Bud's Offshore Energy (BOE)

API’s letter is attached. Key points:

• Requesting a 60 day extension (double the comment period specified by BOEM)
• Need more time to:
  • review the detailed proposed changes
  • conduct studies to inform agency
  • analyze the studies and data
  • consider alternatives
  • organize, complete, and review the findings of subject matter workgroups

In API’s favor:

• Agencies have discretion on extending comment periods.
• 60 days is typically considered the minimum comment period; 90 days would have been more appropriate for this proposal.
• API members are clearly affected parties.
• The BOEM proposal relaxes financial assurance requirements for smaller companies while increasing predecessor lessee risk exposure. Those predecessors would typically be API members.
• There are divisions within the industry which complicate trade association commenting.

On the other hand:

• API’s letter is dated May 1, just one week prior to the end of the comment period.
• The letter was not posted at Regulations.gov until May 6, 2 days before the end of the comment period. Only those tracking the comment letters would have been aware of the request even at this late date.
• As of early this morning (May 7th), the docket still specifies a May 8 due date for comments.
• An extension could be viewed as inequitable to other concerned parties who made special efforts to honor the deadline.

Comments:

• This is why it’s best to specify a reasonable comment period at the time the regulation is proposed, and make it clear that there will be no extension. That way, everyone is treated the same.
• For this proposal, 90 days would have been reasonable.
• Given the number of significant issues that need to be addressed, the best outcome for this rule would be a re-proposal. See the comments submitted by John Smith and me.