SEC responds to challenge of oil, gas foreign disclosure rule

The US Securities and Exchange Commission forcefully responded to the American Petroleum Institute, US Chamber of Commerce, and other groups’ legal challenge of its disclosure requirement for foreign operations of US oil and gas companies.

The rule, which US companies say would give their foreign competitors an unfair advantage, reflects congressional intent in drafting the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, SEC said in a response it filed Jan. 2 with the US Appeals Court for the District of Columbia.

“Contrary to petitioners’ argument that the commission acted arbitrarily and capriciously by promulgating a rule without first determining whether Congress’s sought-after transparency and accountability benefits would in fact materialize, the commission rightly declined to second-guess the wisdom of Congress’s policy determination,” it said.

“Moreover, in conducting its economic analysis, the commission—which was generally dependent on industry commentators for empirical data—acted appropriately when it used the little data that they provided to quantitatively assess (and generally confirm) their claims about the potential costs of Rule 13q-1,” the response continued.

SEC said it properly rejected several proposals that it felt would have weakened the regulatory requirement, such as one that would have allowed information to be submitted confidentially and the aggregated on a per country basis.

It also said that the petitioners—the American Petroleum Institute, Independent Petroleum Association of America, US Chamber of Commerce, and National Foreign Trade Council—mounted what the SEC called “an 11th hour shift in strategy” by arguing for the first time that the rule and the statute mandating it violate the US Constitution’s First Amendment.

Asserting that the disclosure requirement involves purely factual, nonideological information that does not implicate any significant First Amendment interests, SEC said, “Tellingly, petitioners ignore both that regulated entities are subject to innumerable comparable federal, state, and local public reporting requirements, and that their novel theory could have wide-ranging and potentially devastating implications for these important government programs.”

Contact Nick Snow at nicks@pennwell.com.

Related Articles

Move carefully on crude exports, refiner urges House subcommittee

04/04/2014 Tight oil formations have helped the US increase its crude production dramatically, an independent refiner conceded. But the nation should proceed ...

Escalera Resources to form Albania joint venture

04/03/2014 Escalera International Co. LLC, a subsidiary of Escalera Resources Co. (formerly Double Eagle Petroleum Co.), has signed a memorandum of understand...

EIA: Ethanol spot prices rise on rail congestion, cold weather

04/03/2014 Spot prices for ethanol have increased steadily since early February, driven by logistical problems and harsh weather conditions, according to the ...

AMP files FERC request for abandonment of Midla Pipeline

04/03/2014 American Midstream Partners LP (AMP) has filed a request with the US Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to abandon use of its 1920s vintage Midla...

Careers at TOTAL

Careers at TOTAL - Videos

More than 600 job openings are now online, watch videos and learn more!

 

Click Here to Watch

Other Oil & Gas Industry Jobs

Search More Job Listings >>
Stay Connected