WASHINGTON, DC – Today, U.S. Senator John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) sent a letter to Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar protesting the Administration’s proposed job crushing coal mining regulations.

In the letter, Barrasso points to an analysis conducted by the Administration’s own experts that estimates that their proposed Stream Protection Rule would eliminate thousands of jobs and reduce coal production.  This proposed rule represents one of the most far-reaching changes to surface mining regulations in the last 30 years.

“Not even a month after the President promised to eliminate job stifling regulations, his Administration admits their new mining rules will eliminate thousands of jobs,” said Barrasso. “This type of Washington doublespeak is unacceptable.  If the President is serious about regulatory reform, he will put an end to these excessive coal regulations that crush jobs and threaten America’s energy production.”

Full text of the letter follows:

“Dear Secretary Salazar:

An analysis conducted by the Interior Department’s Office of Surface Mining estimates that the Administration’s proposed coal mining regulations will cost thousands of jobs and reduce coal production.  I have repeatedly expressed similar concerns about the Stream Protection Rule’s devastating impact on jobs and on America’s energy production.  Despite the President’s Executive Order on Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, the Interior Department’s Office of Surface Mining is rushing forward new rules that will have major economic consequences.  

The data included in the Office of Surface Mining’s (OSM) analysis is straightforward:

•  “Selecting Alternative 2 would result in the estimated loss of over 29,000 employment positions” (page 4-97)

• "Implementation of Alternative 3 would result in an estimated net loss in total coal mining employment of over 6,900 employment positions” (page 4-141)

•  “Selecting Alternative 4 would result in a net loss in total coal mining employment of over 2,100 positions nationally” (page 4-177)

• “Selecting Alternative 5 would result in a net loss in total coal mining employment of over 7,000 employment positions nationwide.” (page 4-213)

The only option that did not project massive job losses was Alternative 1, the “No Action Alternative.”  These numbers do not include the jobs and local economies indirectly supported by coal mining.  Cumulatively, these impacts could be devastating.  

In response to media coverage, OSM Director Joe Pizarchik stated, “The alternative cited in the article is one of several being considered, and the potential job impacts cited in the article relate to only one of the options that the Draft EIS will evaluate.”  Mr. Pizarchik argues that the article “misrepresents the facts.”  His agency’s analysis of the other alternatives is clear.  Whether it is 2,100 or 29,000, thousands of coal jobs will be lost if the proposed regulations go forward.  

This proposed rule represents one of the most far-reaching changes to surface mining regulations in the last 30 years. A federal court has already rebuked the Office of Surface Mining (OSM) for failing to follow the proper procedures for changing regulations.  The heads of eight different state regulatory agencies that are cooperators in the rulemaking process expressed concerns.  They cite problems with both the content of the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the rushed rulemaking process.  In a letter sent November 23, 2010, the states called sections of the draft EIS “nonsensical and difficult to follow” and said OSM’s “constrained timeframes” have limited the ability “to provide meaningful comments.”

I would appreciate a prompt response to each of the following:

1.    How has OSM’s stream protection rulemaking complied with President Obama’s recent Executive Order 13563 Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review?

2.    How has OSM complied with Executive Order 13211 Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use?

3.    Please provide a justification for making the rule, particularly as it relates to Wyoming stream protection.

4.    How many days have states been allowed to review each section of the draft EIS?  Please also provide the number of pages for each correlating review.

5.    How many days were states allowed to review the draft EIS for the 2008 Stream Buffer Zone rule?

6.    What is the estimated cost on states for the implementation of this new proposal in comparison to the 2008 rule?

This Administration’s unending regulatory attacks on the coal industry jeopardize jobs and undercut America’s energy security.  At a time of rising gas prices and high unemployment, the Administration is recklessly undercutting jobs and economic growth by imposing new regulations grounded in politics, not policy and transparency. This is unacceptable.”