[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Page 13696]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                      FUELS REGULATORY RELIEF ACT

 Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong 
support of S. 880, the Fuels Regulatory Relief Act. This bill will 
provide relief to hundreds of propane suppliers, farmers, and ranchers 
in my State of South Dakota.
  The Fuels Regulatory Relief Act would exempt propane from being 
included under the Environmental Protection Agency's Risk Management 
Program, or RMP, rule. The RMP rule was crafted as a way to increase 
awareness among state and local governments and the public of hazardous 
chemicals in communities. The thinking behind this rule was that if 
chemical companies had to develop and make public information about a 
worst case scenario in the event of an accidental release, the 
companies would take steps to lower the possibility of such an 
accident. Also, the authors of this rule thought local emergency teams 
would be able to respond more quickly and efficiently to an accident at 
a hazardous chemical site if the teams knew in advance how much damage 
to expect.
  I do not have any problems with the RMP rule in that respect. I think 
communities can benefit from knowing the potential for chemical 
accidents that could happen within their borders. I do, however, have 
deep concerns about the inclusion of substances that are not toxic but 
are flammable. The RMP rule was not created to regulate flammable 
substances, as demonstrated by the EPA's decision not to include 
gasoline under the rule. Yet propane is included under the rule, and 
people who have more than 16,000 pounds of propane on their property 
will have to submit an RMP.
  Complying with this rule is a great burden on propane suppliers, 
farmers, and ranchers, as the cost per site may be as much as several 
thousand dollars. I have been contacted by a number of propane 
suppliers in my State who have expressed their frustration with having 
to submit an RMP, and the American Farm Bureau has voiced its concerns 
about the effects of this rule on farmers who use propane for fuel 
purposes. Small business owners, farmers, and ranchers who possess and 
use large amounts of propane should not be forced to comply with a rule 
directed at curbing accidents involving hazardous chemicals, especially 
when flammable substances are subject to a number of other federal 
regulations.
  For these reasons, I am proud to be a cosponsor of S. 880, the Fuels 
Regulatory Relief Act. I believe that exempting propane from inclusion 
under the RMP rule is consistent with the purpose of the rule, as it 
does not change the way hazardous and toxic chemicals are regulated. 
The Fuels Regulatory Relief Act will save propane users and suppliers 
in my State thousands of dollars in compliance costs, and I urge my 
colleagues to support its expeditious passage.

                          ____________________