AP News, June 29th, 2007
As a longtime farmer, Iowa Sen. Charles Grassley said he quickly saw the folly of new propane regulations proposed by the Department of Homeland Security.
The proposal would list propane as a chemical of interest when kept in quantities greater than 7,500 pounds, forcing a costly risk assessment.
Propane "is used by virtually every farmer to dry their grain or heat their house ...," Grassley said. "Hopefully they just don't understand how the new regulations would affect every farmer or even non farmer."
Grassley sent a letter to Homeland Security Director Michael Chertoff about the matter, and Iowa's other senator, Tom Harkin, said he would take similar steps soon. The proposal also has drawn complaints from the National Grain and Feed Association and the Grain Elevator and Processing Society.
A Homeland Security spokesman did not return telephone messages seeking comment left Tuesday and Wednesday.
Many farmers use propane, and the proposal would require each to pay a one-time $2,300 to $3,500 fee for the assessment, which includes a background check.
Grassley said the agency has the nation's best interests at heart but is proposing a requirement that would be unnecessarily burdensome on farmers.
"The department has a tough and critical job in protecting the infrastructure of our country, and I understand that," Grassley said. "But at the same time those who put out these rules need to understand the impact their actions have on people in every part of the country."
David Krejci, executive vice president of the Grain Elevator and Processing Society, questioned the necessity of further regulating propane.
"At what point are you dealing with safety, when you're saying that everything is considered a high risk?" Krejci said. "It's painted with such a broad brush that it seems like we're not really focusing on what the risk assessment is."
And Krejci said he thinks the regulation would do little to enhance security.
"Administratively it's a lot of work only to come out at the other end and then maybe say, 'Never mind'," he said.
Grassley said if policy makers do not listen to concerns about the proposal, he will likely attach a rider to legislation funding the Department of Homeland Security that would stop any funding from being put toward enforcing the new regulations.
"I hope it won't be necessary to have to rescind the rule ... and that they would just clarify their rule," Grassley said. "If they don't, then the usual practice would be to put a rider on an appropriation bill saying that none of the funds in this appropriation bill can be used to enforce such and such a rule."
