[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 129 (Wednesday, September 18, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10840-S10841]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. PRESSLER (for himself and Mr. HARKIN):
  S. 2091. A bill to provide for small business and agriculture 
regulatory relief; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.


  The Small Business and Farm Transportation Regulatory Relief Act of 
                                  1996

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Small 
Business and Farm Transportation Regulatory Relief Act of 1996. I am 
pleased to be joined in this effort by Senator Harkin. This legislation 
is designed to address transportation and economic concerns raised 
recently by the agriculture community and small business owners and 
operators. These concerns stem from a U.S. Department of Transportation 
[DOT] proposal to apply Federal hazardous materials regulations to 
intrastate commerce. Let me explain.
  Since 1987, a rulemaking has been underway at DOT to fully impose 
Federal hazardous materials regulations on intrastate commerce. The 
intent is to achieve compatibility between Federal and State hazardous 
materials transportation regulations. If implemented as currently 
planned, however, farmers and agriculture retailers could face new 
costs and regulatory burdens.
  Mr. President, I understand the rationale behind DOT's push for 
uniformity in hazardous materials regulations. Indeed, the Congress has 
a lengthy record promoting Federal and State compatibility of motor 
carrier and hazardous materials transportation regulations. However, 
the legitimate need for exceptions to these regulations should not be 
ignored.
  States have already achieved general compatibility with Federal 
hazardous materials regulations. In doing so, some agricultural States 
have also provided limited regulatory exemptions in this area to 
farmers and retailers. These exceptions are due to the seasonal nature 
of the planting and harvesting seasons associated with a farmer's work 
and the minimal risk associated with the transport of agricultural 
production materials.
  For example, the very nature of a farmer's work requires the use of 
fuel, fertilizers, and pesticides. These products are transported from 
retail sites to farm and from farm to field, primarily on sparsely 
traveled roads. Have these exceptions from stringent hazardous 
materials regulations jeopardized safety? No. The record is clear. 
Public safety has not been adversely affected by farmers doing their 
jobs free of regulatory burdens.
  Mr. President, the agriculture industry has worked to explain its 
position to DOT throughout the public comment periods. Unfortunately, 
we cannot be sure to what extent DOT will address these concerns until 
the rule is final. Waiting until then could be too late. Congressional 
action is necessary to prevent unnecessary regulations and economic 
burdens on our farmers.
  The legislation we are introducing today would ensure States are 
allowed to maintain existing exceptions for farmers and agribusinesses. 
It also ensures States can continue to grant targeted exceptions for 
farmers in the future, as long as such exceptions will not adversely 
impact public safety.

  In addition to addressing farm-related transportation concerns, this 
legislation would also streamline regulatory requirements for small 
business operators. It is based on a DOT supplemental notice of 
proposed rulemaking, Docket No. HM 200, issued March 20, 1996.
  The DOT proposal would, in part, exempt certain quantities and types 
of hazardous materials from regulations concerning their transport. 
These so-called materials of trade are often the types of products used 
by small businesses across our country. Because transporting these 
small quantities of materials pose minimal risks to public safety and 
property, DOT is correctly proposing to lift the stringent hazardous 
materials transportation regulations currently imposed on operators. In 
my view, and the view of many others, DOT is on the right track. 
However, Congress should ensure DOT stays on that track.
  According to DOT officials, the rulemaking is expected to be 
completed by the end of this year. But there is no firm deadline. Given 
this issue has been part of the rulemaking under consideration for the 
past 10 years, many small

[[Page S10841]]

business owners are skeptical about DOT meeting its target date. 
Indeed, there is no legal assurance that DOT will finish what it has 
started. After all, Federal agencies are known to miss target dates for 
completing rulemakings or implementing regulations. DOT is no 
exception.
  Small business owners have no way of knowing when or if the proposed 
materials of trade regulatory exceptions will be a reality. Therefore, 
we are introducing legislation today to address this uncertainty and 
impose a needed congressional directive. This bill would establish a 
deadline for DOT and help ensure unnecessary regulatory burdens on 
small business owners are lifted in a timely manner. The deadline for 
DOT to complete the small business exception final rule would be 
December 31, 1996. That is the same date DOT announced as its target.
  Mr. President, I want to acknowledge the efforts going on in the 
other body to address the concerns I have just outlined. 
Representatives DeLay, Ewing, Buyer, and Poshard have been working on 
legislative measures very similar to the proposal Senator Harkin and I 
are introducing. We share a common goal. Sound transportation and 
policy cannot be achieved by a one-size-fits-all approach.
  I urge my colleagues to join in sponsoring this very important and 
necessary legislation and urge its swift passage.

                          ____________________