WASHINGTON – Senator Chuck Grassley today said a proposed rule by the Department of Homeland Security could put an undue burden on family farmers and small business owners across rural America.
The new rule issued by the Department of Homeland Security currently lists propane as a “chemical of interest” when kept in quantities greater than 7,500 pounds. Any individual or business that keeps quantities equal to or greater than 7,500 pounds would be required to complete an online survey risk assessment. The Department estimates that the cost incurred by farmers and small businesses to complete the survey would be between $2,300 to $3,500. Once the survey is completed, the Department would then make a determination whether or not the survey participant is “high risk” and thus subject to the more stringent standards imposed by the regulations.
“Propane tanks are used by virtually every farm across the country and by many small businesses in rural areas that are not supplied by natural gas. To propose a potential burden of thousands of dollars upon individual farmers and small businesses as a preliminary step to determine whether or not they are ‘high risk’ and subject to the stringent requirements of the regulations would be an unduly burdensome financial expenditure,” Grassley said. “The Department of Homeland Security has a critical job to protect our country and the critical infrastructure of our homeland, but at the same time they should be aware of the consequences some of these rules have on citizens throughout the country.”
Here is a copy of the letter to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff.
June 25, 2007
Via Electronic Transmission
The Honorable Michael Chertoff
Secretary
Department of Homeland Security
3801 Nebraska Avenue
Washington, D.C., 20528
Dear Secretary Chertoff:
As a U.S. Senator from Iowa, I have worked hard over the years to protect individual farmers and small business owners across rural from unduly burdensome federal regulations. I write today not only as a U.S. Senator, but as one of thousands of American farmers who have concerns about the proposed Appendix A to the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards Interim Final Rule issued by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Nearly six years ago our nation was rocked to its core by the terrorist attacks of 9/11. These horrific attacks and the resulting loss of life are a reminder that we must remain vigilant in ensuring the protection of our homeland. Domestic security is one of the most important missions of the federal government and I support DHS’s efforts to ensure the protection of the country and our critical infrastructure by issuing regulations to protect chemical facilities and stockpiles across the country. However, while I support the noble goal of these regulations, I have concerns regarding the application and execution of the regulations and the unintended consequences of classifying certain chemicals.
On April 9, 2007, DHS published the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards Interim Final Rule (Final Rule), which became effective earlier this month on June 8. The Final Rule will require certain chemical facilities, and any facility that contains certain listed chemicals in defined quantities to register and conduct a Chemical Security Assessment Tool (CSAT) consequence assessment known as “Top Screen”. Once these facilities complete the Top Screen they will be categorized in a preliminary tier level and those that meet a certain threshold will be required to complete a Security Vulnerability Assessment (SVA) and await a final determination if they need to complete a Site Security Plan (SSP). The Final Rule contains Appendix A which lists the various chemicals and quantities that when possessed trigger the requirement for a facility to complete the Top Screen survey.
Appendix A currently lists propane as a “chemical of interest” when kept in quantities greater than 7,500 pounds. As a result, any individual or business that keeps quantities equal to or greater than 7,500 pounds would be required to complete the online Top Screen survey risk assessment as outlined in the Final Rule within 60 days after enactment. According to DHS’s own estimates listed in the Regulatory Assessment accompanying the rule, the cost impact of this survey will be between $2,300-$3,500 per survey depending on the size and type of facility and the number of listed chemicals contained therein. Once the survey is completed, DHS will then make a determination whether or not the survey participant is “high risk” and thus subject to the more stringent standards imposed by the regulations.
Based upon the projected costs associated with the Top Screen survey, I am very concerned about the impact the classification of propane at current listed levels will have on individual farmers and small businesses across rural . Propane tanks are used by virtually every farm across the country and by many small businesses in rural areas that are not supplied by natural gas. To propose a burden of thousands of dollars upon individual farmers and small businesses as a preliminary step to determine whether or not they are “high risk” and subject to the stringent requirements of the regulations would be an unduly burdensome financial expenditure. Further, these regulations and the required continued correspondence and follow-up with DHS could lead to further financial hardships for these individual farmers and small businesses. This becomes especially important when considering the impact such regulations and costs could have on the thousands of elderly Americans that live in rural areas and utilize propane to fuel their homes.
Accordingly, I ask that you amend the proposed Appendix A to increase the quantity of propane to a level that would exclude amounts that are commonly used by individuals living in rural areas for domestic or agricultural business use. Another option would be to reopen the rulemaking for the Final Rule and provide an express exemption for rural home domestic use in addition to family owned agri-business operations under a certain threshold of size and/or income. I find it hard to imagine that DHS believes the Final Rule and thresholds set by Appendix A should include the thousands of individual family farmers and rural small businesses across the country.
To require farmers and small businesses to comply with these strict requirements and burdensome costs seems ridiculously disproportionate to the likelihood of a terrorist attack on an individual farm. Do you really mean for thousands of rural American’s who have propane tanks for home, farm, or small business use, to have to spend $2,300-$3,500 to complete a complicated survey so DHS can determine if their homes, farms, or small businesses are high risk targets? If not, this rule must provide a clear exemption to provide certainty to farmers and small businesses across rural .
Thank you for your prompt, detailed reply to my request on this important matter. I would appreciate hearing your response as soon as possible, but prior to any final determination on this proposed Appendix by DHS.
Sincerely,
Charles E. Grassley
United States Senator