Letters & Comments

Dear Director Kornze: Western Energy Alliance and the Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA), appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed changes to Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Onshore Order No. 3, which would be codified in the Code of Federal Regulations through modifications to 43 C.F.R. Part 3160 and the addition of new Part 3170. While recognizing the need to keep regulations current with modern technology and industry standards, the Associations are concerned that the proposed rule change would result in substantial changes to the way domestic onshore oil and gas operations are conducted, leading to an unwarranted increase in costs and burdens to domestic oil and natural gas producers. These costs would be incurred largely without a concomitant benefit to the federal government or the public at large and create further disincentives for oil and natural gas producers to invest in development on federal public and tribal lands. Moreover, some of these revisions would require physical changes with impacts to the environment and socio-economic impacts that have not been adequately analyzed in the Environmental Assessment for the proposed rule.

The United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service proposed a series of amendments to the regulations at 50 CFR § 424.14 that govern the content and consideration of petitions filed with the Services pursuant to the Endangered Species Act. The proposed amendments are intended to “improve the specificity of petitions and to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the petition process to support species conservation.” IPAA and API strongly support the efforts of the Services to achieve those goals by, among other things: 1) requiring that petitions be limited to a single species; 2) requiring consultation with states prior to the submission of petitions; 3) ensuring that petitions identify, clearly label and append all reasonably available information relevant to the petitioned action and species, including information that may support a finding that the petitioned action is not warranted; 4) providing clear direction as to the information necessary for submission of a complete petition; and 5) clarifying that a petitioner’s submission of supplemental information after filing of a petition will re-start the statutory timeframe for review.

Joint Petition with American Stewards of Liberty, the Texas Public Policy Foundation, and Dr. Steven W. Carothers to delist the American Burying Beetle due to the fact that the beetle is no longer in danger of extinction in its habitat range.

IPAA and API submitted joint comments to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as it looks at permitting incidental take under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The comments question whether the approaches described in the Service’s Notice of Intent are authorized by or consistent with the intent of the statute upon which the Service relies.

On behalf of the Center for Liquefied Natural Gas, the Natural Gas Supply Association and the Independent Petroleum Association of America, we write to applaud the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee for introducing the Energy Policy and Modernization Act of 2015 (EPMA 2015). Specifically, we are encouraged by the inclusion of Section 2201 (Action on applications to export liquefied natural gas) and Section 2202 (Public disclosure of liquefied natural gas export destinations) in the bipartisan legislative proposal. We believe that the passage of this legislation will help to accelerate the creation of a thriving domestic liquefied natural gas (LNG) industry by providing greater certainty to the export permit review process.

To whom it may concern: The American Petroleum Institute (API), the International Association of Drilling Contractors (IADC), the Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA), the National Ocean Industries Association (NOIA), the Offshore Operators Committee (OOC), the Petroleum Equipment & Services Association (PESA), and the US Oil and Gas Association respectfully submit the following comments on the proposed regulatory changes to Blowout Prevention Systems and Well Control requirements in 30 C.F.R. part 250. The Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) announced these proposed changes on April 17, 2015, in a notice of proposed rulemaking entitled, “Oil and Gas and Sulphur Operations in the Outer Continental Shelf—Blowout Preventer Systems and Well Control.”

We believe that EPA’s analysis is flawed and fails to realistically undertake its responsibilities under the Clean Water Act (CWA) to create ELGs that meet not only current circumstances but future needs as well. Consequently, we recommend that EPA withdraw the current proposed pretreatment ELG for UOG extraction waste water, that it conduct a thorough review of actual waste water management technologies, that it determine best available technology economically achievable and new source performance standards based on these technologies, and that it then repropose an appropriately revised pretreatment ELG.

As you know, on May 26, 2015, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service published a Notice of Intent to prepare a programmatic environmental impact statement (PEIS) to evaluate the potential impacts of a proposal to authorize incidental take of migratory birds under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. This letter is to request a 90-day extension in the formal regulatory comment period.

The Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA) and the American Petroleum Institute (API) are filing these comments to further demonstrate, based on the new explanatory information about the treatment of timber harvesting, that the record compiled by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) does not support disparate treatment of timber harvesting and oil and gas activities. As shown below, there is no rational basis for the distinction that FWS attempts to draw between these two types of activities in terms of their potential impact on NLEB habitat. Accordingly, IPAA and API renew their request that the final 4(d) rule for the NLEB exempt oil and gas activities from the prohibition against incidental take. A failure to do so will impose unnecessary and costly burdens on the oil and gas industry and FWS itself and will not result in a measurable conservation benefit for the NLEB.

Dear Mr. President: This week you are scheduled to address the nation’s mayors—the lawmakers responsible for the economic prosperity and development in cities across the country. As you do, the undersigned organizations, representing a broad spectrum of the economy, write to express our deep concern with the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed rule to lower the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ground-level ozone. In September 2011, you instructed the Administrator of the EPA to withdraw the-then pending ground-level ozone rule, citing the importance of reducing regulatory burdens and uncertainties as the economy struggled to recover from recession. The concerns you identified in 2011 still very much persist for our organizations today and we fear that the costs, delays and barriers to growth associated with a new ozone rule will have a severely negative impact on the U.S. economy, our international competitiveness and jobs.