Legislation was reintroduced in the U.S. Senate on Feb. 12 to help agricultural retailers, distributors, and other eligible agricultural businesses partially offset increased security costs due to new federal, state, and local security regulations for agricultural chemicals and fertilizer storage facilities.
The Agricultural Business Security Tax Credit Act (S. 551) is sponsored by Sens. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) and Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), and has enthusiastic industry support from the Agricultural Retailers Association, The Fertilizer Institute, CropLife America, and the Chemical Producers and Distributors Association. The organizations sent a letter on Feb. 9 to House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) and ranking member Jim McCrery (R-La.) urging their support for the measure.
ARA called the Roberts/Nelson legislation “a fiscally responsible proposal” that would provide a tax credit equivalent to 30 percent of the total amount paid on implementing qualified security measures such as fencing, alarms, lights, and security guards. The legislation provides for up to $100,000 in security tax credits per facility, with an overall company cap of $2 million per year.
“A security tax credit would go a long way in helping the industry to properly safeguard ag pesticides and fertilizers from the threat of terrorists, drug dealers and other criminals,” said Jack Eberspacher, ARA president and CEO.
ARA asked its members last fall to complete a survey for the House Ways and Means Committee detailing the economic pressures and security-related expenses that retailers and distributors are currently facing (GM Oct. 30, p. 11). “Agricultural retailers and distributors are faced with numerous security regulations that add to the daily costs of doing business,” Eberspacher said last week. “They also are being negatively impacted by high fuel, fertilizer and transportation costs, which ties up significant amounts of working capital.”
ARA also recently submitted comments to the Department of Homeland Security in response to an Advance Notice of Rulemaking on Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards issued by DHS on Dec. 28 (GM Jan. 1, p. 11). ARA said it addressed a range of issues concerning the DHS security regulations, including the proposed definition of a chemical facility; the use and approval of alternative security vulnerability assessments and alternative security programs; federal preemption; which facilities are to be considered “high risk”; background checks; ammonium nitrate security requirements; protection of confidential information; and third party litigants.
ARA said it submitted Asmark Insitute’s Security Vulnerability (SVA) program to DHS for “confidential review and consideration” under provisions in the proposed regulations related to alternative vulnerability assessments and alternative security programs. ARA said it is unclear how many retail and distribution facilities, particularly those storing anhydrous ammonia and ammonium nitrate, will be affected by these “high risk” chemical facility security regulations.
“A guiding principle for any proposal, even those related to security matters, is that facility safety should come first,” ARA said. “It is our understanding that DHS officials share this principle.” According to ARA, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) issued separate comment letters to DHS that were “highly critical” of the proposed regulations related to preemption, judicial review, and the use of inherently safer technologies.
The deadline for public comments on the new DHS security regulations was Feb. 7. The new rules are set to go into effect in April.