Tag

EPA

NAM Key-Votes Congressional Resolution of Disapproval on Methane Rule

By | Environment, Shopfloor Policy | No Comments

National Association of Manufacturers Senior Vice President of Policy and Government Relations Aric Newhouse issued the following key-vote letter in support of H. J. Res. 36, providing for congressional disapproval of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Land Management relating to waste prevention, production subject to royalties and resource conservation.

KVL H.J.Res 36

 

Ozone Implementation Relief Bill Introduced in House and Senate

By | Shopfloor Policy | No Comments

Last week, Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) and Rep. Pete Olson (R-TX) introduced the bipartisan Ozone Standards Implementation Act of 2017 (S. 263/H.R. 806), legislation to provide much-needed relief and flexibility to manufacturers in implementing the Environmental Protection Agency’s 2015 ozone rule. The bill offers a balanced approach that ensures continued air-quality improvements, while giving states and manufacturers the flexibility necessary to limit some of the economic growth restrictions that exist under the current regulation. The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) key-voted similar legislation in the House during the 114th Congress, which the House passed on June 8, 2016, by a vote of 234–177. Read More

Manufacturers Support Rollback of RMP Rule

By | Environment, Shopfloor Policy | No Comments

Manufacturers strongly support Rep. Markwayne Mullin’s (R-OK) Disapproval Petition under the Congressional Review Act (CRA) for the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Accidental Release Prevention Requirements: Risk Management Programs under the Clean Air Act (RMP rule). The National Association of Manufacturers has long expressed concerns over the EPA’s proposed and, ultimately, final approach in this rule, which will create significant additional burdens without any safety benefits. The EPA’s RMP rule will overlap and conflict with other federal programs designed to promote safety and security, meaning that the EPA’s proposal will be duplicative and add regulatory burdens for manufacturers—and likely inconsistencies—with no additional benefits. In addition, the disclosure requirements raise concerns related to sensitive business and security data, which could actually threaten facility security.

Manufacturers support the CRA Disapproval Petition offered by Rep. Mullin and look forward to working with him, the other cosponsors and the rest of Congress to ensure this legislation makes it to the president’s desk for his signature.

 

 

The Other Side of the Story That You Didn’t Hear

By | Environment, Shopfloor Main, Shopfloor Policy | No Comments

I was struck by The New York Times article on Okla. Attorney General Scott Pruitt, the nominee to be Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administrator, and the settlement of a long-simmering Arkansas poultry runoff case. I encourage you to take a look at a very different side of the story and its impact here.

It’s fascinating to see the nature of the criticism being leveled against Mr. Pruitt by environmental groups, former EPA administrators and other opponentsand here’s why: he doesn’t view the EPA’s role, and his potential role as administrator, the same way they do. He’s different. And they don’t like it.

But shouldn’t he be different? Shouldn’t he represent change from the status quo? Voters just elected Donald Trump president, in large part, because he pledged to be a disruptor, to dramatically change the way the federal government interacts withwell, everyone. The EPA is no exception. Read More

EPA Midterm Review of Fuel Economy Standards the Latest Example of Why Change Is Needed

By | Environment, Shopfloor Policy | No Comments

Until recently, the automobile industry’s work with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on fuel economy standards had been a great example of how a federal agency and a regulated industry can put politics aside and work together toward a common goal.

Today, the EPA chose to make it political.

The agency jammed through a midnight regulation locking in fuel economy standards for automobiles 14 months before it was supposed to actually complete the rule, relying instead on outdated data. The agency also drastically cut short the opportunity for meaningful public comment and technical review, giving stakeholders less than 30 days from publication in the Federal Register. The EPA also appears to have skipped federal oversight or review by the Office of Management and Budget and excluded the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which has been issuing joint fuel economy rules with the EPA since the late 2000s.

The fuel economy and greenhouse gas rules were supposed to be a shining example of how the EPA, other federal agencies, states and the industry can work together to drive environmental progress, technological innovation and economic growth. While more work was, and is, needed to fully realize that vision, the EPA had a chance to ride off into the sunset having built the framework for a collaborative model that could have lasted several more administrations. Instead, it chose politics.

A lot will be made in the coming weeks about the transition to new leadership at the EPA. The NAM released a seven-figure, multistate paid advertising campaign to support the nomination of Okla. Attorney General Scott Pruitt for EPA administrator. When manufacturers and others note their optimism at the prospect of more balance, better process and more reasonable outcomes, it’s actions like today’s by the EPA that motivate a lot of those feelings.

Trump EPA Should Take Hard Look at New Mining Financial Assurance Rule

By | Energy, Shopfloor Policy | No Comments

Eliminating wasteful and unnecessary regulations has been a cornerstone of President-elect Donald Trump’s campaign and transition to the White House. Manufacturers are encouraged by the prospect of a more balanced regulatory approach that streamlines requirements and removes duplicative policies that do not enhance public safety or environmental protection. Read More

Manufacturers Look to New Administration for Relief from Latest EPA Midnight Regulation

By | Energy, Shopfloor Policy | No Comments

On December  21, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released its final update to the Risk Management Program, a regulation that deals with on-site storage of chemicals at manufacturing facilities. Manufacturers support measures that ensure chemicals are stored safely. However, todays update would add burdensome and often duplicative requirements on manufacturers, including new compliance hurdles that will disproportionately hurt small rural businesses, while doing little, if anything, to improve safety.  Read More

Timmons: President-Elect Trump Signals an End to the EPA’s Regulatory Assault on Manufacturers

By | Communications, Presidents Blog, Shopfloor Main | No Comments

National Association of Manufacturers President and CEO Jay Timmons issued the following statement on the nomination of Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt as Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administrator:

     “Today’s nomination signals that President-elect Donald Trump will end the EPA’s regulatory assault on manufacturers. This is the type of change manufacturers voted for, and we’re hopeful the next administration will strike the right balance between environmental stewardship and economic growth.

“Manufacturers have helped to usher in a new era of a cleaner and more sustainable environment, and we remain as committed as ever to reducing emissions, improving our energy efficiency, recycling more and reducing waste. As a sector, we have reduced our greenhouse gas emissions by 10 percent since 2005, while our value added to the economy has increased by 19 percent over the same time period.

“We look forward to working with President-elect Trump and Scott Pruitt, once confirmed as administrator, to build on this past success. We believe the EPA can drive continued environmental quality improvements, while reducing overreaching, inflexible federal policies that threaten manufacturing’s competitiveness. Many of the largest and costliest regulations issued over the past several years have come from the EPA.

“Manufacturing innovation remains the best solution to addressing climate change and most of the environmental challenges facing the country and world.”

CONTACT: Jennifer Drogus, (202) 637-3090

Appeals Court Is Inundated with Waters Arguments

By | Manufacturers’ Center for Legal Action, Shopfloor Legal | No Comments

Last year, the Manufacturers’ Center for Legal Action filed our lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers over their expansive interpretation of their jurisdiction to require permits for the use of a wide variety of land across the country. More than 150 other business organizations, states and other groups have also challenged the “Waters of the United States” (WOTUS) rule in various courts, and many of these challenges, including ours, have been consolidated in one federal appellate courtthe Sixth Circuit. Some of this background, and the justification for our litigation, is summarized in this post from February.

Two key events have happened recently. First, the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) asked the Supreme Court in September to review a splintered decision from the Sixth Circuit that allows that court to continue to hear arguments in the case, despite a widely held view among lawyers that the Clean Water Act requires the case to be heard by a trial court, not an appeals court, in the first instance. The administration will be filing its response next Monday. If the court agrees to review this issue, considerable time and effort could be saved in trying to resolve the underlying merits of the challenges to the WOTUS rule.

Second, today, business and municipal groups filed a detailed 93-page brief describing point by point the numerous concerns of all the petitioners about the rule. The brief contains textbook examples of arguments that are all too frequently made about government regulations: the rule was promulgated in violation of basic principles of notice-and-comment rulemaking, the agencies failed to comply with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the rule is inconsistent with the statutory language of the statute (the Clean Water Act), the rule is unconstitutionally vague, and it violates the Commerce Clause and federalism principles. There are also more unusual arguments arising from EPA’s “covert propaganda” efforts in support of the rule.

Courts give agencies considerable deference when interpreting their statutory authority, but the Supreme Court has weighed in several times to try to provide some constitutional limits on the EPA’s jurisdiction, and a significant part of our brief is dedicated to it. The brief argues that the agencies relied too heavily on Justice Kennedy’s concurring opinion in the Rapanos case, which cannot be reconciled with the other justices’ views in the way attempted by the EPA. The EPA’s approach brings into its jurisdiction countless features that lack the volume of flow and proximity needed to ensure that effects on navigable waters are more than insubstantial or speculative.

The scope of the agencies’ jurisdiction is one of the most fundamental issues affecting the regulation of land use in the United States. Today’s brief brings us one step closer to resolving the allocation of regulatory power among federal, state and local governments.

Federal Court Rules the EPA Must Consider Job Losses from Its Regs

By | Energy, Shopfloor Main, Shopfloor Policy | No Comments

This afternoon, Judge John Preston Bailey of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) unlawfully ignored its duty under Section 321 of the Clean Air Act to evaluate potential and actual job loss from its regulations. The agency has rolled out tens of billions of dollars worth of new air regulations on electric utilities, energy producers, manufacturers, vehicles and other sources and readily admits it had not done a single one of these mandatory job loss evaluations before finalizing any of those regulations.

The purpose of requirements like Section 321 is to get better regulations, the kind that achieve their environmental goals while preserving a strong economy. And while the EPA made this promise virtually every time it issued a new regulation, the facts show that it never even bothered to do a Section 321 analysis any of those times. The court gave the EPA two weeks to do a Section 321 job loss analysis for the coal industry, which has faced a regulatory burden heavier than perhaps any other sector over the past decade.

Manufacturers are pleased to see that the EPA will now have to properly evaluate the impact of its regulations on jobs. ‎We are disappointed that this order comes years after the regulations at issue went final and at a time when the companies regulated have already started complying. We hope the EPA will comply with the law and routinely do job loss studies for each of its major new regulations before they are proposed, to ensure a better regulatory process.