The Honorable Darrell IssaNOPA Response to December 29, 2010, Letter Requesting Identification of Existing and ProposedRegulations that Negatively Impact the Economy and JobsJanuary 10, 2011Page| 3
1929–1989 • National Soybean Processors Association
In December 2010, EPA asked the federal District Court for the District of Columbia for anextension to re-propose the rule, take comments and then finalize the package by April 2012.We welcome the additional time for a review, but the new proposal must ensure that thestandards are economically feasible and achievable in practice for manufacturers.
EPA’s Ozone NAAQS (National Ambient Air Quality Standards) Rulemaking
. The CleanAir Act requires that EPA conduct a detailed review of each NAAQS every five years. EPA lastcompleted a review of the ozone NAAQS in March 2008, following an extensive public input andcomment process. At that time, EPA strengthened the existing 0.084 ppm standard to a muchmore stringent 0.075 ppm; declared that level as adequately protective of human health and theenvironment; and commenced preparation for the next five-year review.In January 2010, the Agency, despite having no new information and being midway through itsongoing five-year review process, proposed lowering the 2008 ozone standard to within therange of 0.060-0.070 ppm. Any standard within EPA’s proposed range would dramaticallyincrease the number of “non-attainment” areas nationwide. For local communities, a non-attainment designation can mean a loss of industry and economic development; plant closures;loss of federal highway and transit funding; and increased fuel and energy costs. EPAestimates that the cost of the proposed new standard could add as much as $90 billion per year to the already high operating costs of manufacturing, agriculture, and other sectors. Changingthe 2008 standard outside of the normal five-year review process is unfair to businesses andconsumers, and unwise.EPA has delayed finalizing the rule until July 2012, to allow for continued analysis of theepidemiological and clinical studies used to recommend the ozone standard. We welcome theadditional time for a review; however, as with EPA’s Boiler MACT Rulemaking discussed above,the final rule must ensure that the standards are economically feasible and achievable inpractice for manufacturers.
OSHA’s Combustible Dust Rulemaking
. On October 21, 2009, OSHA published an AdvanceNotice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) requesting public comment on a standard to addressthe hazards of combustible dust. On January 19, 2010, NOPA joined two other associations incommenting to OSHA on the ANPRM.The associations agreed with OSHA's statement in the ANPRM that the Agency’s grain handlingstandard, 29 C.F.R. 1910.272, has proven to be an outstanding example of successfulgovernment regulation. We urged OSHA not to propose any significant changes to the grainhandling standard and to exempt industries within the scope of 29 C.F.R. 1910.272 from anygeneral industry combustible dust standard that might be adopted. We invited discussion withOSHA about the potential of extending the applicability of 29 C.F.R. 1910.272 to the portions of our facilities where it does not currently apply. We concluded by stating that we saw no basis for additional regulation of the grain handling and related industries, or for a new grain handlingstandard, or a new general industry standard that overlaps and in some respects substitutes for the grain handling standard. Finally, we endorsed a conclusion reached by OSHA in theANPRM that National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) consensus standards do not make