefing on a preliminary injunction. Id. at *2, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30664 at *9. Newly-appointed Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar essentially mooted the D.C. District Court dispute shortly thereafter. On February 4, 2009, he held a press conference to announce that the 77 parcels subject to the temporary restraining order would not be leased. He stated: “I have directed [the BLM] not to accept bids on the 77 parcels” and that the “effect will be immediate.... This is a directive to the BLM therefore the lease process will not go forward.” He further explained, “[W]hat essentially I have done is to have removed the 77 parcels from the consummation of a lease.” On the same day, the Department of the Interior issued a press release announcing Salazar’s decision on its website, stating: In its last weeks in office, the Bush Administration rushed ahead to sell oil and gas leases at the doorstep of some of our nation’s most treasured landscapes in Utah. We need to responsibly develop our oil and gas supplies to help us reduce our dependence on foreign oil, but we must do so in a thoughtful and balanced way that allows us to protect our signature landscapes and cultural resources.... We will take a fresh look at these 77 parcels and at the adequacy of the environmental review and analysis that led to their being offered for oil and gas development. I am also concerned that there was inadequate consultation with other agencies, including the National Park Service. The announcement was covered extensively in both the regional and national press. See, e.g., Amy Joi O’Donoghue, Salazar Halts Sale of Utah Oil, Gas Leases, Deseret News, Feb. 5, 2009; Mark Jaffe, Utah Energy Leases Halted, Denver Post, Feb. 5, 2009; Leslie Kaufman, Interior Secretary Cancels Drilling Leases on Public Lands in Utah, N.Y. Times, Feb. 5, 2009. The following day, February 5, the federal defendants in the D.C. District Court case filed an unopposed motion to stay briefing on the preliminary injunction question. They stated: “On February 4, 2009, Ken Salazar ... directed the BLM not to accept the bids on the 77 parcels that are the subject of this Court’s temporary restraining order. Accordingly, those leases will not be issued.” When this motion was filed, Carbon County — a plaintiff in the action at bar — was a party in that case. Several attorneys that now represent the Energy Companies had entered an appearance and also received this filing. Also on February 5, the BLM’s Utah State Director issued an “Information Memorandum for the Secretary.” The memo stated, “On February 4, 2009, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar announced the decision to withdraw oil and gas leases offered on 77 parcels.... A written decision withdrawing the leases will be needed to document the process.” The. State Director indicated that once her office received the “officially documented decision from the Secretary,” it would begin the process of refunding the payments received from winning bidders. Secretary Salazar signed and issued a memo to the BLM’s Utah State Director the following day, February 6, stating: There has been considerable controversy surrounding this lease sale, including questions about the degree of coordination between the BLM and other Federal agencies, including the National Park Service, and the adequacy of the environmental review and analysis performed in connection with certain parcels as well as the underlying Resource Management Plans.... Given the concerns about the adequacy of the consideration[,] ... I am directing you to withdraw the 77 parcels that were covered by the January 17, 2009, Temporary Restraining Order from further consideration in this lease sale. In accordance with applicable laws, regulations, and agency procedures, please take all necessary actions to effectuate this withdrawal, including promptly notifying the high bidders and returning any monies received by BLM in connection with these 77 parcels. This transmittal was not made immediately public. On February 12, 2009, the BLM’s Utah Deputy State Director sent letters via certified mail to the high bidders on the 77 leases explaining that the parcels had been withdrawn. The letters state that “Ken Salazar has directed the BLM to withdraw these parcels from the December 19, 2008 Oil and Gas Lease Sale.” They also authorized a refund of the bidders’ payments. The Energy Companies attempted to appeal the lease withdrawals by filing an administrative appeal with the Interior Board of Land Appeals (“IBLA”) on March 13, 2009. See Robert L. Bayless Producer, 177 IBLA 83 (2009). The BLM filed a motion to dismiss that appeal on March 23, 2009, on the ground that the IBLA lacks jurisdiction over any decision “approved by the Secretary.” 43 C.F.R. § 4.410(a)(3) (withdrawing IBLA authority if “a decision has been approved by the Secretary”). In its motion, the BLM took the position that the appeal sought review of the “February 6, 2009 Decision of the Secretary.” It states that “appellants attempt to appeal BLM’s February 12, 2009 letters. However, the BLM letters merely implement the Secretary’s February 6, 2009 decision to withdraw the subject parcels from further consideration in the December 19, 2008 oil and gas lease sale.” The February 6 transmittal was attached to the motion. The IBLA granted the motion and dismissed the appeal on April 9, 2009. Robert L. Bayless Producer, 177 IBLA at 85. Its order of dismissal states: “On February 12, 2009, BLM issued decisions related to 53 of those parcels from which this appeal is taken.” Id. at 84. However, the order acknowledged the BLM’s position that the agency letters “merely implement the Secretary’s directive.” Id. The IBLA order characterizes the appellants as expressing some confusion as to the relevant date, noting that “they received no decisions other than those that BLM issued on February 12, so it was not clear to them whether BLM’s decision or the Secretary’s February 6 memorandum was final agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act.” Id. Because the Secretary “specifically directed BLM to take a particular action,” the IBLA concluded it lacked jurisdiction over the appeal. Id. The IBLA rejected appellants’ request for an “opinion as to whether the Secretary’s memorandum constitutes ‘final’ administrative action for purposes of judicial review” because it “do[es] not issue advisory opinions regarding matters in an appeal that we have no authority to consider.” Id. at 85. On May 13, 2009, appellants filed suit against Salazar, the Department of the Interior, the BLM, and the BLM’s Deputy Director for Minerals in the District of Utah, challenging the decision to withdraw the leases as violations of the MLA, APA, and FLPMA. Several environmental groups intervened on behalf of the government. The district court dismissed the action as time-barred. It concluded that the “final decision of the Secretary” as that phrase is used in 30 U.S.C. § 226-2 was Salazar’s February 6 transmittal. And because plaintiffs did not file suit within ninety days of that decision, they did not fit within the MLA’s limited waiver of sovereign immunity. The court further concluded that plaintiffs were not entitled to equitable tolling and accordingly entered judgment in favor of the defendants. The Energy Companies now appeal. II We review a district court’s dismissal based on sovereign immunity de novo. See Governor of Kan. v. Kempthorne, 516 F.3d 833, 841 (10th Cir.2008). “Sovereign immunity protects the United States and its agencies from being sued without their consent.” Poche v. Joubran, 644 F.3d 1105, 1108 (10th Cir.2011). “[T]he party asserting jurisdiction bears the burden of proving that sovereign immunity has been waived.” Sydnes v. Unit ed States, 523 F.3d 1179, 1183 (10th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). Plaintiffs in this case invoke the limited waiver of sovereign immunity provided for in the APA. Under that provision, aggrieved parties may challenge “[a]gency action made reviewable by statute and final agency action for which there is no other adequate remedy in a court.” 5 U.S.C. § 704. However, the APA prohibits review of agency decisions “to the extent that ... statutes preclude judicial review.” 5 U.S.C. § 701(a). The MLA includes such a prohibition: “No action contesting a decision of the Secretary involving any oil and gas lease shall be maintained unless such action is commenced or taken within ninety days after the final decision of the Secretary relating to such matter.” 30 U.S.C. § 226-2. This statutory deadline constitutes “a condition to the waiver of sovereign immunity and thus must be strictly construed.” Irwin v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89, 94, 111 S.Ct. 453, 112 L.Ed.2d 435 (1990). The Energy Companies ask that we look to several provisions of the APA in determining when the limitations period began to run. First, they argue that the APA’s notice provision supersedes the MLA’s statute of limitations such that the limitations period began to run when they received actual notice of the Secretary’s decision. They point to the APA’s requirement that “[pjrompt notice shall be given of the denial in whole or in part of a written application, petition, or other request of an interested person made in connection with any agency proceeding.” 5 U.S.C. § 555(e). They further note that the “APA governs agency procedures in all administrative proceedings,” Friends of the Bow v. Thompson, 124 F.3d 1210, 1214 (10th Cir.1997), and that a statute cannot supersede the APA “except to the extent that it does so expressly,” 5 U.S.C. § 559. Neither the APA nor the MLA suggest that the latter’s statute of limitations is bound by the former’s notice provision. Congress can, and often does, elect to begin a limitations period when a party receives notice. See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. § 1395oo(f)(l) (permitting “civil action commenced within 60 days of the date on which notice of any final decision by the Board ... is received”). But the MLA’s limitations period is not notice-based. The MLA very clearly starts the clock on the date of “the final decision of the Secretary,” 30 U.S.C. § 226-2, not when notice of that decision is received. There is no textual basis to conclude that a violation of the APA’s notice requirement warrants an alteration of another statute’s unambiguous limitations provision. APA claims are generally covered by the six-year limitations period contained in 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a). See Smith v. Marsh, 787 F.2d 510, 512 (10th Cir. 1986). Consistent with the plain text of that statute of limitations, we have held that APA claims must be brought within six years of the claim’s accrual rather than within six years of notice. See id.; see also 28 U.S.C. § 2401 (actions against the United States must be filed “within six years after the right of action first accrues”). In other words, the limitations provision in 28 U.S.C. § 2401, not the APA’s notice provision, determines the limitations start date in the usual APA case. The Energy Companies give us no reason to treat the interaction of § 555(e) and the MLA’s statute of limitations differently. Notice may be relevant to the issue of equitable tolling, see Part III infra, but it does not alter the date the limitations period begins to run. The Energy Companies further argue that the MLA’s statute of limitations could not have begun to run until the BLM engaged in “final agency action” under the APA. See 5 U.S.C. § 704. They note that their claims arose under 5 U.S.C. § 704, and accordingly could not have been filed until the final agency action requirement was satisfied. They contend there was no final agency action until the BLM sent the February 12 letters notifying them that the leases had been withdrawn. As noted supra, the panel majority disagrees that the statute of limitations did not begin to run until the February 12 letters were sent. Rather, they agree that the limitations period began to run by February 6. Judge Lucero would hold that the “final decision of the Secretary” occurred on February 6 regardless of whether “final agency action” also occurred on that date. Judge Seymour would construe the two phrases synonymously, and would hold that both the Secretary’s decision and the agency action were final by February 6. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s conclusion that the Energy Companies’ suit is time-barred. Ill In addition to concluding that the Energy Companies’ suit was filed out of time, a majority of the panel agrees that equitable tolling is not appropriate under the facts of this case. The district court also concluded that the Energy Companies were not entitled to equitable tolling. We review that determination for abuse of discretion. See Robinson v. Golder, 443 F.3d 718, 720 (10th Cir.2006). Equitable tolling is granted sparingly. We have held that tolling is appropriate “when the defendant’s conduct rises to the level of active deception; where a plaintiff has been lulled into inaction by a defendant, and likewise, if a plaintiff is actively misled or has in some extraordinary way been prevented from asserting his or her rights.” United States v. Clymore, 245 F.3d 1195, 1199 (10th Cir.2001) (quotation and alteration omitted). In arguing that tolling is appropriate, the Energy Companies rely heavily on Turner v. Watt, 566 F.Supp. 87 (D.Utah 1983). Their reliance, however, is misplaced. The plaintiff in Turner sought to appeal the denial of his application for an oil and gas lease under the MLA. Id. at 88. He filed an appeal with the IBLA but temporarily left the country while the appeal was pending. Id. When the IBLA rejected his appeal, it erroneously sent a notice to plaintiffs previous address even though plaintiff had filed a notice of change of address. Id. Plaintiff learned of the decision when he returned to the country after the limitations period had expired. Id. The district court held: “Because of the agency’s error, plaintiff did not receive notice of the board’s final decision. He was entitled to rely on the statute’s requirement that it be given, and the running of the period for appeal should not begin until notice is sent in accordance with the statute.” Id. at 89. To the extent the Turner court interpreted the MLA’s limitations period as beginning when a party is notified of the Secretary’s decision, we reject such an interpretation for the reasons stated in Part II: The plain text of the MLA does not permit a notice-based construction. The Turner decision can be read, however, as tolling the limitations period because plaintiff did not receive notice of the IBLA decision until after the limitations period had run. In the event that an agency fails to notify a claimant of its decision until after a limitations period has expired, equitable tolling would clearly be appropriate. See Bowen v. New York, 476 U.S. 467, 481, 106 S.Ct. 2022, 90 L.Ed.2d 462 (1986) (“Where the Government’s secretive conduct prevents plaintiffs from knowing of a violation of rights, statutes of limitations have been tolled until such time as plaintiffs had a reasonable opportunity to learn the facts concerning the cause of action.” (quotation omitted)). This case also differs from Turner in an important manner. In Turner, the plaintiff did not learn of the decision until after his limitations period had expired due to agency error. In this case, the agency promptly notified the Energy Companies of the Secretary’s decision but a few days into the limitations period. We rejected a request for equitable tolling under similar circumstances in Pfannenstiel v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, 477 F.3d 1155 (10th Cir.2007). There, plaintiff was subject to a three-month limitations period beginning on the date he received an arbitrator’s decision. Id. at 1158. Two months into that term, he received notice that the arbitrator had lost all of the evidence submitted in the proceeding. Id. at 1157. Plaintiff filed a claim beyond the limitations period based on the lost evidence and we rejected his request for equitable tolling because the plaintiff could have served the defendants before the expiration of the three-month time limit. He had approximately one month left after he learned that the evidence was no longer available in order to timely file his motion to vacate, but he did not file it within that time period. The one-month time period provided [plaintiff] ample opportunity to serve the defendants in a timely fashion. Thus, equitable tolling does not apply. Id. at 1158. Similarly, the D.C. Circuit routinely denies equitable tolling unless a delay in notification “makes it impossible reasonably for the party to comply with the filing statute.” Gardner v. FCC, 530 F.2d 1086, 1091 n. 24 (D.C.Cir.1976). When the Energy Companies received notice that their leases would not be issued, more than 80 days remained in their limitations periods. As in Pfannenstiel, they had “ample opportunity” to file their claims in a timely manner. 477 F.3d at 1158. They do not claim that the six-day delay between the Secretary’s decision and the BLM’s mailings meaningfully limited their ability to comply with the MLA’s statute of limitations. Despite their receipt of notice a few days into the limitations period, the Energy Companies protest that they were unaware of the February 6 memo until it was served in the IBLA appeal with 45 days remaining in the limitations period. We note that 45 days is still longer than the thirty days approved in Pfannenstiel, but can certainly imagine a case in which a plaintiff is made aware of a decision but kept in the dark as to the precise date the decision was made. And we agree that equitable tolling might be appropriate if such a plaintiff missed the filing deadline based on ignorance of the date of decision. This hypothetical plaintiff would qualify for equitable tolling because he would have “been lulled into inaction by a defendant.” Clymore, 245 F.3d at 1199. In the case at bar, however, the government fully apprised the Energy Companies of its position on the limitations period. In the IBLA proceedings, the government explicitly stated that February 6 was the operative date. Consistent with this position, it challenged the Energy Companies’ reliance on the February 12 letters, arguing that “the BLM letters merely implement the Secretary’s February 6, 2009 decision to withdraw the subject parcels.” The Energy Companies confessed confusion as to “whether BLM’s decision or the Secretary’s February 6 memorandum was final,” Robert L. Bayless Producer, 177 IBLA at 84, but the IBLA could not comment on that issue citing the bar on “advisory opinions regarding matters in an appeal that we have no authority to consider,” id. at 85. Thus, it is undisputed that the government communicated to the Energy Companies its position that February 6 was the date of the Secretary’s decision, and the companies acknowledged the possibility that the government’s position would hold sway. See id. at 84-85. Despite this knowledge, the Energy Companies gambled. They filed suit exactly 90 days after February 12, risking their claims on the court’s acceptance of their limitations theory. This gamble did not pay off, and equitable tolling does not forgive “a garden variety claim of excusable neglect.” Irwin, 498 U.S. at 96, 111 S.Ct. 453. We conclude the district court appropriately exercised its discretion by denying equitable tolling. IV For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. . In Geosearch, Inc. v. Hodel, 801 F.2d 1250, 1252 (10th Cir.1986), we held that the MLA's statute of limitations is jurisdictional. We overruled Geosearch on other grounds in Reppy v. Department of the Interior, 874 F.2d 728, 730 n. 5 (10th Cir.1989), noting that a recent Supreme Court case might undermine Geo-search ’s jurisdictional holding. For purposes of this case, whether the statute of limitations is jurisdictional is immaterial because the government moved to dismiss based on the statute of limitations. . Accrual and actual notice dates are often identical, but diverge with some frequency. See, e.g., Sterlin v. Biomune Sys., 154 F.3d 1191, 1197 (10th Cir.1998) (a limitations period did not begin "when a plaintiff has full knowledge of the existence of a claim” but "when a plaintiff is placed on 'inquiry notice’ ” (quotations omitted)). In this case, for example, the Energy Companies argue that their claims accrued on February 12, when the BLM mailed its letters. But the Energy Companies presumably received those letters a day or two later. . The Energy Companies argue that the six-day delay between the Secretary’s decision and the mailing of the BLM’s notice letters violated their right to procedural due process. They raised this issue for the first time in a Rule 59 motion, and the district court declined to consider it, citing the rule that post-judgment motions are not appropriate vehicles to “advance arguments that could have been raised in prior briefing.” Servants of the Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir.2000). We agree with the district court that the Energy Companies failed to raise this issue at the appropriate time and have thus waived appellate review. See Proctor & Gamble Co. v. Haugen, 222 F.3d 1262, 1270-71 (10th Cir.2000) (appellate review waived "[w]hen an issue has not been properly raised below”). . In his separate opinion, Judge Tymkovich agrees with Judge Seymour that the "final decision of the Secretary” was "final agency action” in this case, but does not agree that the decision became final before February 12.
LUCERO, Circuit Judge, concurring. The MLA provides, plainly and unambiguously, that “[n]o action contesting a decision of the Secretary involving any oil and gas lease shall be maintained unless such action is commenced or taken within ninety days after the final decision of the Secretary relating to such matter.” 30 U.S.C. § 226-2. This restriction constitutes a condition on the United States’ waiver of sovereign immunity and must be strictly construed. Although my colleagues are led by the Energy Companies to import principles of final agency action from the APA, I view the final agency action issue as a needless diversion leading my colleagues on a wild goose chase for ambiguity that does not exist in the phrase “final decision of the Secretary.” Id. From a policy perspective, my colleagues make a sound point. The notion that a statute of limitations may start running before a cause of action accrues appears improper on its face. If writing on a blank slate, I may well have adopted the rule the Energy Companies’ implicitly propose. But the Supreme Court has closed that door. In Dodd v. United States, 545 U.S. 353, 125 S.Ct. 2478, 162 L.Ed.2d 343 (2005), the Court was confronted with a statute’s unambiguous pronouncement as to the beginning of a limitations period and held that the plain text must be honored even if it “would make it possible for the limitations period to expire before the cause of action accrues.” Id. at 360, 125 S.Ct. 2478. Although the Court acknowledged “the potential for harsh results in some cases,” it held that courts “are not free to rewrite the statute that Congress has enacted” when a statute “clearly specifies the date on which the limitation period begins to run.” Id. (quotation omitted). Following that directive, I conclude that the “final decision of the Secretary” in this case occurred on February 6, 2009 — the date of the Secretary’s last involvement in this matter. Whether “final agency action” also occurred on that date is irrelevant. I As with any statute, the starting point of our sovereign immunity analysis “must be the language employed by Congress, and we assume that the legislative purpose is expressed by the ordinary meaning of the words used.” FTC v. Kuykendall, 466 F.3d 1149, 1154 (10th Cir.2006) (quotation omitted). However, a waiver of sovereign immunity “must be unequivocally expressed in statutory text, and will not be implied. Moreover, a waiver of the [g]overnment’s sovereign immunity will be strictly construed, in terms of its scope, in favor of the sovereign.” Iowa Tribe of Kan. & Neb. v. Salazar, 607 F.3d 1225, 1236 (10th Cir.2010). The district court’s decision that the MLA bars all of the Energy Companies’ claims is well-founded on the statute’s plain text. Although the Energy Companies argue strenuously that the final decision of the agency did not occur until the February 12 letters were sent, the MLA speaks of the “final decision of the Secretary.” 30 U.S.C. § 226-2 (emphasis added). Whether the February 6 memo would qualify as final agency action is a difficult question. My colleagues expertly lay out the arguments on both sides of this issue. Despite the Energy Companies’ emphasis on the final agency action issue, however, I see no reason to decide whether the February 6 memo qualifies. Implicit in appellants’ argument is the premise that the MLA’s statute of limitations could not begin to run until their cause of action under the APA accrued. But this is not necessarily so. It is true that a “limitations period ordinarily does not begin to run' until the plaintiff has a complete and present cause of action.” Bay Area Laundry & Dry Cleaning Pension Trust Fund v. Ferbar Corp. of Cal., 522 U.S. 192, 195, 118 S.Ct. 542, 139 L.Ed.2d 553 (1997) (quotation omitted). In accordance with this norm, many federal statutes explicitly run from the date a claim accrues. See, e.g., 26 U.S.C. § 7433(d)(3) (“[A]n action to enforce liability created under this section may be brought without regard to the amount in controversy and may be brought only within 2 years after the date the right of action accrues.”); 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b) (“A tort claim against the United States shall be forever barred unless it is presented in writing to the appropriate Federal agency within two years after such claim accrues .... ”). And the Supreme Court has acknowledged the “default rule that Congress generally drafts statutes of limitations to begin when the cause of action accrues.” Graham Cnty. Soil & Water Conservation Dist. v. United States ex rel. Wilson, 545 U.S. 409, 418, 125 S.Ct. 2444, 162 L.Ed.2d 390 (2005); see also Reiter v. Cooper, 507 U.S. 258, 267, 113 S.Ct. 1213, 122 L.Ed.2d 604 (1993). However, the link between an accrual date and the beginning of a limitations period is not absolute. In Graham County, the majority rejected the position that courts should construe statutes to align the accrual and limitations period dates “regardless of whether the text is ambiguous.” 545 U.S. at 419 n. 2, 125 S.Ct. 2444. Instead, the Court held that this interpretive rule should be applied “to resolve that ambiguity, not to create it in the first instance.” Id. Additional guidance on applying this principle was offered in Dodd v. United States, 545 U.S. 353, 125 S.Ct. 2478, 162 L.Ed.2d 343 (2005). There, the Court held that an unambiguous limitations period start date must be followed even if it was “possible for the limitations period to expire before the cause of action accrues.” Id. at 360, 125 S.Ct. 2478. The Court distinguished Graham County, noting the statute in that case was “ambiguous, justifying the Court’s partial reliance on the standard rule that the limitations period commences when the plaintiff has a complete and present cause of action.” Id. Despite “the potential for harsh results,” the Court held, a statute that “clearly specifies the date on which the limitation period begins to run” must be given controlling effect. Id. (quotation omitted); see also Cloer v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 654 F.3d 1322, 1333 (Fed.Cir.2011) (“Congress is free to provide the ‘odd result’ of a cause of action that arises at a time different from the beginning of a statute of limitations.”) cert. denied, — U.S.-, 132 S.Ct. 1908, 182 L.Ed.2d 807 (2012). This court has also held that a limitations period may begin to run before a plaintiff has a complete cause of action. In Salisbury v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., 583 F.3d 1245 (10th Cir.2009), we enforced a contractual ERISA limitations period that began running prior to exhaustion of administrative remedies. See id. at 1248-49. We recognized that “a benefits claimant must pursue the administrative process to its conclusion before filing an ERISA suit,” and thus a claimant could not prevail in a suit prior to exhaustion. Id. at 1249. But we rejected plaintiffs’ argument that such a limitations period is unenforceable merely because it “allowed the claimant’s cause of action to accrue before the end of the administrative process.” Id. Noting that equitable tolling and other “[ljess drastic remedies” could correct potential inequities caused by such a system, we joined the Seventh Circuit in ruling that such limitations period are permissible. Id. at 1248, 1249 (citing Abena v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 544 F.3d 880, 884 (7th Cir.2008)). In accord with Dodd, I would abide the rule that if “the statute’s language is plain, the sole function of the courts — at least where the disposition required by the text is not absurd — is to enforce it according to its terms.” 545 U.S. at 359, 125 S.Ct. 2478 (quotation omitted). The MLA unambiguously starts the limitations clock when the Secretary makes a final decision, not when the BLM engages in final agency action. “It is for Congress, not this [cjourt, to amend the statute if it believes that the interplay of [these two statutes] unduly restricts” litigants’ ability to obtain relief. Id. at 359-60, 125 S.Ct. 2478. II Looking to the specific actions of the Secretary in this matter, it is clear that his decision was final when he sent the February 6 memorandum. Following that memorandum, the Secretary was wholly uninvolved in this matter. One would be hard-pressed to interpret the phrase “final decision of the Secretary,” id., as referring to a subordinate’s transmittal of the Secretary’s directive. The dissent suggests this conclusion is not entirely clear. (Dissenting Op. 1262-63.) Respectfully, I disagree. We must employ the “ordinary, everyday meaning” of the MLA. See Jonson v. Comm’r, 353 F.3d 1181, 1184 (10th Cir.2003) (quotation omitted). In everyday usage, a decision’s finality does not depend on subsequent re-transmittal. My colleagues take the position that the relevant passages of the MLA and APA must have the same meaning because both statutes require finality. (See Concurring Op. 1253-56; Dissenting Op. 1261-62.) Borrowing from the APA jurisprudence regarding finality, they suggest that the Secretary’s decision could not have been final unless he took some action that “mark[ed] the consummation of the agency’s decision[-]making process” and was “one by which rights or obligations have been determined, or from which legal consequences will flow.” Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 178, 117 S.Ct. 1154, 137 L.Ed.2d 281 (1997) (quotations omitted). Although I agree that the term “final” has the same meaning in both statutes — its plain and ordinary meaning — I do not agree that “agency action” and “decision of the Secretary” have identical import. The characteristics that render one event “final” are not generally applicable to all events. The school day is final, for example, when the closing bell rings. But the ringing of a bell does not signal the end of a race; races become final when the last runner crosses the finish line. By the same token, there can be no doubt that agency action becomes final when an event marks the consummation of the agency’s decision-making process. See id. But the Secretary’s decision does not become final when the agency has finalized its process; the Secretary’s decision is final when the Secretary has completed his decision-making process. And the Secretary completed his deliberative process on February 6. He had literally no further involvement in this matter after that date. Similarly, the requirement that final agency action “be one by which rights or obligations have been determined, or from which legal consequences will flow,” id. (quotations omitted), stems directly from the APA. That statute provides a right of action for individuals “suffering legal wrong because of agency action, or adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action.” 5 U.S.C. § 702. Until legal consequences are fixed, agency action will not qualify as final. But it does not follow that every statute using the word “final” contemplates impact on the legal rights of a litigant. One can easily envision an agency process in which Secretarial approval precedes some formal, rights-fixing step, such as recording a deed. It may be that a trip to the recorder’s office is necessary before the agency action can be considered final. But the Secretary’s involvement ends before that formal step is taken, and thus his decision would be “final” under the common usage of that word. Consistent with Dodd, I would apply the unambiguous meaning of the MLA and conclude that the final decision of the Secretary in this case occurred on February 6. His decision was final at that point regardless of any subsequent action by agency subordinates. Ill I must acknowledge that a plain-text construction of the MLA allows for severity in certain instances. But three factors mitigate the potential for unjust results. First, this case is complicated by the unusual procedural posture. In a typical case, a decision moves up the administrative chain of command; a BLM office or bureau renders a decision, and a party adversely affected by that decision may appeal to the IBLA. See 43 C.F.R. § 4.410. The IBLA’s decision usually ends the agency’s proceedings. See 43 C.F.R. § 4.403. In this case, however, the Secretary exercised his prerogative to step into an ongoing agency proceeding. See 43 C.F.R. § 4.5 (Secretary possesses the “authority to take jurisdiction at any stage of any case before any employee or employees of the Department” and the “authority to review any decision of any employee or employees of the Department”). Although the relevant rules expressly allow for such a procedure, it is unusual for the Secretary to personally decide a leasing dispute. In the vast majority of cases, the date an MLA limitations period begins will also clearly be the date of final agency action. Second, I note that the primary problem caused by starting a limitations period pri- or to a public decision is also present under the Energy Companies’ proffered interpretation. Divergent limitation and accrual dates necessarily result in the loss of some portion of a limitations period. That is, the lag between an event triggering a statute of limitations and accrual of a claim leaves a plaintiff with something less than the full limitations period to prepare her suit. In extreme cases, the limitations period could be consumed entirely before a cause of action accrues. See Dodd, 545 U.S. at 360, 125 S.Ct. 2478 (noting potential for “the limitations period to expire before the cause of action accrues”). But this issue also exists if we accept the Energy Companies’ contention that the February 12 letters started the MLA clock. These letters were mailed on February 12, but were presumably not received until a few days later. Thus, under either party’s interpretation, the Energy Companies would not have had the full 90-day limitations period to prepare their claims. This is true of every statute of limitations other than those that begin with notice. Compare 42 U.S.C. § 1395oo(f) (limitation period begins with notice) with 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b) (tort claims against the United States must be brought within “six months after the date of mailing ... of notice of final denial of the claim by the agency”). Regardless of whether the limitations period began on February 6 or February 12, the Energy Companies logically could not have filed a claim until at least some portion of the limitations period had passed. The dissent suggests that this analogy is inapt because mailing a letter to an affected party “serves the important goal of making statute-of-limitations disputes easy to resolve — a court need only look to a letter’s postmark or an email’s timestamp.” (Dissenting Op. 1268.) But the same is true of the Secretary’s February 6 memorandum. That transmittal similarly contains an easy-to-prove date that made “it simple for the recipient to calculate the amount of time he has to challenge the decision.” (Id.) I further note that the Energy Companies were made well aware of the importance of the February 6 date during agency proceedings, and had adequate opportunity to file a timely suit. The plain-text approach differs in degree from the Energy Companies’ proposal, but not in kind. Third, the parade of horribles regarding secret agency decision-making is largely mitigated by the availability of equitable tolling. As the Supreme Court explained in Irwin, we employ a “rebuttable presumption” that equitable tolling is available even when a statute of limitations is a condition on the waiver of sovereign immunity. 498 U.S. at 95-96, 111 S.Ct. 453. Courts are thus empowered to avoid truly inequitable outcomes through tolling — a distinct issue from the proper interpretation of a statute of limitations. I am fully confident that courts will utilize this doctrine in appropriate cases to preclude agencies from playing fast and loose with limitations periods. Although these factors help to alleviate the potential for unjust results, my views on this case rest ultimately on the clear language of the MLA. The Supreme Court has emphasized that we may not disregard the plain text of a statute that “clearly specifies the date on which the limitation period begins to run.” Dodd, 545 U.S. at 360, 125 S.Ct. 2478. That admonition is especially appropriate in this case because the MLA’s limitation period constitutes a condition on the United States’ waiver of sovereign immunity, and thus must “be strictly construed, in terms of its scope, in favor of the sovereign.” Iowa Tribe of Kan. & Neb., 607 F.3d at 1236. Regardless of the various APA provisions upon which the Energy Companies rest their case, we must apply the MLA as written. Accordingly, I conclude that the limitations period began to run on February 6, when the Secretary made his final decision. . The Energy Companies argue that the Secretary has delegated the authority to manage oil and gas lease to the BLM and thus cannot issue a final decision on such matters. See Onshore Oil and Gas, General, 48 Fed.Reg. 36,582 (Aug. 23, 1983) ("All of the Department of the Interior’s non-royalty responsibilities related to the approval and supervision of operations on onshore Federal and Indian (except Osage) and oil and gas leases have been consolidated within the Bureau of Land Management.”). But this argument misunderstands agency delegation. The Secretary’s decision to empower the BLM merely allows the agency to act in the Secretary’s stead; it does not render the servant the master. See Schraier v. Hickel, 419 F.2d 663, 667 (D.C.Cir. 1969) ("[T]he Secretary does not lose his ultimate [MLA] authority because the Department officials assumed that appellant would be awarded a lease if he were found to qualify in all respects under pending regulation.”). As 43 C.F.R. § 4.5 makes clear, the Secretary has independent authority to overrule subordinate officials, and actions ordered by the Secretary himself are not administratively appealable. See 43 C.F.R. 4.410(a).
SEYMOUR, Circuit Judge, concurring. I fully join the per curiam opinion. Judge Lucero and I agree that the statute of limitations begins to run under the Mineral Leasing Act (“MLA”) with the “final decision of the Secretary,” 30 U.S.C. § 226-2, not when the plaintiffs receive notice required by the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 555(e). See Per Curiam Op. at 1245-46. We also agree that the Energy Companies’ suit was untimely because the Secretary’s “final decision” occurred before February 12. Finally, we agree that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying equitable tolling to the Energy Companies. See id. at 1246-48. I also agree that the phrase “final decision of the Secretary” in § 226-2 of the MLA is unambiguous. But contrary to Judge Lucero’s view, it seems clear to me that when the Secretary makes a final decision for MLA purposes he is also taking “final agency action” pursuant to the APA. The word “final” bears the same meaning in the phrase “final decision of the Secretary,” 30 U.S.C. § 226-2, as it does in the phrase “final agency action” under the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 704. Accordingly, I agree with Judge Tymkovich that the decision to withdraw the leases at issue in this case could not have been sufficiently “final” to trigger the statute of limitations without also being “final” for the purposes of the APA. A. Judge Lucero concludes that the “final decision of the Secretary” could occur for statute of limitations purposes even if it did not constitute “final agency action.” Lucero Op. at 1251. In so doing, he unnecessarily complicates the MLA’s statute of limitations and ignores decades of administrative law construing the word “final” in various statutes consistently with the APA. The word “final” has a settled meaning in administrative law. Agency action is “final” for purposes of the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 704, when two conditions are satisfied: “First, the action must mark the ‘consummation’ of the agency’s decisionmaking process — it must not be of a merely tentative or interlocutory nature. And second, the action must be one by which ‘rights or obligations have been determined,’or from which ‘legal consequences will flow.’ ” Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 177-78, 117 S.Ct. 1154, 137 L.Ed.2d 281 (1997) (citations omitted). The requirement of finality before judicial review is more than a mere formality. It acts as a restraint on unnecessary and premature judicial intervention in administrative decisionmaking. As such, it is intertwined with the ripeness doctrine, see Coal. for Sustainable Res., Inc. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 259 F.3d 1244, 1250 (10th Cir.2001), which “prevent[s] the courts, through avoidance of premature adjudication, from entangling themselves in abstract disagreements over administrative policies, and also ... protects] the agencies from judicial interference until an administrative decision has been formalized and its effects felt in a concrete way by the challenging parties.” Abbott Labs. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 148-49, 87 S.Ct. 1507, 18 L.Ed.2d 681 (1967). Even when a substantive statute — instead of the APA— authorizes judicial review of agency action, there is a “strong presumption” that “judicial review will only be available when agency action becomes final.” Bell v. New Jersey, 461 U.S. 773, 778, 103 S.Ct. 2187, 76 L.Ed.2d 312 (1983). When interpreting the meaning of the word “final” in statutes using that term in relation to judicial review of agencies, courts commonly apply the APA’s meaning of “final.” In Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, 531 U.S. 457, 478, 121 S.Ct. 903, 149 L.Ed.2d 1 (2001), the Court explained that the phrase “final action” in the Clean Air Act “bears the same meaning” as it does under the APA. As Judge Tymkovich rightly points out, Whitman was no aberration. Federal courts regularly apply the APA’s meaning of “final” to other statutes using the term in relation to judicial review of agency actions and decisions. See Tymkovich Op. at 1261-62 (collecting cases); see also, e.g., Omnipoint Holdings, Inc. v. City of Cranston, 586 F.3d 38, 46-47 (1st Cir.2009) (applying Bennett framework to define “final action” in Telecommunications Act of 1996); Manufactured Housing Inst. v. U.S. Envtl. Protection Agency, 467 F.3d 391, 397 (4th Cir.2006) (applying Bennett to “final action of the Administrator” under Safe Drinking Water Act). I see no sound reason to depart from this practice and adopt a novel definition of “final” for the MLA’s statute of limitations. There is no indication in the MLA that Congress intended “final” to mean something different than it does in administrative law generally. In the absence of such indication, and given the presumption that a statute of limitations begins to run when the cause of action accrues, see Lucero Op. at 1249-50 (citing Bay Area Laundry & Dry Cleaning Pension Trust Fund v. Ferbar Corp. of Cal., 522 U.S. 192, 195, 118 S.Ct. 542, 139 L.Ed.2d 553 (1997)), we should interpret the MLA consistently with the APA. Judge Lucero agrees that “final” has the same meaning in both the MLA and APA, but disputes “that ‘agency action’ and ‘decision of the Secretary have identical import.” Lucero Op. at 1251. This misses the mark. Here, the “agency action” under review is the “decision of the Secretary” to withdraw the leases. The APA defines “agency” to mean “each authority of the Government of the United States,” 5 U.S.C. § 551(1). This certainly includes the Secretary of the Interior when he is acting for the agency, as he was in this case. Thus, a “decision of the Secretary” to withdraw oil and gas leases under the MLA constitutes “agency action” under the APA. The text of the MLA’s statute of limitations also indicates that the contested agency action is the same as the decision of the Secretary: the ninety-day limitations period applies to actions “contesting a decision of the Secretary.” 30 U.S.C. § 226-2. Because “agency action” and “decision of the Secretary” refer to the same event, the latter could not be final without the former also being so. Even if “agency action” and “decision of the Secretary” could refer to separate events, Whitman counsels us to place little emphasis on this distinction: The bite in the phrase “final action” ... is not in the word “action,” which is meant to cover comprehensively every manner in which an agency may exercise its power. It is rather in the word “final,” which requires that the action under review mark the consummation of the agency’s decisionmaking process. Whitman, 531 U.S. at 478, 121 S.Ct. 903 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Similarly, the bite in the phrase “final decision of the Secretary” is in the word “final.” The statute of limitations in this case only began to run when the Secretary’s decision to withdraw the leases bore the hallmarks of finality: a consummation of decisionmaking from which legal consequences flowed. See Bennett, 520 U.S. at 177-78, 117 S.Ct. 1154. B. Applying the Bennett framework to the events at issue here supports the conclusion that the “final decision of the Secretary” occurred February 6 at the latest. Once Secretary Salazar issued the February 6 memorandum to BLM, his decision to withdraw the leases bore sufficient hallmarks of finality to trigger the MLA’s statute of limitations, 30 U.S.C. § 226-2. First, the decision was “consummated” by February 6 at the latest. See Bennett, 520 U.S. at 178, 117 S.Ct. 1154. Several aspects of the February 4 announcement and February 6 memorandum demonstrate that this was so. In the February 4 press release, Secretary Salazar announced that the decision had already been made. See App. at 50 (“I have directed Bureau of Land Management not to accept the bids on the 77 parcels.... ” (emphasis added)). The announcement admitted of no hesitation and offered no indication that the decision was either “tentative or interlocutory in nature.” Bennett, 520 U.S. at 178, 117 S.Ct. 1154. It simply indicated that his decisionmaking was complete. More importantly, the Secretary himself — not a subordinate official — made the decision to withdraw the leases. “An agency action is not final if it is only ‘the ruling of a subordinate official,’ or ‘tentative.’ ” Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788, 797, 112 S.Ct. 2767, 120 L.Ed.2d 636 (1992) (quoting Abbott Labs. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 151, 87 S.Ct. 1507, 18 L.Ed.2d 681 (1967)). When BLM makes a leasing decision, an adversely affected party may ordinarily appeal the decision to the Interior Board of Land Appeals (“IBLA”). 43 C.F.R. § 4.410(a). The IBLA will then usually render the final decision on the matter. Id. § 4.403(a) (“The Board’s decision is final agency action and is effective on the date it is issued, unless the decision itself provides otherwise.”). Where “a decision has been approved by the Secretary,” however, the IBLA lacks authority to hear such an appeal. Id. § 4.410(a)(3). In this case, the Secretary himself intervened to make the final decision. See id. § 4.5(a). As a result, once Secretary Salazar issued his written directive to BLM to withdraw the leases, no additional agency review was permissible under the law. The Secretary’s memo indicates no departure from this practice. It did not grant any discretion to BLM officials regarding the withdrawal. Instead it directed BLM to comply with the decision to withdraw the leases. See App. at 52 (“I am directing you to withdraw the 77 parcels.... [P]lease take all necessary actions to effectuate this withdrawal.... ”). Because the Secretary’s directive to BLM was unreviewable, the agency had “completed its decision-making process,” Franklin, 505 U.S. at 797,112 S.Ct. 2767. Second, legal consequences flowed from the Secretary’s decision. When the Energy Companies were recognized as high bidders on the leases, they were informed that the issuance of the leases was contingent on resolution of any protests. As a result, the Energy Companies were on notice that their right to the leases was not absolute. When the Secretary effectively decided the protest issues and directed BLM to withdraw the leases, whatever authority BLM had to proceed with issuing the leases evaporated. As already explained, the Secretary’s decision was unreviewable, and BLM officials had no choice but to comply. The Secretary’s directive to BLM therefore conclusively determined that the leases would not be issued to the Energy Companies. It is clear that BLM officials believed the Secretary’s decision had conclusively determined the legal rights of the Energy Companies even before he committed the decision to writing on February 6. On February 5, both the government’s motion filed in the D.C. District Court and the Utah State Director’s memo reflected that the Secretary had completed his decision-making and the leases would no longer be issued. The February 5 memorandum requested a written decision only “to document the process.” Fed. Aple. Supp.App. at 7. It offered no indication that the decision had not yet been made, or that BLM believed itself to be free to proceed with issuing the leases until it received the written documentation of the Secretary’s decision. By the same token, the government informed the D.C. District Court that the Secretary’s decision had been made: “Accordingly, those leases will not be issued.” Fed. Defs. Unopposed Motion to Stay Briefing Schedule, S. Utah Wilderness Alliance v. Allred, No. 08-2187 (D.D.C. Feb. 5, 2009), ECF No. 66. Thus, legal consequences flowed from the Secretary’s directive to BLM. Judge Tymkovich argues that the February 6 memo could not be the final agency action here because the memo did not withdraw the leases but instead anticipated that further steps would be needed to effectuate the withdrawals. See Tymkovich Op. at 1264-65. Respectfully, I disagree. The steps that followed, including the February 12 letters to the Energy Companies, were nothing more than ministerial tasks carrying out the Secretary’s directive. In these short letters, subordinate officials merely notified the high bidders that Secretary Salazar had “directed the BLM to withdraw these parcels.” Aplt. Add. at 24. The letters did not provide any rationale for the withdrawal. They did not determine the legal rights of the recipients; Secretary Salazar had already definitively determined the leases would not be issued. As such, the letters do not undermine the finality of the Secretary’s order to withdraw the leases. When the head of an agency conclusively renders a decision determining the rights of the parties, that decision is final notwithstanding that subordinate officials are needed to implement the decision. Ctr. For Native Ecosystems v. Cables, 509 F.3d 1310, 1329 (10th Cir.2007) (“If an agency has issued a definitive statement of its position, determining the rights and obligations of the parties, the agency’s action is final notwithstanding the possibility of further proceedings in the agency on related issues, so long as judicial review at the time would not disrupt the administrative process.” (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted)). Judge Tymkovich’s dissent also denies that the agency action could have been final by February 6th because agency regulations require the Secretary’s “written decision” to be “issued,” 43 C.F.R. § 4.5(c), and, in its view, no issuance occurred until the letters were transmitted to the affected parties. See Tymkovich Op. at 1265. Notably, however, the provision does not expressly require the “written decision” to be “issued” to the affected parties. Instead, it provides: If the Secretary or Director assumes jurisdiction of a case or reviews a decision, the parties and the appropriate Departmental personnel will be advised in writing of such action, the administrative record will be requested, and, after the review process is completed, a written decision will be issued. Id. Although notice is required, it is at least arguable whether the “written decision” itself must be transmitted to the affected parties. The dissent relies on Southern Pacific Pipe Lines, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Transportation, 796 F.2d 539, 540 n. 1 (D.C.Cir. 1986), to bolster its claim that the Secretary’s decision was not “issued” until the February 12 letters were sent. In Southern Pacific, the court held that regulations were “issued” and triggered a statute of limitations when published in the Federal Register. But in reaching that conclusion, the court emphasized the “parties agree[d] that there was no public notice of the final regulations prior to their publication in the Federal Register, and that [the plaintiff] had no actual notice of the regulations prior to that date.” Id. Here, in contrast, there was public notice of the withdrawal of leases prior to February 12, because the decision was announced publicly via press release, press conference, and on the internet. Nor was actual notice lacking; the Energy Companies have never claimed they were unaware of the withdrawal of the leases until they received the letters. T