Ernst gets tough on OSHA about not following rule-making process

U.S. Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA) lambasted the Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and the Obama administration last week for circumnavigating the federal rule-making process. 

“…this administration seems to be making a habit of circumventing the American people and their right to comment before they make these changes,” Ernst said during a Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs subcommittee on hearing on OSHA’s recent guidance issuance to the anhydrous ammonia industry.

OSHA’s guidance, referenced as “Process Safety Management of Highly Hazardous Chemicals and Application of the Retail Exemption,” would negatively impact the anhydrous ammonia industry in Iowa, Ernst said. 

It would essentially require additional paperwork and increase the costs associated with compliance for each anhydrous ammonia retail site. The majority of farm co-ops in Iowa are classified as anhydrous ammonia retail sites, meaning many Iowans will be backlogged with administrative work under this new guidance. 

From nearly 800 of these retail sites, Iowa retailers sell more than a half a million tons of anhydrous ammonia to farmers each year. Retailers are estimating that the cost for compliance will rise to $25,000 per site, which would essentially force smaller retailers out of business. Ultimately, OSHA’s guidance will mean higher prices for consumers, as Iowa farmers must cover the increased costs for this essential crop nutrient.

“The changes OSHA has made (will) be difficult, if not impossible, for the companies to implement within the six months provided for in the guidance and will yield little, if any, safety benefits,” Ernst said. “Further, they will cost these retailers tens of thousands of dollars per site – a cost that will ultimately be passed on to the farmers… .”

Ernst said at the hearing that she has heard from many Iowa residents who never got the chance to provide feedback on the OSHA guidance since it didn’t go through the usual comment period required by the federal rule-making process.

“If we are truly trying to correct a problem, then why don’t we go through the rule-making process and make sure that we understand what it takes to go into compliance, open that up for public comment and review,” Ernst asked Mary Beth Maxwell, principal deputy assistant secretary for Policy at the U.S. Department of Labor, during the hearing. “Unfortunately, since the Department of Labor didn’t go through the formal rule-making process, these key stakeholders weren’t afforded the opportunity to comment on the impact these changes in regulation will have on their livelihoods… . It sounds like maybe we should have gone through the rule-making process, rather than doing a memorandum on this.”