Friday, January 28, 2011
Grassley: Proposed Dust Rules Would Cause Significant Harm to Rural America
WASHINGTON - Senator Chuck Grassley is pressing the Environmental  Protection Agency to make a good faith effort to review industry  comments, studies, and economic analysis on the impact of proposed rules  on dust.  Grassley this week sent a letter to administrator Lisa  Jackson expressing his concern that excessive dust control measures  would slow economic development and impose significant costs on family  agriculturalists.
Grassley said that President Barack Obama's recent directive for each  agency to review its rules and regulations with an eye toward economic  harm should help bring to light the detrimental impact these rules could  have on the rural economy.  Instead, the Wall Street Journal reported  that the Environmental Protection Agency stated "that it was 'confident'  it wouldn't need to alter a single current or pending rule."
"The EPA's attitude toward the President's directive is unfortunate.   Once again, the agency seems completely oblivious to the huge impact the  rules and regulations it releases have on the general public and  agriculture in particular," Grassley said.  "It defies common sense that  the EPA would regulate that a farmer must keep the dust from his  combine between his fence rows."
The  EPA currently is considering approval of the Second Draft Policy  Assessment for Particulate Matter (released on July 8, 2010).   If  approved, the most stringent and unparalleled regulation of dust in the  nation's history would be placed on rural America.  The current levels  of 150ug/m3 would be revised down to 65-85 ug/m3.
Here's a copy of the text of the letter Grassley sent to Jackson.
January 25, 2011
The Honorable Lisa Jackson
Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20460
 
Dear Administrator Jackson,
On  January 18, 2011, President Obama signed an Executive Order which  required federal agencies to review all regulations, taking into account  the costs and excessive burdens they might impede on businesses.  A  Wall Street Journal editorial reported that the U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency (EPA), less than a week after the President signed  this Order, stated "that it was 'confident' it wouldn't need to alter a  single current or pending rule."
Last  July, I and twenty of my colleagues wrote to you with our continued  concerns regarding EPA's actions in its review of the National Ambient  Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) as required every five years under the  Clean Air Act.  I would like to stress again that if approved, the  Second Draft Policy Assessment (PA) for Particulate Matter (PM) released  on July 8, 2010 would establish the most stringent and unparalleled  regulation of dust in our nation's history revising current levels of  150ug/m3 down to 65-85 ug/m3.  Our letter encouraged EPA to consider  maintaining the primary and secondary standards, or in the alternative,  consider different PM indicators.  We also asked that the Clean Air  Scientific Advisory Committee focus attention on EPA's choice to not  adopt a PM10-2.5 standard.
As  I have continually advocated over the years, lowering these PM  standards could have devastating and burdensome effects on farmers and  ranchers across the United States. Excessive dust control measures could  be imposed on agricultural operations which would only slow economic  development and impose significant costs on our nation's family  agriculturalists.
I  recognize the release of the final Policy Assessment has been delayed,  but may be released at any time, but I am not aware if EPA also intends  to delay release of the proposed rule, release of which was originally  planned for February 2011.
I  am concerned that EPA has pre-judged its review of existing and pending  rules.  The President has now required that cost considerations on  businesses, including farmers and ranchers, be taken into account.  I  strongly encourage EPA in good faith to review industry comments,  studies, and economic analysis as they become available on this critical  issue.
Thank you for consideration of this request.
Sincerely,
Chuck Grassley
 -30-