Last checked at 
HOUSTON, Dec 3 (Reuters) - The U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency may have been too harsh when it banned BP Plc fromlucrative federal contracts as punishment for its 2010 Macondooil spill, the UK and prominent business groups said on Tuesday.
The UK government, the American Petroleum Institute and theU.S. Chamber of Commerce said the EPA has caused regulatoryuncertainty and soured the broader investment climate by barringthe British oil major from acquiring new leases in the U.S. Gulfof Mexico or entering deals to supply the U.S. military withfuels.
In briefs submitted to a U.S. court, the groups made clearthey support a lawsuit BP filed in August to challenge the ban,which impacts new contracts but not existing ones.
"EPA's disqualification and suspension of multiple BPentities may have been excessive," the UK's brief said. "Theissue before the Court ... implicates the rights of one of theUnited Kingdom's largest companies and affects jobs and pensionsof workers in the United Kingdom, the United States, andelsewhere."
The EPA sprung the suspension on BP a year ago, citing its"lack of business integrity" after the well blowout that killed11 workers and gushed millions of barrels of oil into coastalwaters in the worst offshore spill in U.S. history.
The aftermath of the accident caused tension in 2010 betweenWashington and London. The UK government said despite itscriticisms of the EPA, it "recognizes the grave consequences" ofthe spill.
BP has already set aside $42.4 billion in provisions to dealwith the aftermath of the spill.
Early next year, U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier isexpected to decide how much BP should be fined under the CleanWater Act for the spill - with billions of dollars in potentialliabilities at stake.
This week, the trial started of a former BP engineer, KurtMix, who allegedly deleted text messages and voicemails aboutthe estimated size of the spill. He has pleaded not guilty tocharges of obstruction of justice.
The BP-EPA case is BP Exploration & Production Co et al v.McCarthy et al, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas,No. 13-02349.
