WASHINGTON, D.C. — An amendment sponsored by Reps. Aaron Schock (R-Ill.) and Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) augmenting the so-called “farm dust bill” was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives on Dec. 8.

The amended bill (HR 1633) would establish a temporary prohibition against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revising any national ambient air quality standard regulating “nuisance dust” created by farming practices, without first considering the economic impact on the agricultural industry and ag-related jobs.

According to Schock spokesman Steve Dutton, the amendment would require the EPA to give notice to the state’s Congressional delegation, governor and legislature if a proposed regulation was found to cause the loss of more than 100 agriculture-related jobs or a decrease of more than $1 million in agriculture-related activity. Local and regional officials must also be alerted to the EPA’s intentions, and public hearings must be offered in the impacted states. “I don’t believe this is too much to ask. We’re simply asking the EPA to calculate the number of jobs lost and the economic impact on the agricultural community,” Schock told House members prior to the vote.

He explained a detrimental calculation by the EPA would trigger a notification process before new regulations can take effect. “We expect the bureaucrats in the EPA here in Washington to go out into the real world and understand the impact of the rules they are implementing and suggesting that have a real effect (on farmers) trying to run their operations across America,” Schock added.

The second-term representative from Peoria cited the results of a poll of farmers conducted at the Illinois Farm Bureau’s (IFB) annual meeting as evidence that producers are nearly fed up with perceived government overregulation.

“(The IFB) asked an open-ended question: What poses the biggest threat to their future profitability as family farmers? Their answer (was not) in input costs, lower commodity prices, land prices or commodity price swings. No, their answer was overwhelmingly in government overregulation,” Schock said.

He then related the words of Jamie Schaffer, a Princeville, Ill., farmer whose concerns mirror those of the IFB poll respondents: “EPA overregulation has the potential to shut us down. We wouldn’t be able to farm with modern equipment (or conduct) livestock walks across the field and create dust when it’s dry out. We need to take regulators out to our farms and personally show them there is no way around dust or dirt.”

Schock’s and Capito’s amendment would require the EPA administrator to “analyze the impact, disaggregated by state, of ‘covered actions’ on agriculture employment levels and economic activity, including estimated job losses and decreased economic activity,” according to a synopsis provided by Schock’s office.

Covered actions include issuing a regulation, policy statement, guidance, response to petition or other requirement.

Public notice guidelines are also set forth in the amendment, which is supported the American Farm Bureau Federation, the American Feed Industry Assoc. and the American Seed Trade Assoc., in addition to prominent agricultural chemical, livestock, pork and dairy associations.

The bill was opposed by environmental protection and health policy groups, including the American Lung Assoc., but also faced criticism from lawmakers who questioned the cost of assigning additional responsibilities to the EPA as directed by the amendment. Schock addressed the issue of EPA expense in his pre-vote appeal.

“I can’t imagine what’s more expensive then putting Americans out of work. I can’t think of what’s more expensive than asking American farmers to come up with more cash and more expenses because of bureaucratic new rules in Washington,” he said.

Some opponents of the bill, including the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, feel the measure’s language is too broad and will allow for lax regulation of harmful pollutants.

Bill Donald, president of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Assoc. (NCBA), said the bill is a necessary piece of legislation that could put the brakes on an EPA that is considering regulating dust at levels that could push much of the country into non-compliance. Lauding the work of bill co-sponsor Rep. Kristi Noem (R-S.D.), Donald called the House vote a win for regulatory certainty for cattlemen and -women.

“Unfortunately, taking the EPA’s word that farm dust will not be further regulated provides absolutely no relief to those cattle producers already faced with dust regulations. We saw legislation as the only option to give all ranchers across the country any sort of peace of mind,” said Donald, a Montana farmer.

The measure now moves to the Senate, where it already is supported by 26 bipartisan senators, according to the NCBA.