According to a December 8 article in the Huffington Post, the House of Representatives has passed a bill to ban a farm dust regulation that the federal government has never been proposed.
Dianna DeGette (D-CO) referred to the hours leading up to the 268-150 passage of the bill as an entire day debating about a bill "that does not a address an existing problem." However, Republicans stated that - although no rule was proposed - there may be one proposed some day to regulate farm dust.
According to a November 2 report in the Washington Post, in order to change the rules for dust on farms, the EPA would have to formally propose a rule, something EPA administrator Lisa Jackson said in March that she was not likely to do, though she could not guarantee it.
HR 1633, authored by Rep. Kristi Noem (R-SD) and Rep. Leonard Boswell (D-Iowa) was introduced in April and gained the support of 121 cosponsors. According to a press release from Noem's office, the bill will prevent the EPA from changing its standard for coarse particulate matter for one year and would exempt nuisance dust from federal regulation where such dust is already regulated under state, tribal or local law. "I'm pleased to see the momentum behind this common-sense bill that would stop any new job-destroying rules from the EPA to further regulate dust," Noem said.
According to a press release by Scott Tipton (R-CO), H.R. 1633 - the Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act - will protect family farmers, ranchers and other small businesses from potential new federal dust regulations. "While our nation's farmers are expected to continue meeting the needs of a growing population, unnecessary regulations that place increased burdens on American agriculture are making production more costly and challenging - hurting jobs and small businesses. I urge the Senate to quickly send this common sense pro-jobs bill to the President.
However, the White House said Wednesday that President Barack Obama will veto the bill if it comes to his desk, according to a report by the Associated Press, stating that the ambiguously written bill would create high levels of regulatory uncertainty and that it attempts to address a problem that doesn't exist.