Propane Accessibility and Regulatory Relief Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Burlison, Eric [R-MO-7]
- Committees
- Homeland Security Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jun 13, 2025
Bottom line
This bill aims to reduce federal security regulations on certain propane storage facilities, potentially easing compliance costs for businesses but raising questions about security oversight for hazardous materials.
What it actually does
This bill directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to exempt propane tanks with a capacity of up to 126,000 pounds from the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) regulations. This action would reduce federal regulatory burdens for facilities storing propane within this specified capacity range, removing the requirement for them to comply with federal security plans and risk assessments.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the current CFATS regulations impose undue financial and administrative burdens on facilities storing propane, particularly smaller operations or those in rural areas, without a commensurate increase in security for tanks of this specific capacity. They contend that this exemption would enhance propane accessibility and affordability by reducing compliance costs, fostering economic relief for businesses and consumers.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that exempting propane tanks of up to 126,000 pounds from CFATS regulations could create a security vulnerability by reducing oversight on a hazardous material. They may contend that even tanks of this size pose a significant risk if targeted, and that a blanket exemption could compromise national security efforts to protect critical infrastructure from terrorist attacks.
The bill text is extremely short and can be read quickly, allowing ample time for detailed consideration of its implications.
Section 2
Exemption from CFATS Regulations of Certain Propane Tanks
This section mandates that the Secretary of Homeland Security must remove propane tanks capable of holding up to 126,000 pounds of propane from the list of facilities subject to Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS). This means that facilities storing propane in tanks up to this size would no longer need to comply with federal security plans, risk assessments, and other requirements under CFATS, thereby reducing their regulatory obligations.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that this exemption targets an appropriate threshold, relieving small to medium-sized propane distributors and users from burdensome regulations that are disproportionate to the actual security risk posed by tanks of this capacity. They contend that local safety standards and industry best practices are sufficient for these tanks, and federal oversight is an unnecessary duplication.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that a 126,000-pound propane tank still represents a significant hazard, and removing federal anti-terrorism standards could leave communities vulnerable. They may contend that CFATS provides a crucial layer of defense against malicious acts and that any exemption should be based on a more rigorous risk assessment rather than a blanket capacity limit.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the desire for regulatory relief and reduced business costs against the imperative of national security and the prevention of potential terrorist acts involving hazardous materials. It highlights a tension between economic efficiency and comprehensive security oversight.
The bill sets a specific capacity limit of 'up to 126,000 pounds of propane' for the exemption from CFATS regulations.
Section 2
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to define the scope of a provision with specific parameters. It is not intended to be evasive but requires careful reading to grasp the exact impact.
Case for: Supporters would argue that this specific threshold is carefully chosen based on risk assessments or industry input, representing a point below which federal anti-terrorism regulations are deemed excessive or redundant with other safety measures.
Case against: Critics might question the scientific or security basis for this exact 126,000-pound limit, suggesting it could be arbitrary or influenced by lobbying efforts rather than a comprehensive risk analysis.
Estimated impact: This specific limit determines the exact number and type of facilities that will be affected by the regulatory exemption, potentially impacting hundreds or thousands of sites nationwide.