    [House Hearing, 118 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

       HEARING FOR THE PURPOSE OF RECEIVING TESTIMONY FROM THE HONORABLE
       MICHAEL REGAN, ADMINISTRATOR, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                            COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                 APRIL 19, 2023

                                   __________

                                Serial No. 118-7

              [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture
                             agriculture.house.gov

                           ______

                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
     53-877PDF           WASHINGTON : 2023

                            COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE

                     GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania, Chairman

    FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma             DAVID SCOTT, Georgia, Ranking
    AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia, Vice          Minority Member
    Chairman                             JIM COSTA, California
    ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas  JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts
    SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee          ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina
    DOUG LaMALFA, California             ABIGAIL DAVIS SPANBERGER, Virginia
    DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina         JAHANA HAYES, Connecticut
    TRENT KELLY, Mississippi             SHONTEL M. BROWN, Ohio
    DON BACON, Nebraska                  SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas
    MIKE BOST, Illinois                  ELISSA SLOTKIN, Michigan
    DUSTY JOHNSON, South Dakota          YADIRA CARAVEO, Colorado
    JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana              ANDREA SALINAS, Oregon
    TRACEY MANN, Kansas                  MARIE GLUESENKAMP PEREZ,
    RANDY FEENSTRA, Iowa                 Washington
    MARY E. MILLER, Illinois             DONALD G. DAVIS, North Carolina,
    BARRY MOORE, Alabama                 Vice Ranking Minority Member
    KAT CAMMACK, Florida                 JILL N. TOKUDA, Hawaii
    BRAD FINSTAD, Minnesota              NIKKI BUDZINSKI, Illinois
    JOHN W. ROSE, Tennessee              ERIC SORENSEN, Illinois
    RONNY JACKSON, Texas                 GABE VASQUEZ, New Mexico
    MARCUS J. MOLINARO, New York         JASMINE CROCKETT, Texas
    MONICA De La CRUZ, Texas             JONATHAN L. JACKSON, Illinois
    NICHOLAS A. LANGWORTHY, New York     GREG CASAR, Texas
    JOHN S. DUARTE, California           CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
    ZACHARY NUNN, Iowa                   SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California
    MARK ALFORD, Missouri                ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota
    DERRICK VAN ORDEN, Wisconsin         DARREN SOTO, Florida
    LORI CHAVEZ-DeREMER, Oregon          SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia
    MAX L. MILLER, Ohio

                                     ______

                         Parish Braden, Staff Director

                     Anne Simmons, Minority Staff Director

                                      (ii)
                                 C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Bost, Hon. Mike, a Representative in Congress from Illinois,
      submitted letter...............................................    91
    Johnson, Hon. Dusty, a Representative in Congress from South
      Dakota, submitted letter.......................................    94
    Langworthy, Hon. Nicholas A., a Representative in Congress from
      New York, submitted letter.....................................   104
    Miller, Hon. Mary E., a Representative in Congress from Illinois:
        Submitted article............................................    95
        Submitted tweet..............................................   101
        Submitted website snapshot...................................   102
    Perez, Hon. Marie Gluesenkamp, a Representative in Congress from
      Washington, submitted letter...................................   111
    Scott, Hon. David, a Representative in Congress from Georgia,
      opening statement..............................................     4
        Submitted letter.............................................   106
    Thompson, Hon. Glenn, a Representative in Congress from
      Pennsylvania, opening statement................................     1
        Prepared statement...........................................     3

                                    Witness

    Regan, Hon. Michael S., Administrator, U.S. Environmental
      Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.............................     5
        Prepared statement...........................................     6
        Supplemetary material........................................   113
        Submitted questions..........................................   117

       HEARING FOR THE PURPOSE OF RECEIVING TESTIMONY FROM THE HONORABLE

       MICHAEL REGAN, ADMINISTRATOR, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

                                  ----------

                           WEDNESDAY, APRIL 19, 2023

                              House of Representatives,
                                      Committee on Agriculture,
                                                       Washington, D.C.
        The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:02 a.m., in Room
    1300 of the Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Glenn
    Thompson [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
        Members present: Thompson, Lucas, Austin Scott of Georgia,
    Crawford, DesJarlais, LaMalfa, Rouzer, Kelly, Bacon, Bost,
    Johnson, Baird, Mann, Feenstra, Miller of Illinois, Moore,
    Cammack, Finstad, Rose, Molinaro, De La Cruz, Langworthy,
    Duarte, Nunn, Alford, Van Orden, Chavez-DeRemer, David Scott of
    Georgia, Costa, McGovern, Adams, Spanberger, Hayes, Brown,
    Slotkin, Caraveo, Salinas, Perez, Davis of North Carolina,
    Tokuda, Budzinski, Sorensen, Vasquez, Crockett, Jackson of
    Illinois, Casar, Pingree, Carbajal, Craig, Soto, and Bishop.
        Staff present: Adele Borne, Wick Dudley, Halee Fisher,
    Ricki Schroeder, Patricia Straughn, Erin Wilson, John Konya,
    Paul Babbitt, Daniel Feingold, Emily German, Ashley Smith,
    Michael Stein, and Dana Sandman.

     OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GLENN THOMPSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                       CONGRESS FROM PENNSYLVANIA

        The Chairman. The Committee will come to order. And I am
    going to yield to my good friend, the Ranking Member here, just
    to offer a little blessing over our proceedings today.
        Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Dear Heavenly Father, we come before your throne of grace
    to, first of all, say thank you. You help us in so many ways.
    We appreciate that deeply. And as we are here gathering to
    deliberate on how to keep our agriculture system strong, we ask
    for your blessing. Guide us in the right way, that we make the
    right decisions in terms of our agriculture system. And we
    thank you because we know that agriculture is the signature
    bond of God Almighty in terms of His creation. This is what we
    pray for.
        And we thank you for helping us take care of our farmers
    and all of those millions who rely on us to make the right
    decisions at the right time. Thank you, Dear Heavenly Father.
    And with these, we ask and say thank you, and amen.
        The Chairman. Amen. Thank you, Ranking Member.
        Welcome, and thank you for joining us for today's hearing.
    We are here to hear from Administrator Michael Regan from the
    Environmental Protection Agency. And after brief opening
    remarks, Members will receive testimony from our witness today,
    and then the hearing will be open to questions. I will take the
    liberty of offering my opening statement.
        Once again, good morning, Administrator Regan, good to see
    you, glad to have you here. Thank you for taking the time to be
    with us today.
        And while the scope of this Committee's jurisdiction over
    the EPA actions is limited, nearly every decision coming from
    the EPA has the potential to disproportionately impact rural
    America and those living and working there. I think we can all
    agree farmers, ranchers, and foresters are the original
    conservationists, and no one cares more for the environment
    than those with livelihoods that depend on it.
        In the first hearing I hosted as the Chairman of the House
    Committee on Agriculture, Members heard of a variety of
    challenges American farmers and ranchers are currently facing.
    A recurring theme throughout the hearing was uncertainty,
    mostly stemming from nonsensical regulations and policies
    perpetuated by the Biden Administration. From my vantage point,
    it appears the EPA and USDA are not only playing in one
    another's sandbox, but are perpetuating wrongheaded priorities.
    EPA wants to dictate what producers grow and how to grow it,
    and USDA is laser-focused on expanding funding and policies
    related to climate.
        Historically, EPA has over-regulated the agriculture
    industry, and this continues today, whether it be the war
    against crop protection tools, regulatory whiplash about what
    defines the Waters of the United States, or WOTUS, or a top-
    down prescription of electric vehicles. American farmers and
    ranchers need access to crop protection tools to control
    damaging pests and weeds, increase yields with fewer inputs,
    and implement voluntary incentive-based conservation practices
    such as reduced- and no-till.
        Until recently, producers relied on the science-driven,
    risk-based registration and registration review process
    established under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
    Rodenticide Act, affectionately known as FIFRA, to provide
    certainty surrounding the use of these tools. Over the past 2
    years, the agency has sought to restrict or cancel several
    important chemistries, including chlorpyrifos, atrazine,
    rodenticides, organophosphates, and many more. Additionally, it
    is concerning to hear USDA's expertise and advice was ignored
    in many of these decisions.
        These actions erode public trust in the regulatory process,
    undermine confidence in the scientific integrity of the EPA,
    and cause extreme uncertainty for producers who seek to provide
    the world with the safest, most abundant, and most affordable
    food and fiber supply in the world. Simply put, any decisions
    related to crop protection tools should be based on actual
    science, not political science.
        Additionally, and something of a bipartisan interest, is
    uncertainty created by the Biden Administration's effort to
    redefine WOTUS. This is the third time in 7 years the agency
    has attempted to rewrite this definition under the Clean Water
    Act (Pub. L. 92-500, Federal Water Pollution Control Act) and
    comes only 2 years after the Navigable Waters Protection Rule
    finally provide a long-awaited certainty for farmers, ranchers,
    and landowners. And while producers wait for the Supreme
    Court's decision on a case related to WOTUS regulations, the
    Biden Administration's definition is far from being durable, as
    claimed by the EPA. In fact, the rule has already been blocked
    from going into effect across 26 states.
        Further, both the House and Senate recently passed a
    bipartisan resolution of disapproval, and I was proud to
    cosponsor that resolution, and I would like to thank Ranking
    Member Scott for joining us in the effort to provide certainty
    for those who need it most. I am disappointed President Biden
    once again turned his back on rural America and vetoed this
    resolution.
        In your confirmation hearing, you, Administrator Regan,
    promised to have an open-door policy for farmers, and this
    commitment to listen, combined with your understanding of
    agriculture, seemed very promising to many. However, the
    regulatory agenda being pursued by this Administration
    constantly misses the mark and exposes rural America to further
    ambiguity and wrongheaded policies. In 1956, President
    Eisenhower said, quote, ``Farming looks mighty easy when your
    plow is a pencil and you are 1,000 miles away from the
    cornfield,'' end quote. Well, this rings true today, and I
    implore the agency to spend more time in the field and less
    time proposing disastrous untested rulemakings.
        Administrator Regan, I want to thank you again for being
    with us today. It is greatly appreciated. This hearing is long
    overdue, and I know my colleagues are looking forward to this
    discussion.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Thompson follows:]

    Prepared Statement of Hon. Glenn Thompson, a Representative in Congress
                               from Pennsylvania
        Good morning. Administrator Regan, thank you for taking the time to
    be here with us today. While the scope of this Committee's jurisdiction
    over EPA actions is limited, nearly every decision coming from the EPA
    has the potential to disproportionately impact rural America and those
    living and working there.
        I think we can all agree farmers, ranchers, and foresters are the
    original conservationists, and no one cares more for the environment
    than those whose livelihoods depend on it.
        In the first hearing I hosted as the Chairman of the House
    Committee on Agriculture, Members heard about a variety of challenges
    American farmers and ranchers are currently facing. A recurring theme
    throughout that hearing was uncertainty, mostly stemming from
    nonsensical regulations and policies perpetuated by the Biden
    Administration. From my vantage point, it appears EPA and USDA are not
    only playing in one another's sandbox, but are perpetuating wrongheaded
    priorities: EPA wants to dictate what producers grow, and how to grow
    it, and USDA is laser focused on expanding funding and policies related
    to climate.
        Historically, EPA has over-regulated the agriculture industry. This
    continues today, whether it be the war against crop protection tools,
    regulatory whiplash about what defines a water of the United States
    (WOTUS), or a top-down prescription of electric vehicles.
        American farmers and ranchers need access to crop protection tools
    to control damaging pests and weeds, increase yields with fewer inputs,
    and implement voluntary, incentive-based conservation practices such as
    reduced- and no-till. Until recently, producers relied on the science-
    driven, risk-based registration and registration review process
    established under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
    Act (FIFRA) to provide certainty surrounding the use of these tools.
        In the past 2 years, the Agency has sought to restrict or cancel
    several important chemistries including chlorpyrifos, atrazine,
    rodenticides, organophosphates, and many more. Additionally, it is
    concerning to hear USDA expertise and advice was ignored in many of
    these decisions.
        These actions erode public trust in the regulatory process,
    undermine confidence in the scientific integrity of the EPA, and cause
    extreme uncertainty for producers who seek to provide the world with
    the safest, most abundant, and most affordable food and fiber supply in
    the world.
        Simply put, any decisions related to crop protection tools should
    be based on actual science--not political science.
        Additionally, and something of bipartisan interest, is uncertainty
    created by the Biden Administration's efforts to redefine WOTUS.
        This is the third time in 7 years the Agency has attempted to
    rewrite this definition under the Clean Water Act and comes only 2
    years after the Navigable Waters Protection Rule finally provided long
    awaited certainty for farmers, ranchers, and landowners.
        While producers wait for the Supreme Court's decision on a case
    related to WOTUS regulations, the Biden Administration's definition is
    far from being `durable,' as claimed by the EPA. In fact, the rule has
    already been blocked from going into effect across 26 states. Further,
    both the House and Senate recently passed a bipartisan resolution of
    disapproval. I was proud to cosponsor that resolution and would like to
    thank Ranking Member Scott for joining us in the effort to provide
    certainty for those who need it most. I am disappointed President Biden
    once again turned his back on rural America and vetoed this resolution.
        In your confirmation hearing, you, Administrator Regan, promised to
    have an `open door policy' for farmers. This commitment to listen,
    combined with your understanding of agriculture, seemed promising to
    many; however, the regulatory agenda being pursued by this
    Administration constantly misses the mark and exposes rural America to
    further ambiguity and wrongheaded policies.
        In 1956, President Eisenhower said, `Farming looks mighty easy when
    your plow is a pencil, and you're a thousand miles from the corn
    field.' This rings true today, and I implore the Agency to spend more
    time in the field and less time proposing disastrous, untested
    rulemakings.
        Administrator Regan, thank you again for being with us today. This
    hearing is long overdue, and I know my colleagues are looking forward
    to this discussion.
        I now yield to the distinguished Ranking Member, Mr. Scott.

        The Chairman. And I now yield to the distinguished Ranking
    Member, Mr. Scott.

      OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID SCOTT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                         CONGRESS FROM GEORGIA

        Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Thank you very much, Mr.
    Chairman.
        And first, I would like to begin my comments by thanking
    you, Chairman Thompson, for bringing us together for this
    hearing today. This hearing today allows us to learn more about
    what Administrator Regan is doing at the Environmental
    Protection Agency to work with our farmers, our ranchers, our
    foresters in order to ensure that Americans are enjoying a
    bountiful food supply, clean air, and clean water. With passage
    of our Inflation Reduction Act (Pub. L. 117-169) last term, we
    made historic investments in rural America to help our farmers
    and rural communities mitigate climate change and continue to
    lead the way on renewable energy. These investments in
    infrastructure in our farm bill and forestry programs will pay
    dividends for farmers well into the future and help ensure
    clean air, clean water for future generations in years and
    years to come.
        And with that in mind, we should also strive to focus on
    issues that are within the House Agriculture Committee's
    jurisdiction so that we can bring the most impactful
    information and action in crafting the farm bill that has
    become more and more urgent every day. I want to thank you,
    Administrator Regan, for your time, and I want to thank you for
    calling me and having our discussion. And we are going to learn
    more and more about what you are doing and plan to do not only
    with the farm bill but all the other multitude of issues that
    we are depending on you to provide leadership for. Thank you.
        The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. I thank him.
        The chair would request that other Members submit their
    opening statements for the record so our witness may begin his
    testimony and to ensure that there is ample time for questions.
        I am pleased to welcome Administrator Michael Regan from
    the Environmental Protection Agency to the Committee today.
    Administrator Regan, thank you for joining us, and we will now
    proceed with your testimony. You will have 5 minutes, and the
    timer in front of you will count down to zero, at which point
    your time has expired.
        Administrator Regan, please begin when you are ready.

        STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL S. REGAN, ADMINISTRATOR, U.S.
           ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, WASHINGTON, D.C.

        Mr. Regan. Good morning, and thank you, Chairman Thompson,
    Ranking Member Scott, and Members of this Committee. I
    appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to
    discuss EPA's engagement on agricultural law and rural policy
    matters. When I joined the agency 2 years ago, I made it clear
    from the beginning my strong desire to work closely with the
    farming and ranching community to identify practical, science-
    based policies that protect the environment and ensure a
    vibrant and productive agricultural system. During my tenure, I
    have visited a farm in Kansas and an ethanol facility in Iowa.
    I have held joint events for Secretary Vilsack in Alabama and
    North Carolina, and I have hosted agriculture leaders, and CEOs
    in my office at EPA.
        Agricultural and rural communities across the nation are
    very important to me and to President Biden. I was raised in
    rural eastern North Carolina, and I am deeply familiar with how
    our agriculture producers worked tirelessly to put food on our
    table. I also know that farmers and ranchers are tremendous
    conservationists and stewards of the land, in part because
    their livelihood depends on sustaining natural resources from
    generation to generation.
        At the same time, many producers find themselves on the
    frontlines of the climate crisis, facing increasing impacts
    from extreme weather events like storms, widespread flooding,
    prolonged drought, and more frequent wildfires. I want you to
    know that our agency is committed to supporting America's
    farmers and ranchers to ensuring they can produce an abundant
    and uninterrupted supply of food, feed, fuel, and fiber, while
    also continuing to deliver on our mission of protecting public
    health and the environment. My testimony today will highlight
    the ways in which we are furthering these goals.
        I would like to begin with an update on pesticide policy.
    EPA's role under FIFRA is to evaluate the human health risk and
    any environmental impacts from pesticide use and weigh them
    against the benefits. I am committed to following the science
    and following the law to make the best decisions concerning
    these regulations.
        As you are aware, multiple Administrations have struggled
    with balancing the scientific and legal policy considerations
    that arise from both FIFRA and ESA. On numerous occasions over
    the past 2 decades, Federal courts have ruled that EPA has been
    out of compliance with the ESA when registering pesticides, and
    the agency has faced an increasing number of lawsuits for
    failing to meet its obligations under the law.
        This Administration has taken to heart the charge from
    Congress within the 2018 Farm Bill by reinvigorating the
    Federal interagency coordination and the broader stakeholder
    engagement process. Last year, we announced that the agency
    will meet its ESA obligations before registering any new
    conventional active ingredient. We also published a
    comprehensive ESA-FIFRA workplan that seeks to forge a long-
    term strategy with full stakeholder participation and input in
    an effort to protect listed species, reduce our legal
    vulnerabilities, and provide predictability to our farmers.
        Another issue of significant interest to agriculture is
    biofuels. As you know, renewable fuels help diversify our
    nation's energy supply. Biofuels are also important to rural
    economies and provide good-paying jobs and income to farming
    communities. Getting the Renewable Fuel Standard Program back
    on track has been a key priority for me since arriving at EPA.
    Last year, we finalized Renewable Volume Obligations that
    placed the program on a stable trajectory for responsible
    growth. In fact, the RVO for 2022 represents the largest volume
    finalized by this agency. We are now at an important juncture
    in the RFS program. In December, EPA proposed growth-oriented
    targets for 2023, 2024, and 2025. We received a significant
    amount of stakeholder input during the public comment period,
    and we are currently considering this input as part of the
    process towards finalizing the rule in coming months.
        Another topic of interest to the agriculture community is
    the definition of Waters of the United States. In recent years,
    the only constant with WOTUS has been change, with definitions
    shifting from Administration to Administration and from court
    decision to court decision. This has resulted in confusion,
    inconsistency, and uncertainty. So in December, EPA and the
    Army worked together to provide a durable definition of WOTUS
    that we believe is clear, consistent, and reasonable, while
    protecting wetlands and facilitating agricultural production.
    The final rule codifies several exclusions from the definition
    of Waters of the United States in the regulatory text, and
    these exclusions deliver clarity and certainty to a broad range
    of stakeholders, including farmers, ranchers, and landowners.
        So in conclusion, EPA's mission is to protect public health
    and the environment, and I believe our mission goes hand-in-
    hand with supporting America's agricultural and rural
    communities. Thank you again for the opportunity to visit with
    you all, and I look forward to answering questions and learning
    how we can work together effectively. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Regan follows:]

       Prepared Statement of Hon. Michael S. Regan, Administrator, U.S.
               Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
        Good morning, Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Scott, and Members
    of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
    today to discuss EPA's engagement on agricultural and rural policy
    matters.
        I joined the Agency 2 years ago, and I made it clear from the
    beginning that I have a strong desire to work closely with the farming
    and ranching community to identify practical, science-based policies
    that protect the environment and ensure a vibrant and productive
    agricultural system. During my tenure, I've visited a farm in Kansas
    and an ethanol facility in Iowa. I've held joint events with Secretary
    Vilsack in Alabama and North Carolina, and I've hosted agricultural
    leaders in my office at EPA.
        Agricultural and rural communities across the nation are very
    important to me--and to President Biden. I was raised in rural eastern
    North Carolina and am deeply familiar with how our agricultural
    producers work tirelessly to put food on our table. I also know that
    farmers and ranchers are tremendous conservationists and stewards of
    the land, in part because their livelihood depends upon sustaining
    natural resources from generation to generation.
        Of course, the challenges facing our food and agriculture system
    are significant. Producers find themselves on the front lines of the
    climate crisis, facing increasing impacts from extreme weather events
    like severe storms, widespread flooding, prolonged drought, and more
    frequent wildfires. This volatility threatens to erode agricultural
    productivity even while the global population surges toward ten billion
    people by mid-century.
        I want to you to know that our Agency is committed to supporting
    American farmers and ranchers to ensure they can produce an abundant
    and uninterrupted supply of food, feed, fuel, and fiber while also
    continuing to deliver on our mission of protecting human health and the
    environment. My testimony will highlight ways in which we are
    furthering these goals.
    Pesticides
        I'd like to begin with an update on pesticide policy. EPA's role,
    under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA),
    is to evaluate the human health risks, and any environmental impacts
    from pesticide use and weigh them against the benefits of the pesticide
    use. We are also responsible for meeting obligations under the
    Endangered Species Act (ESA) to avoid jeopardizing federally listed
    species or adversely modifying designated critical habitat when we take
    certain actions under FIFRA. I'm committed to following the science and
    the law to make the best decisions concerning pesticide regulations.
        As you are aware, multiple Administrations have struggled with
    balancing the scientific and legal/policy considerations that arise
    from both FIFRA and ESA obligations. On numerous occasions over the
    past 2 decades, Federal courts have ruled that EPA has been out of
    compliance with the ESA when registering pesticides, and we have faced
    an increasing number of cases against EPA for not completing the
    required effects determinations for federally listed species or
    consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service or U.S. Fish
    and Wildlife Service as necessary.
        This Administration has taken to heart Congress's charge within the
    2018 Farm Bill by reinvigorating Federal interagency coordination and
    the broader stakeholder engagement processes. Last year, we announced
    that the Agency will meet its ESA obligations before registering any
    pesticide product containing a new conventional active ingredient. We
    also published a comprehensive ESA-FIFRA workplan that seeks to forge a
    longer-term strategy, with full stakeholder participation and input, in
    an effort to protect listed species, reduce our legal vulnerabilities,
    and provide predictability to farmers.
        EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs is funded through a combination
    of annual appropriations, as well as industry fees authorized by the
    Pesticide Registration Improvement Act (PRIA). Our Agency has received
    a record number of registration requests in recent years, and while we
    have completed a record number of actions, despite a shrinking
    workforce, we recognize the need to do more.
        President Biden's FY 2024 Budget includes a much-needed funding
    increase that would help EPA accelerate its pesticide review process,
    bringing greater predictability to farmers and other pesticide users
    while strengthening protections for human health and the environment.
        I also want to thank Congress for reauthorizing the Pesticide
    Registration Improvement Act (PRIA 5) in the FY 23 Omnibus
    Appropriations Bill in December. The legislation authorized EPA's
    Office of Pesticide Programs to collect increased industry user fees to
    fund staff and other resources and will enable greater efficiency
    through process and technology improvements.
    Renewable Fuels
        Another issue of significant interest to the agriculture sector is
    biofuels. As you know, renewable fuels help diversify our nation's
    energy supply, improving energy independence and security. Biofuels are
    also important to rural economies, providing good paying jobs and
    income to farming communities.
        Getting the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) program back on track
    has been a key priority for me since arriving at EPA. Last year, we
    finalized Renewable Volume Obligations (RVO) that placed the program on
    a stable trajectory for growth in the program. In fact, the RVO for
    2022 represents the largest volumes ever finalized by this Agency.
        We are now at an important juncture in the RFS program. In
    December, EPA proposed growth-oriented targets for the next 3 years:
    2023, 2024 and 2025. Because the Energy Independence and Security Act
    of 2007 (EISA) does not include specific volumes after 2022 for any
    fuels, this is the first time that EPA is setting all these biofuel
    targets without using those outlined in statute. We received a
    significant amount of stakeholder input during the public comment
    period, and we are currently considering this input, along with robust
    engagement with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and other
    interagency partners, as part of the process toward finalizing the rule
    in [] the coming months.
    Waters of the United States
        In December, EPA and the Army announced a definition of ``Waters of
    the United States'' (WOTUS) that is founded on the pre-2015 definition
    and updated to reflect consideration of Supreme Court decisions, the
    science, and the agencies' technical expertise.
        For several decades after the passage of the Clean Water Act,
    agencies followed a consistent, predictable definition of waters of the
    United States. In recent years, however, the only constant with WOTUS
    has been change. The definition of WOTUS has changed from
    Administration to Administration and from court decision to court
    decision. This has resulted in confusion, inconsistency, and
    uncertainty.
        EPA and the Army have worked to provide a durable definition of
    WOTUS that is clear, consistent, and reasonable while protecting
    wetlands and facilitating agricultural production. We recognize that
    America's farmers and ranchers are stewards of the land and have a
    tremendous stake in protecting water quality. That's why it was so
    important for us to get this rule right.
        The final rule codifies several exclusions from the definition of
    ``waters of the United States'' in the regulatory text. This delivers
    clarity and certainty to a broad range of stakeholders, including
    farmers, ranchers, and landowners. These exclusions include prior
    converted cropland, certain ditches, many swales and erosional
    features, certain artificially irrigated areas, certain artificial
    lakes and ponds, certain water-filled depressions, and certain
    artificial reflecting or swimming pools.
        In addition, the final rule defines prior converted cropland
    consistent with USDA's definition, and we are committed to partnering
    with USDA to ensure we implement the term clearly and consistently. To
    support this goal, EPA, USDA, and the Army issued a joint
    implementation memo upon publication of the final WOTUS rule to ensure
    that Federal wetland programs, including those that identify prior
    converted cropland, are administered in an efficient and effective
    manner.
        The Clean Water Act also provides the agricultural community with
    permitting exemptions that apply even in those circumstances where
    jurisdictional waters occur in agricultural areas. The statute itself
    identifies normal farming activities that do not require permits, and
    the definition of WOTUS does not change that. This includes many common
    activities like plowing, seeding, and minor drainage, as well as
    activities like the construction and maintenance of irrigation ditches,
    and maintenance of drainage ditches.
        EPA and the Army conducted extensive outreach to agricultural
    stakeholders throughout the rulemaking process, meeting with dozens of
    farm groups on this issue between the pre-proposal phase and public
    comment period in 2021-2022. In addition, EPA's Farm, Ranch and Rural
    Communities Federal Advisory Committee, which is made up of more than
    thirty farmers, ranchers, and agricultural stakeholders to provide
    independent policy advice to the Agency, submitted WOTUS
    recommendations in January 2022. This Committee's feedback was
    incorporated into the final rule in meaningful ways.
        During these outreach efforts, stakeholders often raised concerns
    about challenges pertaining to implementation of the definition of
    WOTUS rather than specifics of the regulatory text. In response, EPA
    and the Army convened WOTUS regional roundtables in the spring of 2022
    for a diverse range of stakeholders to provide the agencies with a
    better understanding of the various regional perspectives on
    implementation. The agricultural community was prominently represented
    throughout this process, and five of the ten roundtables were organized
    by agricultural organizations.
    Nutrients and Water Quality
        Nutrient pollution is a continuing and growing challenge with
    profound implications for public health, water quality, and the
    economy. Excess nutrients contribute to harmful algal blooms, areas of
    low oxygen known as ``dead zones,'' and high levels of nitrates that
    contaminate waters used for recreation, drinking water, wildlife, pets
    and livestock, and aquatic life--while also damaging the economy in
    many communities. Last year, EPA released a policy memorandum entitled,
    Accelerating Nutrient Pollution Reductions in the Nation's Waters. This
    memo reaffirms EPA's commitment to working with Federal partners, state
    agencies, farmers and ranchers, utilities, and other stakeholders to
    advance progress in reducing excess nutrients in our nation's waters.
        The framework includes several key strategies, the first of which
    is focused on deepening collaborative partnerships with agriculture.
    EPA will seek to expand upon our existing efforts with USDA, deepen
    partnerships with agricultural industry stakeholders, and highlight the
    work of those innovators who are demonstrating new models and
    approaches to reduce nutrient runoff.
        We also plan to champion innovative financing and use the full
    flexibility of the Clean Water Act regulatory framework to achieve our
    goals. This includes spurring development of more effective
    technologies, driving market-based approaches, and strengthening
    agriculture-water sector partnerships.
    PFAS
        Harmful per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are an urgent
    public health and environmental issue facing communities across the
    country. PFAS have been used for decades in a wide range of products
    and industries, persist in the environment, and pose risks to human
    health.
        The food supply in the United States is among the safest in the
    world. At the same time, we understand that PFAS contamination presents
    unique and complex challenges to farmers and ranchers. That's why EPA
    is working to bring all of its resources and authorities to bear to
    provide science-based solutions to protect public health, including our
    food and agricultural system.
        In October 2021, EPA released our PFAS Strategic Roadmap, which
    laid out plans to restore Federal leadership and advance key actions to
    safeguard public health, protect the environment, and hold polluters
    accountable that have manufactured and released significant amounts of
    PFAS into the environment. Recent actions include proposing to
    designate PFOA and PFOS as CERCLA hazardous substances and meeting with
    representatives from the agricultural community to discuss their views
    on the development of an enforcement discretion policy under CERCLA.
    EPA has also proposed a national drinking water standard for six PFAS
    substances, and we have begun distributing $10 billion in bipartisan
    infrastructure law funding to address emerging contaminants in water,
    including PFAS, much of which will provide critical investments for
    small, disadvantaged, and rural communities.
        We have also announced our commitment to finalize a risk assessment
    for PFOA and PFOS in biosolids by the end of 2024. The risk assessment
    is a comprehensive effort to determine the risks to human health and
    the environment based on exposure to PFOA and PFOS in biosolids,
    including the potential impacts on crops and grazing lands through land
    application. The Risk Assessment will help EPA determine what standards
    for biosolids, or other actions, may be necessary to mitigate those
    risks.
        In addition, Congress provided EPA with $8 million in the FY 2023
    omnibus appropriations bill to prioritize new Federal research that
    will help farmers, ranchers, and rural communities manage PFAS in
    agricultural settings. The Agency will work with USDA to invest in
    agronomic research to better understand PFAS uptake in plants and
    animals to reduce exposure in our food supply and promote farm
    viability.
        EPA is committed to working with our Federal and state partners and
    the agricultural community to ensure the continued safety of the food
    supply while protecting farmers, ranchers and their families from the
    potential risks of PFAS exposure.
    Rural Infrastructure
        I am proud of EPA's ongoing work to help rural water systems and
    communities. Thanks to the bipartisan infrastructure law, our Agency
    has a historic $43 billion to invest in our nation's water
    infrastructure through state revolving funds, and nearly \1/2\ of these
    dollars must go out as grants or forgivable loans to disadvantaged
    communities, which includes many rural communities. We're also
    providing more than $150 million in technical assistance grants over
    the next 5 years, and that includes dedicated resources to support
    rural communities.
        We know that an estimated 2.2 million people across the country
    lack basic running water and indoor plumbing in their homes. The
    bipartisan infrastructure law presents a historic opportunity to
    address this challenge. That's why EPA and USDA Rural Development are
    partnering with states, communities, and Tribes on a pilot program
    called ``Closing America's Wastewater Access Gap.'' EPA and USDA-RD
    will jointly leverage technical assistance resources to help
    historically underserved communities identify, and pursue, Federal
    funding opportunities to address their wastewater needs. This
    initiative will be piloted in Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, New
    Mexico, North Carolina, West Virginia, as well as in the Santo Domingo
    Pueblo in New Mexico and the San Carlos Apache Tribe in Arizona. The
    initiative will also provide a roadmap that can be scaled to additional
    communities across the country.
    Climate Change
        Finally, I was proud to announce last year that EPA has rechartered
    our longstanding Farm, Ranch and Rural Communities Federal Advisory
    Committee (FRRCC), which provides independent advice and
    recommendations to the Agency on environmental issues important to our
    agriculture and rural communities. I appointed nearly twenty new
    committee members and charged the committee with evaluating the
    Agency's policies and programs at the intersection of agriculture and
    climate change.
        For the next 2 years, the FRRCC will consider how EPA's tools and
    programs can best advance our nation's agriculture sector's climate
    mitigation and adaptation goals. By identifying and leveraging
    voluntary, incentive-based opportunities; public-private partnerships;
    and market-based approaches, EPA can support farmers and ranchers in
    their efforts to reduce emissions, sequester carbon, and accelerate a
    more resilient food and agriculture system.
    Conclusion
        EPA's mission is to protect human health and the environment, which
    is a responsibility I take very seriously. I believe this mission goes
    hand-in-hand with supporting American agriculture and rural
    communities. Clean water, clean air, and healthy soils are fundamental
    to the success of U.S. agriculture, and I believe we share a mutual
    commitment to science-based decision making and a desire to leave our
    planet better than we found it.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to visit with the Committee
    this morning. I look forward to answering your questions and learning
    how we can work together more effectively to create a thriving
    agricultural system that will meet the needs of our farmers and the
    needs of our nation, now and in the future.

        The Chairman. Well, thank you, Administrator Regan, really,
    for your important testimony today.
        At this time, Members will be recognized for questions in
    order of seniority, alternating between the Majority and
    Minority Members and in order of arrival for those who joined
    us after the hearing convened. You will be recognized for 5
    minutes each in order to allow us to get to as many questions
    as possible.
        And I will recognize myself for 5 minutes.
        Administrator Regan, the USDA Office of Pest Management
    Policy, OPMP, has experts who not only understand how EPA
    implements the pesticide registration and registration review
    process under FIFRA, but they also understand the agriculture
    industry and what mitigation measures can actually be
    implemented. However, the EPA has recently rejected or ignored
    recommendations from the Office of Pest Management Policy,
    providing uncertainty for producers. Administrator Regan, does
    EPA not value the input it receives from other Federal agencies
    like USDA?
        Mr. Regan. We absolutely do. We value the input we receive
    from staff, and I value my personal and professional
    relationship with Secretary Tom Vilsack. So we are working in
    very close coordination on a whole host of issues.
        The Chairman. Well, because your agency has frequently
    ignored input from USDA, Congress passed language last year
    that requires EPA to take into account feedback from USDA when
    developing mitigation measures as part of interim decisions.
    Administrator, how do you plan on following this language to
    ensure that USDA feedback is actually implemented in your
    decisions and not just with Secretary Vilsack; but, quite
    frankly, with the professionals that we have deployed within
    USDA that your staff should be consulting with?
        Mr. Regan. I can tell you that we are consulting with them,
    and we are taking that feedback into consideration since I have
    been there for the past 2 years, whether it is in my front
    office or throughout the agency with career staff. We are
    seeing constant engagement, constant meetings, co-hosting
    meetings with external stakeholders to be sure that we are
    getting all of the information to make the decisions we make.
        The Chairman. Well, I want to follow up with that with one
    more question in terms of: if you are doing that, and there are
    some that suspect that hasn't happened as effectively as it
    should in consultation, but how often are there individuals
    from the White House putting their thumb on the scale when it
    comes to issues, whether it was related to WOTUS, pesticides, a
    number of issues that just appear to be anti-farmer? I mean, in
    terms of the consultation, you talk about your relationship
    with Secretary Vilsack and professionals. How about contact
    from the White House? And who is having that influence?
        Mr. Regan. Well, I can say that the White House has
    delegated that authority to me. I am the regulator. I have been
    focused on designing these regulations. And as far as our
    regulations are concerned and our litigation strategies, I do
    those as the Administrator in consultation with Secretary
    Vilsack, and then we apprise the White House of when and how we
    are going to make these decisions. I, fortunately, have not had
    any fingers on the scale as it relates to doing the business of
    EPA when it relates to our agricultural practices.
        The Chairman. Well, it just feels like the White House is
    weighing in because we know your background. I appreciate your
    background. I appreciate you, and I think with your background,
    I know you would do the right things for the American farmer.
        So last November, EPA rejected Pennsylvania's revised
    Chesapeake Bay Watershed Implementation Plan, their WIP. With
    the 2025 deadline looming, EPA has continued to move forward
    with an impractical timeline for states to meet the targets
    across the six-state watershed. And given the scale of this
    restoration, we must be realistic about our goals and our
    timelines, and it is essential that the EPA works
    collaboratively with farmers, not punitively. But given that
    the targets are not going to be met before the deadline, do you
    think that timeline needs to be extended beyond 2025?
        Mr. Regan. Well, we definitely recognize that we are not
    going to meet that 2025 deadline, and so we've met and we are
    doing a recalibration of that 2025 goal. So we have made a lot
    of progress, but we also know that we have a long way to go.
    The decision to rethink how we accelerate momentum through 2025
    and beyond I believe will offer some relief to the agriculture
    community. So we are doing a reset. We are doing more
    engagement on how we meet this multi-state approach, and I feel
    good about the path forward.
        The Chairman. In the interim, does EPA intend to ramp up
    on-farm inspections over the coming year in the Chesapeake Bay
    region? If so, what can producers expect?
        Mr. Regan. No, I think what we have done is we have taken a
    step back as a multi-state workgroup, and we said that the 2025
    deadline is too hard to meet. There were some expectations that
    were set and some actions that had not been taken up until this
    point, so we need to recalibrate.
        The Chairman. All right. Thank you very much. My time has
    expired. And I am now pleased to recognize the Ranking Member
    for 5 minutes of questioning.
        Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Administrator Regan, I recently joined a bipartisan group of my
    House colleagues that is sending you a letter, which I would
    ask that we enter into the record, Mr. Chairman.
        [The letter referred to is located on p. 106.]
        The Chairman. Without objection.
        Mr. David Scott of Georgia. And this letter regards the
    Renewable Volume Obligations proposed by EPA for 2023 to 2025.
    As noted in the letter, the Energy Information Administration
    has projected a doubling of renewable diesel capacity by the
    year 2025. With EPA's proposed targets for biomass-based diesel
    accounting for less than ten percent of the volume increase
    estimated by EIA, how do you account for this divide? And can
    you commit to us setting blending targets, blending targets
    that will support the expected growth and promise of these
    industries?
        Mr. Regan. Well, thank you for the question, Congressman.
    Let me just say that in 2022 we set the highest volumes ever in
    EPA's history, so we are proud of that. What we plan to do is
    continue that trajectory. As you know, we proposed a rule, and
    so we are in that proposal phase, and there aren't too many
    things I can comment during this time of comment. But what I
    can say is 2023, 2024, and 2025 we will continue that positive
    trajectory. We are taking in a lot of comments on the role of
    biodiesel. We are taking a lot of comments in on these amounts,
    so we are taking a very close look at those. And I can assure
    you we have met with a number of stakeholders who have offered
    us a lot of new data, and we believe that will be reflected in
    the final rule.
        Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Thank you for that. Now, last
    week, you announced emission standards for new cars, and that
    announcement led to concerns from the biofuels industry and our
    farmers in regards to the Administration's view on the role
    biofuels have been playing and can continue to play in reducing
    emissions and powering our cars and trucks. So tell us, what
    would you say to our farmers and our domestic biofuels industry
    the role you see biofuels playing in the future?
        Mr. Regan. Well, I think we see a significant role. It is
    called walking and chewing gum at the same time. I think that
    when you look at the policies of this EPA and the investments
    that we are making in biofuels and advanced biofuels just by
    the last RVO volumes we set and the ones that we are
    anticipating setting and in the partnership that I have with
    Secretary Vilsack and Secretary Buttigieg as we look at the
    role of biofuels with aviation fuels, we see a tremendous
    market for biofuels that is complementary to the EV fuels
    future. So we think that we can do both. We see a balance here.
    And in both cases, we are trying to follow the markets, follow
    technology, and follow the science as well.
        Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Okay. Thank you for that. Now,
    Administrator Regan, where is EPA on the registration review
    process? Last Congress, when we passed PRIA 5, we extended the
    registration review process well into 2026. Do you think EPA is
    on track to meet this deadline?
        Mr. Regan. Well, I want to thank Congress for including the
    fifth reauthorization of PRIA in the 2023 omnibus bill (Pub. L.
    117-328, Division HH--Agriculture, Title VI--Pesticides). This
    has been extremely helpful, and we know that PRIA is critical
    to providing EPA with those resources. We are still digging out
    of the backlog. We are still digging out of some of these
    backlogs that we are seeing, so more staff would mean a more
    efficient process, and that is why you would see some of the
    requests that you have seen in our budget.
        Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Well, thank you for that,
    Administrator. And you are doing a wonderful job. And whenever
    I can be helpful, please call on me.
        Mr. Regan. Thank you.
        Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Thank you.
        Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia [presiding.] The chair now
    recognizes former Chairman Lucas for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Administrator Regan, as you are well aware, the work done
    at your agency, especially the IRIS assessments, often crosses
    committee jurisdictions and requires interagency collaboration
    and coordination. From my perch as Chairman of the House
    Science, Space, and Technology Committee, I have seen issues
    arise when the agency scientists at USDA and EPA are at odds, a
    primary example of EPA's action regarding chlorpyrifos uses
    when USDA's Office of Pest Management Policy provided your
    agency with evidence that certain uses could be retained to
    meet safety standards, but EPA chose to ignore that evidence.
        So I guess my first question is, in your written testimony,
    you spoke about your strong desire to work closely with the
    farming and ranching community to identify practical, science-
    based policies to protect the environment and ensure a vibrant
    and productive agricultural system. Can you explain then why
    the scientific expertise at USDA has been sidelined on this
    issue and on various others such as the atrazine mitigation
    measures, just to name a few, Administrator?
        Mr. Regan. Well, I will start with the chlorpyrifos because
    that is one that our agencies have talked quite a bit about.
    And I think what the constraint was is the court weighed in and
    said that they were fed up and frustrated with EPA's inaction,
    so they set a high bar and a timeline that was really hard to
    meet. And so I would argue that the difference between USDA and
    EPA on this instance isn't the science. It is how we had to
    apply what the court required for us to do. And they set a bar
    that was too high for us to meet in the time that they gave us
    using the science that we had. So we made the best decision
    that we can make with the science that we had to comply with
    the mandate from the court, which that mandate from this court
    was much different for chlorpyrifos than it has been for any
    other pesticide we have seen.
        Mr. Lucas. Because of your stated commitment to science-
    based decision-making in carrying out the mission of the EPA to
    protect human health and environment, do you believe--in a
    general sense I guess I am asking--that science and technology
    play a critical role at EPA and should be utilized by other
    Federal agencies?
        Mr. Regan. I do. I do believe science and technology play
    critical roles.
        Mr. Lucas. Do you think that every EPA Administrator now
    and in the future should place a high importance on science and
    technology activities of the agency?
        Mr. Regan. Absolutely. And I believe if that had been done
    in the past, we wouldn't have had 50 years of ignoring the ESA
    and this Administration would not find itself in the position
    that it is in.
        Mr. Lucas. Do you think that in your position, the
    Administrator, more frequently coming before secondary
    committees like you are doing today for Agriculture, would help
    better coordinate activities and shed light on the cross
    aspects of EPA's work?
        Mr. Regan. Any way we can be transparent, any way we can
    exchange information, I will raise my hand for that.
        Mr. Lucas. Well, having the privilege of being both a
    Member of the awesome Agriculture Committee and the Science,
    Space, and Technology Committee, where we are very focused on
    research and science in the future, I look forward to seeing
    you in front of the Science Committee. Matter of fact, we will
    get you the invitation fairly soon, and together, we will work
    on these issues and try to make sure that science is the
    predominant force when we make decisions.
        I respect the courts. I respect differences of opinion. But
    when the science is generated by people closer to the issue in
    the field and the use, I think we have to give them the benefit
    of the doubt.
        But again, thank you for being here today, Mr.
    Administrator. We are going to have a lot of good visits in the
    coming days, I am sure.
        I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Regan. Thank you.
        Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Lucas.
        The chair now recognizes Ms. Spanberger for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Spanberger. Thank you very much.
        Thank you, Administrator Regan, for joining us today, and
    thank you to the Chairman and to Ranking Member Scott for
    holding this hearing.
        Last week, I convened a farm bill summit in my district to
    hear directly from Virginia crop and livestock producers, farm
    groups, and conservation organizations about their priorities
    as we work to craft and advance the farm bill. We had more than
    100 people in attendance and heard from a wide range of
    commodities and perspectives. One topic that came up throughout
    the day was that conservation practices that producers and
    growers were choosing to implement on their operations. We also
    discussed the USDA conservation programs that Virginia
    producers utilize in order to make those investments in best
    management practices. Unfortunately, we also heard from some
    farmers who had been waiting for quite some time to gain access
    to these programs due to demand outpacing funding and workforce
    shortages at NRCS. I am proud that we have significantly
    increased funding for these oversubscribed voluntary
    conservation programs so that more producers like those that I
    represent can access them without the long wait times. We also
    need to look at how to strengthen the NRCS workforce and ensure
    boots are on the ground to implement these programs--and I will
    get off my soapbox on that--because we know that these programs
    are good for farmers' bottom lines, but they are also
    beneficial to water quality, which brings me to your visit here
    today.
        They are beneficial to water quality in their surrounding
    communities and watersheds, and much of Virginia is in the
    Chesapeake Bay watershed. And I am proud of the steps that we
    are taking as a region and as the Commonwealth to improve the
    health of the Chesapeake Bay. But there certainly is more work
    to be done.
        Can you share some of your insights on how investments in
    conservation through the farm bill, investments in conservation
    practices in the agriculture sector have and can continue to
    improve water quality in vulnerable bays, rivers, and estuaries
    such as the Chesapeake Bay. And certainly these waterways are
    such drivers of Virginia's economy. Sir?
        Mr. Regan. Well, thank you for that question, and I will
    say, over the past 40 years, EPA has invested more than $1.5
    billion through the Chesapeake Bay program. And thanks to the
    bipartisan infrastructure law (Pub. L. 117-58) recently, we are
    deploying an extra $238 million specifically to the Chesapeake
    Bay. It is because of the strong partnership with agriculture
    organizations in the watershed that we have really made a lot
    of progress and appreciate constructive engagement with farmers
    and agricultural organizations across the bay states, but
    especially in Virginia.
        I will give you an example. Just a few months ago, the
    Chesapeake Bay program awarded $500,000 in bill funds
    leveraging more than $1 million total to support Virginia dairy
    farmers. And this is focusing on implementing conservation
    plans and reducing nutrient runoff in partnership with the
    Maryland-Virginia Milk Producers Cooperative and the Virginia
    Department of Conservation and Recreation. So that is just one
    example of conservation in partnership not just with ag
    organizations in the state but with EPA.
        And USDA and EPA, we have established a new Federal Task
    Force on Crediting Chesapeake Bay Conservation Investments.
    This task force has and will continue to work on and identify
    more fully committing to how we recognize credit programs for
    farmers. So those are a couple of examples where conservation
    is playing a lead role, not regulation, and EPA's relationships
    with our states and our farmers are really ensuring that we see
    success there.
        Ms. Spanberger. And I appreciate you mentioning the dollar
    amount in terms of EPA funding that we were able to leverage
    for the benefit of communities. Certainly across Virginia, our
    aquaculture continues to grow. Our rivers and lakes are not
    only a source of great pride for Virginians but also major
    economic drivers. And as we are seeing a substantial growth in
    our oyster and aquaculture industries, making sure that we are
    bringing back the health of the bay and our rivers is a top
    priority for so many Virginians. So I thank you for
    highlighting the types of programs where EPA does join with
    USDA to ensure that investments and programs, again, voluntary
    programs to the benefit of, in your example, dairy producers
    can also have that downstream quite literally impact.
    Certainly, we know that farmers are the original
    conservationists, so I would just continue to encourage you--
    and I appreciate you are doing it, would love to see more of
    it--ensuring that farmers and producers are at the table when
    we are discussing environmental challenges, water cleanliness
    challenges in the portfolio of EPA. So thank you for your work,
    sir, and I yield back.
        Mr. Regan. Thank you.
        Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Thank you. I now recognize
    myself for 5 minutes.
        Administrator Regan, glad to see you here. If I understand
    your resume correctly, your father was an extension agent for
    somewhere around 30 years?
        Mr. Regan. Yes.
        Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. All right.
        Mr. Regan. Well, he was an extension agent around 14, and
    then the National Guard pulled him back into active duty.
        Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Oh, well, that might be even
    better. That means if you were wrong, you got corrected.
        Mr. Regan. Oh, absolutely.
        Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Educated both ways. That is
    awesome. Well, I have a tremendous amount of respect for our
    land-grant institutions and our extension agents, and I
    appreciate your comments about following the science because
    agriculture needs to follow the science. The farmers want to
    follow the science.
        I am concerned that when it gets to the courts that the
    science sometimes gets ignored, and decisions that should be
    made by Congress, by the agencies when they are determined in
    the courts, they end up being done in many cases without regard
    for the impact on production agriculture.
        And, as you know, I am from Georgia. You are from North
    Carolina, so many of our crops are going to be the same. The
    chemicals we use are the same. It has been mentioned before
    herbicides like glyphosate, Dicamba, atrazine, I mean, when we
    are going to use no-till or minimal-till, things that are
    actually very good for the environment, we have to have those
    chemicals or we can't use those growing practices. And, when
    those things are taken off of the market, it means that we have
    to burn a whole lot more diesel at a much higher cost to the
    farmer and, candidly, the environment.
        Mr. Regan. Yes.
        Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. And I just wonder if you could
    talk more about the importance of using herbicides and the fact
    that we need to be looking at all of the facts. When you take
    these herbicides off the market and you have to transit the
    field multiple times because you can't use herbicides so you
    are burning more diesel, you have to cut the dirt deeper with
    the bottom plow instead of using no-till, the damage that is
    being done to the environment simply by the courts not taking
    into account the impact on production agriculture and good
    environmental practices when they take these chemicals off the
    market.
        Mr. Regan. Thank you for that question. And I couldn't
    agree with you more. And we find ourselves slightly in a
    conundrum, which I would consider not necessarily a
    technicality, but because of a lack of incorporating the ESA
    into our decision-making, now we are all in this pressure
    cooker. I believe that our farmers should have every tool in
    the toolbox. And so there are a couple things we can do. I
    think the first thing is making sure that we are looking at the
    science and making sure that the science is correct. I also
    think that when we have situations like Dicamba, it is not
    about just ripping it off the market. It is about making sure
    that our farmers have the education so that we can avoid the
    overspray and having millions of dollars of crops disrupted
    because some farmers need that pesticide.
        But then there is this sort of lack of funding at EPA. We
    have so many new market entrants that are ready to hit the
    streets that could be tools for our farmers, but we haven't
    gotten them through our review process because we have too few
    employees to do so.
        So, yes, I think we can make sure we are applying the
    science correctly, don't artificially take products off the
    shelves, but then there are a lot of new products that farmers
    are ready to see and use that we need to get those out the door
    as well.
        Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. But in many cases it is the
    court that is issuing the ruling that defies logic. I mean,
    this isn't an EPA issue, but, I mean, if baby powder caused
    cancer, we would all have cancer, right? I mean, and yet we
    have courts issuing rulings that are taking products that we
    have all used--glyphosate is an example of one. I have used
    Roundup multiple times. If it caused cancer, I feel sure that I
    would have cancer, and I don't. So I am very worried about the
    courts not taking into account the science and the impact on
    production agriculture. And that is one of the things as we
    write the farm bill that maybe we can give some direction to
    the court on.
        That said, while I have you, before I go, I do want to
    mention one thing. It bothers me to see our forest lands being
    cut down and solar panels put up on it. I don't understand how
    that is a square deal for the environment or the taxpayer. And
    I can tell you in my area of the state, the solar subsidies are
    so high that they are paying 30 to 40 percent more than land is
    worth to anybody else, and then they are cutting down the
    forest and putting solar panels up on it. I do think that is
    something that if we are going to be honest about what is good
    for the environment, we have to be honest about what is good
    for wildlife and the watershed and everything as well, not just
    carbon. And that is something that any help from your
    Administration with making sure that those subsidies aren't so
    high and aren't able to be used to cut down forest land, I
    would appreciate it.
        My time has expired. I would now go to Ms. Caraveo from
    Colorado. Sorry.
        Ms. Caraveo. No, that is fine. Thank you. And thank you to
    Chairman Thompson and Ranking Member Scott for hosting our
    hearing this morning.
        Administrator Regan, thank you for being here to provide
    your testimony.
        I represent Colorado's leading producers of sugarbeets.
    Sugarbeet producers in my home state face serious economic
    losses and a big step backward in their sustainability
    achievements because of the aggressive invasive weed Palmer
    amaranth. There is currently no approved crop protection tool
    for use by sugarbeets for Palmer control registered in the
    United States. Colorado has asked for emergency use of a
    product registered in Europe, metamitron. As I mentioned, my
    sugarbeet producers in Colorado will be facing serious economic
    losses and harm to soil health if this solution is not
    approved.
        So, Mr. Administrator, I was wondering, what is the EPA's
    timeline for getting a product into the hands of farmers in my
    state to mitigate this emergency?
        Mr. Regan. Well, thank you for that question, and I want to
    be sure to say that we understand the sense of urgency. Our
    team has been working on that, and we received the request for
    a section 18 emergency exemption for sugarbeets. We are still
    evaluating the safety of the product, metamitron, I believe
    that is the term, and it appears to me that it is more
    realistic based on the process that it will be 2024. We will
    work hard for 2023, but I think this conversation is
    instructive of the amount of litigation we have faced by short-
    circuiting some of these processes that has come back to haunt
    us.
        Ms. Caraveo. And given that you mentioned section 18, which
    currently authorizes the EPA to allow emergency exceptions for
    unregistered uses of pesticides to address emergency conditions
    such as this one, keeping in mind safety still--and that our
    farmers are still waiting--are there any new authorities that
    the EPA needs to address emergencies in a more timely manner?
        Mr. Regan. Let me take that question back to my staff, and
    I will pose that question. I can tell you, and you will see
    this reflected in our budget, I think the biggest thing that we
    need right now are resources for staff. We have a staff that is
    reflective of the 1980s and 1990s. It is just not competitive
    in the 21st century, especially when we look at pesticides and
    herbicides. And so we just need the bodies, the scientists, the
    engineers, the folks in our office that can screen these new
    products so that we can get them in the market. We want to do
    that. We have talked with a lot of people in the farming
    community. They want that, too, which is why they are
    advocating for a stronger EPA budget in this specific division.
        Ms. Caraveo. Thank you. And I certainly understand the need
    for the people and the bodies there to make sure that things
    are safe but also that we are addressing the needs in
    agriculture.
        Another issue that I wanted to touch on was the Pesticide
    Registration Improvement Act of 2022, which requires EPA to
    develop and implement a Vector Expedited Review Voucher program
    to incentivize the development of novel tools and crop-
    protecting pesticides to manage mosquitoes that transmit
    diseases such as malaria, dengue, Zika, and yellow fever. I can
    tell you when I was studying in medical school, we learned
    about these diseases as something that happened in other
    countries, not things that were going to affect the United
    States. But with mosquitoes becoming resistant to current
    pesticides and the fact that we are seeing these diseases now
    in areas where they have not been seen before, I am very
    concerned about insect-borne diseases from a public health
    perspective. So what steps is EPA taking to ensure that the
    statutory deadline of December 29, 2023, for developing and
    implementing this program is being met?
        Mr. Regan. On that specific program, I will have to have
    staff get back to you on that in terms of the specific
    timeline. I know our staff is working hard and diligently on
    it, but I want to give you a solid answer for that one.
        Ms. Caraveo. I appreciate that, Mr. Administrator, and
    thank you for everything that you do. I yield back my time.
        Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. The chair now recognizes Mr.
    DesJarlais for 5 minutes.
        Mr. DesJarlais. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Administrator Regan, thank you so much for being here
    today, very important topics, as we all know.
        The new EPA and Army Corps of Engineers WOTUS rule scales
    back the 2020 navigable waters rule exclusion for prior
    converted croplands (PCC). Was USDA consulted on this change?
        Mr. Regan. Yes, we consulted with USDA on the entirety of
    the rule.
        Mr. DesJarlais. How might this change impact landowners
    when PCC determinations are being made?
        Mr. Regan. Well, number one, I will say this. I will say
    that the navigable waters rule that existed prior to this
    Administration was vacated by multiple courts, so we were going
    back and starting over not from the Obama rule or the prior
    Trump rule but pre-2015. And so what we have done is we
    codified. We worked with USDA, and we created and clarified
    exclusions to support farmers, worked directly with USDA on
    exclusions for prior converted croplands, certain ditches that
    drain drylands, certain swales and erosional features, certain
    artificially irrigated areas, and certain artificial lakes and
    ponds. So we went back and we wanted to codify exclusions and
    exemptions within the regulatory text, and that is what we did
    in this rule.
        Mr. DesJarlais. Okay. Well, it is expected that the Supreme
    Court in coming months will rule on the pending Sackett v. EPA
    case, which could have significant ramifications on the
    determinations of Waters of the U.S.  What was the rationale
    for EPA moving forward with this new WOTUS rule before the
    Supreme Court rules on the Sackett case?
        Mr. Regan. I say two reasons. The first is the looming
    litigation for not having an updated rule because the previous
    rule was vacated. Second, we learned from the navigable waters
    rule and the Obama rule. What we did was we put a more narrow
    definition of navigable waters rule that we thought would
    thread the needle. And then we went and we codified all of
    these exclusions and exemptions. We will respect the Supreme
    Court's ruling obviously. What we didn't want to do was face
    litigation for not acting for 2 years and then start from
    scratch once we got the Sackett ruling.
        Mr. DesJarlais. Okay. Farmers and ranchers in my State of
    Tennessee and many other states continue to be extremely
    concerned that the new WOTUS rule greatly expands the Federal
    Government's jurisdictional reach far beyond the limits that
    Congress intended under the Clean Water Act. I have also heard
    that the exemptions, particularly the prior converted cropland
    exclusion, are incredibly confusing and difficult to apply. The
    agency has said the changes they made are to keep the
    understanding of PCC consistent with how it is used under the
    Swampbuster Program.
        EPA has adopted USDA's change and use policy, and
    unfortunately, it has come to my attention that when
    stakeholders asked EPA and the court to clarify its meaning,
    they were provided conflicting answers. EPA stated that a
    farmer could change the use of their land and keep their PCC
    status as long as wetland characteristics had not returned.
    However, the Army Corps asserted that a farmer will lose their
    PCC status if they change the use of the land out of the
    agriculture production, regardless of returning wetland
    characteristics.
        It is incredible that two government agencies are reading
    identical language and coming up with two different
    conclusions. So with that in mind, can you tell me how you
    think the PCC change in use policy is workable for the farmers?
        Mr. Regan. Well, I might be biased, but I would say I am
    right, and I think Secretary Vilsack agrees with me. So I will
    take this back to the Army Corps, to the highest levels, and we
    will see if we can reconcile why we are getting different
    definitions on the ground.
        [The information referred to is located on p. 113.]
        Mr. DesJarlais. A lot of people would appreciate if you
    could clarify that, so I thank you for that.
        Mr. Regan. Absolutely.
        Mr. DesJarlais. And, additionally, how is a farmer supposed
    to use the exemption when they--well, you kind of already
    answered that question on the conflicting interpretation, so I
    will look forward to your response on that if you can get back
    to me. And I will yield back my time.
        Mr. Regan. Okay.
        Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. The chair now recognizes Ms.
    Salinas for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Salinas. Thank you. And thank you to Chairman Thompson
    and Ranking Member Scott for holding today's hearing. And thank
    you, Administrator Regan, for coming before our Committee.
        In your testimony you detailed a pilot program called
    Closing America's Wastewater Access Gap aimed at providing
    technical assistance resources to help historically underserved
    communities identify and pursue Federal funding opportunities
    to address their wastewater needs. And I can tell you, I have a
    number of them in my district and in various communities around
    the district, so I am very interested in this kind of technical
    assistance that agencies can provide to rural communities. My
    district in Oregon encompasses many small specialty crop farms
    and rural communities, and many of the ag stakeholders I have
    met with don't have the extensive resources required to learn
    about and access USDA and EPA opportunities. A hazelnut farm,
    for example, doesn't have a team of lawyers or grant writers to
    wade through the various complexities of some of these
    programs.
        So can you outline how technical assistance programs like
    the one you highlighted have benefited rural and underserved
    stakeholders and what the potential could look like for
    additional technical assistance? And how should this Committee
    help give you the tools to really bolster some of this
    technical assistance, especially when it comes to the
    bipartisan infrastructure law and Inflation Reduction Act and
    get these dollars to where they are needed most?
        Mr. Regan. Well, thank you for the question. And both
    Secretary Vilsack and I recognize that there were different
    kinds of technical assistance needed on the ground. We wanted
    to maximize the dollars we received from the bill, so we
    created a joint program that has provided technical assistance
    from both EPA and USDA. We have chosen 11 pilot areas. And so
    right now in real time we have 11 pilot communities from
    Mississippi to New Mexico, North Carolina to Alabama, Kentucky
    to West Virginia and Arizona to provide a roadmap for how we
    scale up unified technical assistance. We believe that it is a
    lot more than just building capacity and giving folks access to
    grant writing, but it is some of that expertise that needs to
    be applied to that technical assistance along with these
    dollars.
        And so this is an area that we would love for you all to
    pay close attention to because we have these pilots going. I
    think we launched them 3 or 4 months ago, and we are going to
    start seeing some results, so we want to codify those results
    and export that all over the country.
        Ms. Salinas. Thank you. Additionally--and I am shifting a
    little bit--as stewards of the land, farmers have an immense
    role to play in addressing the climate crisis. Measures taken
    by farmers to sequester greenhouse gas emissions will benefit
    the environment and their pocketbooks if we structure Federal
    incentives and programs successfully. One important step is
    measuring and understanding all the benefits of various on-farm
    practices like the use of cover crops. How is EPA engaged with
    the USDA and other Federal agencies to actually collect data on
    emissions from ag and soil and plant and carbon sequestration?
    And is EPA providing assistance to USDA on how to measure,
    report, and verify ag-related emissions reductions?
        Mr. Regan. We are. I think we have a really strong
    relationship there I would say. For the past 30 or so years, we
    have overseen the task of preparing the official U.S.
    Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks Inventory, and that is a
    commitment under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.
    So this includes chapters on agriculture and land use. This is
    an area where our staff, in concert with the USDA, are looking
    at the metrics, the data, and the like and pulling that into
    this overall framework.
        Listen, we believe that our farmers and our
    conservationists need to be rewarded for actions that they are
    already taking. And the best way for us to do that is to begin
    to codify that and understand what is happening and then
    exclude them from some of the regulatory actions that we are
    thinking about because they are already ahead of the game.
        Ms. Salinas. Great, thank you. And I yield back.
        Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. The chair now recognizes Mr.
    LaMalfa for 5 minutes.
        Mr. LaMalfa. Exclude them from regulatory actions you are
    thinking about as good behavior, huh? Well, welcome,
    Administrator Regan. I have been very perplexed by some of the
    actions EPA has taken especially in my area in northern
    California in concert with the Army Corps of Engineers on land
    use and reinterpretation of Clean Water Act and long-standing,
    and the intention of Congress when the Clean Water Act, Clean
    Air Act (Pub. L. 88-206), Endangered Species Act (Pub. L. 93-
    205) were initially passed.
        But I am going to shift gears from that to forestry here
    that I want to talk about in Committee today. We are very
    concerned that the usage of fire retardant--and this is the
    material that aircraft have been using for years and upgrading
    in different formulas, but currently, a formula that works very
    well and has been seen as safe for the environment that your
    department is working towards requiring a 2 to 3 year process
    to develop a permit for continued use of this fire retardant.
    Again, this is the pinkish, reddish stuff that the aircraft
    apply towards forest fires to prevent the spread of them in
    California during a fire.
        I just cannot imagine how taking this tool away upon the
    millions of acres we are burning every year, especially in the
    West, is going to be a good idea while we wait for a brand-new
    process to relitigate whether this is a good material. It would
    require states to now have to step forward with their own
    permits and take even more time to add to the process. If we
    don't have this tool, what tool are we going to use in its
    place? Just straight water or put more people's lives on the
    ground in danger in trying to do hand work around these fires?
    So, Mr. Administrator, what plan does EPA have to ensure the
    continued use of this fire retardant at least in the interim
    while it is being hashed out whether a permit is going to be
    needed in the future every time there is a fire?
        Mr. Regan. I appreciate the question. I would like to make
    it clear that a lawsuit was filed against the Forest Service
    for the discontinued use of that tool, so it is not something
    that the EPA decided to do upon its own volition. Upon
    understanding that the Forest Service was being litigated,
    Secretary Vilsack and I put our heads together, and we have an
    agreement in place that will allow for the continuation of this
    fire retardant until we can put in place a Clean Water Act
    permit that would basically bolster the Forest Service from
    litigation. So we have a plan in place that we believe we can
    do that is guided by the law and will not interrupt protecting
    the communities and our forests and our wildlife from
    wildfires.
        Mr. LaMalfa. So you guarantee, along with Secretary
    Vilsack, that there will not be an interruption, a hiccup in
    the availability of the use of this material during the interim
    time between now, as fire season approaches, and when this
    permit process is put in place?
        Mr. Regan. We have already got the agreement in place.
        Mr. LaMalfa. Okay. Very good. I appreciate that because
    what we are talking about is there is already a prescription
    that this material would not be applied within a 300 or larger
    buffer around certain deemed critical areas, streams, ponds,
    like that. And the track record for not getting it into these
    areas, let alone into standing water, has been very tremendous.
    These aircraft are guided by pilot planes and such, so the
    track record is good. And this stuff is basically fertilizer
    as-is, so we cannot afford to lose this tool.
        When we are talking also about forest management,
    prescribed fire has been in the past historically a good tool.
    It needs to be used correctly. It needs to be used in the right
    conditions, right weather, et cetera, but what we are looking
    at is that a possible rule change by the agency is going to
    further enforce particulate matter 2.5 microns and hinder the
    Forest Service, state agencies', Tribes', private landowners'
    ability to use this tool prescribed fire would be. So what is
    the intention of the agency to enforce PM2.5 and
    make it maybe impossible to use fire?
        Mr. Regan. Well, we are looking at PM2.5
    standard to be sure that we are protecting public health all
    over the country. I think that when you think about how
    PM2.5 and prescribed burning and wildfires interact,
    we have something in this program called an exceptional events
    clause. And as we take comment on this new rule, not only does
    prescribed burning qualify in this exceptional events clause,
    but we are actually taking comment on how we can improve----
        Mr. LaMalfa. So my time is really short. So all prescribed
    fire could be used as this exception? Because it is
    extraordinary when I had a million-acre fire in my district,
    the Dixie Fire, that the plume went all the way across the
    country and reached the East Coast, and large cities were told
    they could not go outside due to health reasons.
        Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. The gentlemen's time has
    expired.
        Mr. LaMalfa. So that is extraordinary----
        Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Administrator, would you like
    to make a quick comment on that quickly?
        Mr. Regan. I will say that we understand the transport of
    pollution, but prescribed fires are necessary and predictable,
    so there are exceptional events that will qualify for that and
    would account for the amount of pollution we are taking a look
    at and how to take preventive measures to keep people safe.
        Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Administrator.
        Before I recognize Mr. Davis, I want to give you the order.
    Unless somebody comes back, it will be Davis, Pingree, and
    Bishop on the Democratic side, and on the Republican side, it
    will be Rouzer, Bacon, and Johnson just so people are prepared
    for that.
        Mr. Davis, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Davis of North Carolina. Thank you so much. And to the
    Chairman and to our Ranking Member, we appreciate you having us
    here.
        Good morning, and thank you, Mr. Administrator Regan, for
    coming to the House Agriculture Committee today. And I believe
    the last time we did it, it may have been on Jones Street.
        Mr. Regan. That is right.
        Mr. Davis of North Carolina. But it is definitely good to
    see you. I am glad to have a fellow North Carolinian join us
    today and one who definitely knows eastern North Carolina and
    my home district so well.
        Mr. Regan. Thank you.
        Mr. Davis of North Carolina. Last month, the Environmental
    Protection Agency published new proposed rules that will
    severely limit levels of PFAS permissible in drinking water.
    PFAS in drinking water is a major issue, as I know you
    understand, across North Carolina. In late 2022 the North
    Carolina Department of Environmental Quality tested various
    county municipal water systems and found that five counties in
    the first district had PFAS levels above the minimum reporting
    level indicated in the 2022 EPA interim health advisory.
        Mr. Administrator, I must imagine you are working with NC
    DEQ. I just so happen to have been on flights with the
    Secretary back and forth coming here to D.C. But my question is
    what is the EPA doing to support NC DEQ and local eastern North
    Carolina communities to try to monitor PFAS levels in drinking
    water to ensure that PFAS levels do not continue to increase to
    an astronomical level that puts the health of constituents at
    risk?
        Mr. Regan. Absolutely. Well, thank you for that question.
    And you and I both know we have dealt with this with Chemours
    and contamination of our precious Cape Fear River. I had
    specifically in mind small rural communities like the ones we
    grew up in when we designed this regulation. And so it is out
    in the proposal phase now, but the good news is we are setting
    these standards at a level that are protective of public
    health. But in addition to that regulation, I also had in the
    back of my mind that President Biden's partnership with
    Congress gave us $10 billion in resources to focus on PFAS and
    emerging contaminants. So we plan to distribute those resources
    out so that water utilities are prepared to tackle this
    problem.
        More importantly, I think $3-$5 billion of that is
    specifically targeted for small rural utilities. And so what we
    want to do is we want to be sure that we have health standards
    that are protective, but we also want to have state and Federal
    resources that we are going to cobble together to help these
    systems get through this tough time.
        Mr. Davis of North Carolina. Great, thank you. And just a
    quick follow-up along the lines of the PFAS and if you could
    just elaborate a little bit more here, and that is as EPA
    currently understands, does high PFAS levels in water systems
    that farmers are using pose risk to consumers of those
    commodities?
        Mr. Regan. Yes, we believe that levels of PFAS that exceed
    certain limits that are scientifically supportable can cause
    longer-term damage. And so it is an issue that is long overdue
    in terms of this country addressing it, and it is
    unfortunately, not just North Carolina. It is West Virginia, it
    is Ohio, it is New Mexico, Nevada. And so this is a serious
    issue for our country. But I will say that this Administration
    is the first Administration to ever set a drinking water
    standard for PFAS. And we are not just doing it for two, we are
    looking at six. And we have more to go. So we want to be
    cognizant that as we set these limits, we are protecting public
    health, but we are also taking a very strong look at the
    implications to agriculture and to our water systems. And so we
    want to be very thoughtful as we pursue this path.
        Mr. Davis of North Carolina. Super. And obviously, you have
    made investments here. EPA is making those investments. And
    what we also understand, too, is prioritizing new Federal
    research to help farmers, ranchers, rural communities manage
    PFAS. My question is, coming from eastern North Carolina and
    having attended an HBCU yourself, NC A&T, is the EPA and USDA
    planning to prioritize HBCUs in this process? And I would say,
    as you answer this question, I knew you grew up in Goldsboro,
    worked on the farm there, so I appreciate you. And we worked
    right down the street essentially from each other, but thanks
    for all you are doing.
        Mr. Regan. That is right.
        Mr. Davis of North Carolina. But I would love to hear your
    contributions or interest in HBCUs.
        Mr. Regan. Well, I think I heard someone earlier say an
    appreciation for land-grant institutions. North Carolina
    Agricultural and Technical State University is where I
    graduated from, and yes, we are going to be sure that
    universities that have not had a seat at the table can join the
    table. We have world-class research organizations that are
    embedded in communities, rural, low-income, African American
    communities that need to participate in the science and
    research, so we are going to be sure that they are a part of
    the plan.
        Mr. Davis of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I would say
    either eastern North Carolina pride or Aggie pride, but I yield
    back.
        Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Well, and I would just tell
    you that Fort Valley State University will be expecting a seat
    at the table.
        Mr. Rouzer is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Rouzer. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Mr. Regan,
    Administrator, great to see you. Always good to have you here
    and especially appreciate you being here today, and glad my
    colleague on the other side of the aisle addressed the PFAS
    issue. I do appreciate all the work that EPA has done on that
    front.
        I want to talk a little bit about the broader issue here,
    and it is not just for EPA but all Federal Government agencies,
    quite honestly. And that is, we tend to get buried in our
    silos, but in the meantime, we have to understand that we are
    competing in a very global environment. In China, for example,
    if they want to build a canal, they just go and build a canal.
    They don't worry about endangered species. They don't worry
    about any other product that may be polluting the environment.
    They just go do it. Obviously, they are not only a competitor,
    China is our main adversary, probably for years to come. And so
    I think it is important for all of our agencies, whether it is
    issuing new rules or regulations or whatever it may be, to take
    into account the effect of those as it relates to our standing
    and our ability to meet the challenges ahead.
        Which brings me to some of the actions of EPA. So in
    November of 2022 the EPA released Proposed Interim Decisions
    for 11 rodenticides, including classifying most of them as
    restricted use. In June 2020, the EPA announced proposed
    revisions to the 2020 Proposed Interim Decision for atrazine
    that included a picklist of mitigation measures that producers
    would be required to implement when using it. January 11, 2022,
    the EPA announced a new policy for evaluating and registering
    new active ingredients in conventional pesticides. January
    2022, the EPA announced the reregistration of Enlist One and
    Enlist Duo that included use restrictions impacting more than
    200 counties. And the recent ESA workplan proposed numerous
    mitigation measures that growers would be required to implement
    when using pesticides, costing producers millions at a time.
    Now, instead of strengthening the toolkit of our farm families,
    we are creating barriers to production, cutting off necessary
    pest and disease prevention tools.
        I think it is one thing to look at these in a vacuum, but I
    think today's time requires that we think beyond our agencies
    and beyond our narrow scope of focus and realize that we are in
    a very intense, sensitive, and competitive situation worldwide.
    And our rules and regulations need to take that into account.
    So that is my comment on that.
        Adding to that, fertilizer, China and Russia are the top
    two fertilizer producing countries in the world. Now, millions
    of dollars have been awarded through USDA grants to expand
    domestic fertilizer production, but our country has been put in
    an economic disadvantage due to the overly burdensome
    regulatory environment that results in these expansions rather
    than happening now, they are happening 7, 10 years from now, if
    then. And this all includes the overly complicated regulatory
    programs governing the reuse of phosphogypsum.
        So, Mr. Administrator, what is the Administration, in your
    agency, doing to provide some regulatory certainty that would
    encourage the investment of billions of dollars to increase the
    amount of domestic fertilizer supply in the U.S.?
        Mr. Regan. Well, thank you for that question, and I will
    say that on the first part of that I do agree with you that we
    are not looking at these in silos but looking at them
    holistically. So what we are doing there is on the heels of
    litigation as we propose using these pesticides and herbicides
    differently or removing them from the market. We are in strong
    consultation with USDA and all of our ag communities. We
    recognize that we are inhibiting efficiency if we don't move as
    quickly as we can. And I hate to say the courts have such a
    significant role here, but they do. I think when we look at
    phosphogypsum, this is something that, again, our staffs are
    working hand in hand, arm and arm in. And the one thing that
    really sort of differentiates the way the Secretary and I
    approach this is we both have agreed that USDA has a job and
    laws that oversees it. I have a job and laws that oversees me.
    And we try to work within reason with each other. But one of
    us, based on our program, is going to be the one that appears
    before the judge. And so we work hard together, and then we
    sort of defer to the other on how to navigate those legal
    hurdles that we both face.
        Mr. Rouzer. Mr. Chairman, I see my time has expired.
        Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Yes, sir. The chair now
    recognizes Mr. Vasquez for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Vasquez. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
        Administrator Regan, thank you for attending today's
    critically important hearing. I am here today because I believe
    my constituents, like those of my colleagues, deserve to have
    clean air and safe drinking water. It is a basic human right.
        New Mexico's six National Forests and millions of acres of
    land managed by the BLM, over 25,000 farmers and ranchers, are
    hugely important engines that power our state's economy.
    However, I am concerned about the presence of these harmful
    chemicals found in New Mexico's farms, in our watersheds, in
    our drinking water, and, most recently, in our military
    installations. Just last year, a dairy farmer in New Mexico
    made national news after it was discovered that his dairy herd
    had been contaminated by PFAS from a nearby military base and
    was forced to euthanize nearly 4,000 cattle. That is a life-
    altering catastrophe for a rural farmer in my district.
        A 2018 report by the Air Force concluded that PFAS at
    Holloman Air Force Base, also in my district, the groundwater
    there was found to have exceeded 18,000 times the lifetime
    recommended exposure levels set by the EPA. Again, that is
    18,000 times the recommended level. The health of my
    constituents and agricultural sector alike are of paramount
    importance to my district, especially when PFAS has been linked
    to various chronic disorders and illnesses.
        Administrator Regan, how is the EPA working with the
    Department of Defense to ensure that drinking water is safe for
    constituents like mine and free from the forever chemicals such
    as PFAS?
        Mr. Regan. Well, thank you for that question. And, this is
    interesting. I think the President said from day 1 he expected
    all of us to work together. And fortunately, whether it is USDA
    or DOD, I have people who want to work with EPA.
        Secretary Austin and I have been focused on this from the
    very beginning. There are two tacks that we're taking. The
    first is setting the drinking water standard, which I will be
    honest with you required a lot of consultation between USDA,
    EPA, and DOD. And so we proposed that drinking water standard.
    Now what we have working through the interagency process are
    the cleanup levels of these PFAS contaminants. And so that is
    going through the interagency process. I think that we know
    that many of our lands have been contaminated. I want to be
    clear, we are not going after the farmers. We are not going
    after agriculture. We are not going after the water utilities.
    We are going after those who pollute the lands.
        Mr. Vasquez. Thank you, Administrator. I appreciate that.
    In communities like mine such as the City of Las Cruces that
    have dealt both with the EPA and the Department of Defense
    oftentimes having communication between the two agencies to
    reach settlements with the respective municipalities or in some
    cases small towns, mutual domestic water associations, rural
    co-ops has been difficult as we don't receive the same
    information from each agency. So I encourage EPA to work as
    close as possible with the Department of Defense in these rural
    areas when it comes to water contamination issues.
        Mr. Regan. And I can tell you Secretary Austin is committed
    to this. We have had a lot of conversations about this topic,
    the impacts to not only our soldiers during active duty but
    they usually retire in the communities where these bases
    reside. There is impact to morale and a lot of things to think
    about. So Secretary Austin is laser focused on this, I can
    assure you of that.
        Mr. Vasquez. Thank you, Administrator. And, as you know,
    water is the lifeblood in the Southwest, certainly in New
    Mexico. We have rising temperatures, coupled with record
    drought and water shortages that have made water more valuable
    than ever. Eighty-seven percent of our water supply in our
    state comes from our groundwater, and severe declines in
    groundwater have forced us to rely highly on dwindling supply
    of surface water. Just recently, New Mexico State University
    was selected by the EPA as a grant recipient of funding for the
    Environmental Justice Technical Assistance Center. This $10
    million funding, which we are very grateful for, is a critical
    step forward to providing assistance to underserved
    communities, especially those in remote areas, to help secure
    water resources for the future.
        Administrator, how specifically will these centers like
    this one at New Mexico State University help constituents and
    rural communities and in Tribal communities ensure access to
    safe drinking water?
        Mr. Regan. Well, $177 million is going to 17 of these
    centers all across the country to help with our rural, our low-
    income, our Black and Brown communities have access to these
    resources. I think communities understand themselves much
    better than the Federal Government does, so what we have done
    is we have given these resources to well-established
    organizations that know how to connect with grassroots. And it
    will be distributing knowledge, as well as resources to build
    capacity so that these communities are competitive for the $3
    billion in the Inflation Reduction Act that are geared towards
    environmental justice and equity.
        Mr. Vasquez. Thank you, Administrator. And one last
    question. How will you define success for these technical
    centers?
        Mr. Regan. I am sorry?
        Mr. Vasquez. How will you define success for these
    technical centers?
        Mr. Regan. I think success will be having multiple
    grassroots organizations have the resources, and we see the
    kinds of solutions that we need to see that really encourage
    job growth, the economy, clean environments, but also solutions
    that can be exported all over the country. Communities, they
    know their people better than we do, and there are solutions
    that are in these communities that we have to tap into.
        Mr. Vasquez. Thank you, Administrator.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
        Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. The chair now recognizes Mr.
    Bacon for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Bacon. Thank you, Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Regan, for
    being here. We appreciate hearing your testimony.
        I want to be respectful but candid with you right up front
    on the WOTUS ruling. I have heard from our farmers and ranchers
    anger at this Administration for reinstating this rule. When I
    ran in 2016 as a challenger, that was the number one concern I
    heard from farmers and ranchers was we need to get rid of the
    WOTUS rule and the way it was being enacted.
        The 115th Congress we were able to rescind the rule, much
    to the appreciation of our farmers and ranchers. Now in this
    Administration it is being reinstated. I heard from the
    President of the Farm Bureau saying that the rule is impossible
    to interpret, that farmers and ranchers don't know what it
    really means. And so I just wanted to be straight and candid
    with you. There is anger. I think any goodwill that this
    Administration had built with farmers and ranchers, it is gone
    with this ruling. This is a kick to the gut as some of them
    have told me.
        With that, I want to ask you about some of the type of
    projects you are working on in Omaha. As you are most likely
    aware, in Omaha we have one of the largest residential
    superfund sites in the United States as a result of a former
    smelting facility that was there. We appreciate EPA's $30
    million investment recently to address testing and remediation
    of the lead contamination in our district.
        There is another superfund site in my district in Valley,
    Nebraska, that has been added to the national priority list due
    to concentrations of TCE (trichloroethylene) found in the
    groundwater. It is my understanding that EPA has been
    conducting investigations on this site since 2019, so for 4
    years, but I have not been aware of any actions actually being
    taken by EPA to date other than these investigations. Can you
    provide any update on the current status on these
    investigations? And, additionally, is anything being done
    agency-wide at EPA to streamline this investigation process so
    we can get to remediation and get the work done? Thank you.
        Mr. Regan. I appreciate that question, and I'll have to get
    back to you on the specifics of the investigation.\1\ I do know
    that EPA and the City of Omaha renewed the cooperative
    agreement for 7 additional years with $12.7 million in funding.
    We also have a cooperative agreement with Douglas County Health
    Department, and in 2023 celebrated the renewal of an agreement
    for an additional 7 years, $29 million in funding.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Editor's note: the information referred to is located on p.
    113.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        That is what I know about that relationship there, but the
    investigation, I will have to get back to you on that one.
        Mr. Bacon. So, for your team, it is in Valley, Nebraska. It
    is on the western part of our district, and the investigation
    has gone on for 4 years. And obviously, we want to start taking
    action and doing cleanup.
        So with that, thank you. I yield back.
        Mr. Regan. Thank you.
        Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. The chair now recognizes Ms.
    Pingree.
        Ms. Pingree. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Sorry about
    that. I shouldn't touch the technical equipment.
        Thank you very much, Mr. Administrator. It is wonderful to
    see you, and I very much appreciate you taking the time with
    this Committee and the work that you are doing.
        I want to talk a little bit more about PFAS. I know it has
    already come up today, and I appreciate the work the EPA has
    done on the drinking water standard. That is a really important
    thing to achieve. But you and I have had a chance to talk
    before about the issues related to PFAS contamination on farms.
    And in Maine we have unfortunately learned way too much about
    this, particularly related to the spread of biosolids on farms,
    resulting in PFAS contamination that is in crops, humans living
    on the property, and animals eating those crops. I have had
    opportunities to talk with Secretary Vilsack about this and
    what resources are needed at the USDA to help address PFAS
    contamination. And he emphasized the need for further research.
        As you know, we were able to put $8 million into the Fiscal
    Year 2023 Interior appropriations bill for EPA to work with
    USDA on the research impacts on PFAS and agriculture, including
    PFAS uptake on plants and animals. And it just seems like there
    is a lot we don't know. So can you update us a little bit about
    the status of the research, where you think it is headed, and
    what else can we do to help the EPA on this?
        Mr. Regan. Well, thank you for that question, and thank you
    for your leadership in helping us to get that $8 million in
    2023.
        So we are working with USDA to fund research to better
    understand PFAS uptake in the plants and animals. I would like
    to say though, and I think Secretary Vilsack and I both agree
    that America has the safest food supply in the world, and we
    are confident in that. But we do need to have more research, as
    we have all thought about. And so at EPA, our Office of
    Research and Development intends to award one or more
    competitive research grants and has recently started the
    planning process for the request for applications phase. So we
    intend to work really, really closely with the interagency PFAS
    Research and Development Working Group, also called our PFAS
    Strategy Team, so that we can coordinate as a whole-of-
    government family, not just with myself and Secretary Vilsack
    but the President has convened a number of cabinets to do so.
    This $8 million is going to go a long way, and it is going to
    laser focus our research and development staff to do exactly
    what you envisioned.
        Ms. Pingree. Great. That is wonderful to hear. And I do
    appreciate you mentioning earlier the DOD because, as we know,
    and we have heard from some of my colleagues, that near DOD
    sites are also where some of this contamination is found. And I
    do want to agree with you. We have a very safe food supply in
    this country, and I hate it when this kind of chemical
    contamination happens, yet we don't know enough about it to
    help determine for farmers what is safe. And for consumers, we
    don't want them to be frightened about all sites.
        On a somewhat different tack just talking a little bit
    about climate change and agriculture, and this Committee has
    done a lot of work on the soil health, climate-friendly
    agriculture, and certainly that is a big priority for the USDA
    is making farmers our partners in sequestering more carbon and
    reducing the impact of carbon in the atmosphere, carbon and
    methane. How critical do you think it is that we use the farm
    bill with those voluntary incentives to make sure the farms
    which are now characterized as something about nine percent,
    nine to ten percent of emissions in this country, so we can
    help bring down the level to net zero and be partners with
    farmers? So where do you see the value in that since climate
    change is a big part of your portfolio of course?
        Mr. Regan. It is critical, and that is why last year I
    announced that EPA had rechartered our long-standing Farm,
    Ranch, and Rural Communities FACA, which is providing
    independent advice to EPA on environmental issues important to
    not just the agency but agriculture. And so for the next 2
    years, this FACA will consider how EPA's tools and programs can
    best advance U.S. agriculture's climate mitigation and
    adaptation goals in the non-regulatory sense. So we have an
    independent FACA. For most of them I have appointed, and they
    are laser focused on how to make EPA the best partners possible
    in looking at agriculture's role in mitigation and adaptation.
    I find it to be one of the most intriguing and most engaging
    FACAs that we have, and they are providing a lot of solutions
    to the agency.
        Ms. Pingree. That is great to hear because, as you have
    heard earlier, we want this to be a science-driven
    understanding. We need more facts. We need more metrics and
    measurements that make it easier for farmers, and farmers
    certainly need the technical assistance, which I know you can
    provide. So thanks again for the work you are doing, and I will
    yield back.
        Mr. Regan. Thank you.
        Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. I am going to get a brief
    roster update before we go to the next question on the
    Democratic side. I have Adams, Crockett, and Bishop. And then
    on the Republican side I have Bost, Johnson, Mann. And, Mr.
    Bost, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Bost. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And, Administrator, thank you for being here.
        Last week, the EPA proposed its new Federal vehicle
    emissions standards, claiming that it would accelerate the
    transition to a cleaner transportation future. But nowhere does
    it mention biofuels or even the importance of consumer choice,
    only electric vehicles.
        I represent a rural area, matter of fact, the bottom \1/3\
    of the State of Illinois. I mean, most people around the nation
    that don't come from Illinois don't understand how rural deep
    southern Illinois is. And it is 34 counties. There are 22 EV
    charging stations in 34 counties, 22, less than one per county.
    By taking that narrow-minded approach, you are not only leaving
    biofuels behind, but you are leaving rural America behind as
    well. Now, considering EVs make up only single digits of the
    market share of vehicles, it sounds like this rule is
    government manipulation of the markets. The DOE has found that
    the U.S. corn ethanol has 44 to 52 percent lower GHG emissions
    than gasoline.
        With that being said, do you support the use of biofuels as
    a clean energy source? And is the agency working to determine
    the sale of year-round E15 across the country for the summer of
    2023 instead of pushing for EV vehicles only?
        Mr. Regan. Well, I appreciate the question, and you have
    given the opposite argument of what I hear from the other side.
    I think when I set the highest RVO levels the agency has ever
    set in 2022, the EV crowd had some questions about that, but we
    moved forward. And we plan to pursue that trajectory in 2023,
    2024, and 2025 in terms of continuing to have those RVOs go up.
        We also are excited about responding to those eight
    Governors in looking at year-round E15 for 2024. We took that
    request very seriously. We tried to ramp it up in a timely
    fashion to have 2023 included, but we are probably just not
    going to be able to do that. So what we will be looking at is
    the same thing we looked at last year, which is a case-by-case
    analysis of whether or not E15 will be needed in 2023. And in
    that case, we would have to use our emergency waiver.
        And then we are also really excited and I am proud to be
    part of the task force that is looking at the role of biofuels
    in aviation fuels. We are engaging with the Department of
    Treasury and the USDA and the like. So I think that this
    Administration has made a very strong, strong, strong
    investment in biofuels, especially advanced biofuels, and it is
    reflected in these RVOs, E15, and aviation fuel.
        Mr. Bost. I know that is what you said, but the report says
    nothing about it, and that is a problem. That is a problem
    because you are not providing an all-in strategy that I believe
    is necessary for our rural communities. And the problem is, is
    that we end up--from what I see from this Administration--this
    is directed at the whole Administration--they are more worried
    about selling a message, whether it is true or whether it is
    not, or whether we are ready to advance or not, and they are
    willing to sacrifice the farmer and our economy to do so.
        My colleagues and I though also--my second question, sent a
    letter last week expressing our concern over the EPA's proposal
    of the Renewable Volume Obligations for advanced biofuels and
    in particular biomass diesel fuel. Now, the proposed RVO
    undercuts the biomass-based diesel growth to just about 190
    million gallons over 3 years. And when in 2022 alone the RVO
    increased biomass diesel fuel was 330 million gallons. What
    data did the EPA use to reach the 190 million gallons over 3
    years? And will the final rule increase blending targets to
    biomass-based diesels to reflect that industrial growth that is
    going to occur?
        Mr. Regan. Well, I appreciate that question, and I have met
    with the biomass diesel folks to kind of talk through that. We
    were using the number that USDA uses, and I sort of recognized
    that they are also looking at some infrastructure that they
    believe will be in place over the next 5 to 10 years that will
    be able to facilitate a larger volume. So what I can say there,
    because we are in a proposal phase, is that we have engaged, we
    have taken the comments, and we are taking a look at how we
    come out with our final in terms of that number.
        Mr. Bost. And I am running short of time, but I need to
    understand, do you ever take into consideration what it may do
    to the markets in the future?
        Mr. Regan. I am sorry?
        Mr. Bost. What will it do to the markets? Because we deal
    off of markets, so we do our production based on--I am cutting
    it short, but I will get that to you and see if we can get an
    answer for it.
        Mr. Regan. I would love to follow up with you on that.
        [The information referred to is located on p. 114.]
        The Chairman [presiding.] That would be great. If you would
    follow up with Mr. Bost on clarifying the question and
    following up in writing, that would be greatly appreciated.
        Now, I am pleased to recognize the gentlelady from North
    Carolina--oh, she is already gone.
        Ms. Adams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. There you go. I thought so.
        Ms. Adams. Thank you very much.
        The Chairman. Congresswoman Adams.
        Ms. Adams. Yes, I have had double meetings today.
        And thank you, Administrator Regan, for being here. Thank
    you for your testimony. It is nice to see a fellow North
    Carolinian and an Aggie in the committee room. Thank you for
    the incredible work, and I know that is just what Aggies do, so
    Aggie pride.
        Mr. Regan. Aggie pride.
        Ms. Adams. There have been several lawsuits brought against
    EPA recently for its failure to strengthen its Clean Water Act
    program for concentrated animal feeding operations, which are
    now forcing the agency to scrutinize its regulation of nutrient
    runoff. I have heard concerns that a significant number of
    CAFOs evade Federal permitting requirements, and the small
    minority that do have Federal permits have weak or ineffective
    water quality controls. For example, by EPA's own count, of the
    1,222 large CAFOs in North Carolina, only 14 have Clean Water
    Act permits. So do you agree that EPA needs to change the way
    it regulates this form of nutrient runoff? And are you open to
    meeting to discuss these reforms with me?
        Mr. Regan. Well, thank you for the question, and in light
    of some recent lawsuits and the statements you have made, in
    January, as part of our Effluent Guidelines Program plan, EPA
    announced that it is going to undertake a very detailed study
    of concentrated animal feeding operations to determine if a
    rulemaking for CAFOs is warranted. So we are moving forward
    with that, and we intend to gather information addressing
    issues such as economic feasibility of new technologies and
    practices for reducing discharges from CAFOs, among other
    issues.
        Ms. Adams. Great. In January, EPA announced that it would
    be engaging in a detailed study of nutrient runoff from CAFOs
    to determine whether the agency should strengthen point source
    standards. As the agency has acknowledged, these operations are
    disproportionately concentrated in low-income communities and
    communities of color. So what is EPA's plan for engaging with
    environmental justice committees and ensuring that its study
    fully addresses the pollution burdens that they face?
        Mr. Regan. We have a very strong engagement strategy. Under
    President Biden's leadership, EPA now has an Office of
    Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights, 200 employees
    that have been reorganized to focus on environmental justice
    and equity issues full-time. And so they are working very
    closely not only with our water office to look at these
    effluent guideline issues but also our air office to begin
    looking at some of the air-quality issues that our communities
    have been struggling with.
        Ms. Adams. Thank you. In fall of 2022 EPA announced that it
    was considering rescinding a Trump-era rule that exempted CAFOs
    from reporting hazardous air emissions from animal waste under
    the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (Pub. L.
    99-499, Title III, Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-
    Know Act). What is the status of this recission process, and
    will EPA be moving to reinstate earlier reporting requirements,
    and if so, on what timeline?
        Mr. Regan. Well, and that rule in 2019 changed how
    reporting had been done in every preceding year prior. That
    rule was challenged in litigation, and so what we are doing now
    is we are considering how to address the reporting of air
    emissions from CAFOs under EPCRA. We have a proposed rule that
    is currently under development at OMB for review, and so that
    would be the tool that we would use to address it.
        But also, in addition to that proposed rule, we have a
    companion proposal to solicit information specifically from
    small farms so that we make sure those smaller farms are
    treated fairly in this process. We want to make sure that all
    of our stakeholders are being taken seriously and into
    consideration. And so we have a process with OMB, with this
    other solicitation, and our community engagement strategies to
    be sure that everybody is getting equal protection under the
    law.
        Ms. Adams. Great. Well, thank you again, thank you for your
    incredible work, and I appreciate the opportunity to see you
    again today.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Regan. Thank you.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentlelady. I now recognize the
    gentleman from South Dakota, Congressman Johnson, for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Johnson. Mr. Administrator, thanks for being here. Just
    by way of preface, I will ask that a letter from a number of my
    colleagues to you about the tailpipe emissions standard be
    entered into the record, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Without objection.
        [The letter referred to is located on p. 94.]
        Mr. Johnson. No doubt you know, sir, that proposal has been
    met with a fair amount of concern, so I would just ask that you
    work with biofuels advocates and others in the liquid fuels
    space to make sure that, to the greatest extent possible we can
    move forward together because I think the proposal misses the
    mark.
        But what I want to spend most of my time on, sir, is just a
    colloquy with you on E15 in summer months. Give me a sense,
    sir, of where you think we are at.
        Mr. Regan. We are excited to be responding to the petition
    of the eight Governors. We started our rulemaking process
    there. So we are moving along that path. I know the original
    ask was for both years 2023 and 2024. It looks like the
    rulemaking will only be able to be applied to 2024 because
    there would be a significant disruption in pricing, consumer
    pricing and the like if we move too quickly in 2023. So we feel
    very confident that E15 being sold year-round will be eligible
    and ready to go in 2024; 2023 is a little too soon for that
    rulemaking.
        Mr. Johnson. And I have heard during interpretations of
    this, but for those eight states, making E15 available doesn't
    do anything to keep E10 from being available. Is that right? I
    mean, people would have the option to have either fuel sold?
        Mr. Regan. I would have to circle back with that. I think
    our focus for that rulemaking is for E15.
        Mr. Johnson. Yes, it is my understanding and my hope that
    giving them the same Reid Vapor Pressure waiver that E10 has
    would mean that both products would be available. If that is
    not the case, please follow up because----
        Mr. Regan. And we are talking about the 1 psi, correct?
        Mr. Johnson. Yes, right.
        Mr. Regan. Yes.
        Mr. Johnson. There have been some people who have been
    concerned that at some point giving E15 this additional
    flexibility at some point takes it away from E10. That is not
    my understanding, but I just want to make sure I am reading
    these documents right.
        Mr. Regan. We will get back with you on that.
        [The information referred to is located on p. 114.]
        Mr. Johnson. So from a broader perspective, I mean, talk to
    me about what is the Administration's vision for E15 maybe not
    just in those eight states, but where do we need to be going
    from a broader perspective?
        Mr. Regan. Well, I think we are taking a look at that. The
    way that agencies process work is we get these petitions from
    Governors, we are legally required to respond to those
    petitions. I think we have responded to the eight that we have
    received. And, as you can see, we are taking action. What we do
    is we have to do a modeling analysis of what we believe the air
    quality impacts would be based on the number of states----
        Mr. Johnson. So, Mr. Administrator, I am sorry. I wasn't
    clear enough in my question. So let's set aside your regulatory
    process. Last Congress on a bipartisan vote this House voted to
    allow year-round E15 across the country. Does your agency or
    the Administration have a view on whether or not that would be
    good policy?
        Mr. Regan. I think it would depend. I can't speak to
    whether or not we have provided the technical assistance to
    that law or that proposed law that would take into account any
    air quality impacts. Listen, we would have to do the
    appropriate modeling, which we are doing and have done for
    these eight states. We would have to do that for the country,
    and we would have to look at and determine if there are any
    adverse impacts from year-round sale of E15 nationwide. I can't
    say we have done that technical analysis yet.
        Mr. Johnson. And obviously, back when we cared--and we
    still care about smog of course, right? I think carbon has
    grown. More people care about carbon than perhaps about smog,
    and there has been a tremendous amount of progress made with
    regard to smog in urban America. It was really that issue
    related to Reid Vapor Pressure and when do these products
    evaporate into the atmosphere and what impact does that have on
    smog that caused this question and about to what extent should
    biofuels be made broadly available. The reality is though, as
    you know, sir, E15 has a lower Reid Vapor Pressure rating than
    E10 does, so making E15 more broadly available doesn't do
    anything to hurt smog. Quite to the contrary, it would help go
    from a carbon perspective and a smog perspective, and so I
    would just ask that the Administration lean into this
    incredible opportunity for our country related to biofuels a
    bit more than it seems like you are today.
        One other thing about pesticide labeling with the little
    time I have left, sir, shortly after being confirmed, you
    said--and I am talking about pesticide labeling. ``Scientific
    integrity is one of EPA's foundational values, and as
    Administrator, I am committed to ensuring that every decision
    we make meets rigorous scientific standards.'' Do you stand by
    that statement and any context you can provide for us vis-a-vis
    pesticide labeling?
        Mr. Regan. I do. I stand by that statement. I stand by that
    statement.
        Mr. Johnson. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Thank you for the answer. That is good. The
    gentleman's time has expired. I now recognize the gentlelady
    from Texas, Congresswoman Crockett, for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Crockett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ranking
    Member. And thank you, Mr. Regan, for your time. I want to
    first thank you for the work that the EPA does to protect our
    environment and, by extension, not just the American people but
    people around the world.
        As a Member of this Committee, I am proud to be able to
    support some of your agency's work through the farm bill. There
    are so many essential programs we support in the farm bill that
    are relied upon not just by American producers but all families
    both in the U.S. and around the world. Our farmers and ranchers
    make growing decisions well in advance and can't just change
    what they are growing mid-season. That is why it is essential
    that we not only reauthorize the farm bill but do so in a way
    that is regular and predictable. Otherwise, working families
    across this country who are finally starting to see prices come
    down at the grocery store will be subject to increased costs as
    growers go into the planting season without certainty about
    what the farm bill will be.
        Sadly enough, actions by Members of this body not on the
    Committee severely jeopardize the regular bipartisan
    reauthorization of the farm bill. Let me be clear. The Speaker
    holding the debt ceiling hostage to cut SNAP benefits and
    enrollment will lead to more inflation and greater hunger. That
    is a fact. So I sincerely hope that the Members of this
    Committee are able to work with the Chairman and Ranking Member
    in passing a clean, bipartisan farm bill because in addition to
    the overall issues we would face, there are very important
    environmental programs that we cannot let expire.
        One of the areas that I want to highlight and ask about
    today is on the sustainable aviation fuels (SAFs). And just to
    give you a little bit of background, I am from Texas, but
    Dallas, Texas, specifically. We have a few airplanes there. We
    have American Airlines, we have Southwest Airlines, which I
    know is everyone's favorite right now, and I have a number of
    airports, so we do lots of flying. And so I have had lots of
    conversations as we are dealing with FAA reauthorization, as
    well as the farm bill.
        At a time when our producers are saying at every one of our
    listening sessions how much they need additional revenue, not
    only do SAFs provide significant environmental benefits but
    support a domestic energy supply source by our farmers.
        So, Mr. Regan, could you explain to the Committee the
    demand for SAF, its importance for sustainability, and what
    that demand means for our U.S. farmers?
        Mr. Regan. Well, thank you for the question. And no doubt I
    believe it is good from an environmental standpoint; but, as
    you pointed out, there is an economic play here as well. And
    also when we think about our energy security benefits, it is
    great in that regard.
        Sustainable fuel is one of the most important steps that I
    believe the aviation industry can take to cut down emissions
    but also to support our farmers. EPA, the Departments of
    Energy, Transportation, and Agriculture have created a
    Sustainable Aviation Fuel Grand Challenge roadmap. This is our
    effort to demonstrate our support for our farmers but also for
    sustainable aviation fuel and its role and the role it should
    play in fuel and transportation of the future.
        Ms. Crockett. Thank you for that. I hope this conversation
    shows how important it is that we reauthorize the farm bill.
    Great progress is being made, but without the essential support
    we provide, the entire supply chain--and when I say the entire
    supply chain, I am talking--let me go back to SNAP benefits. If
    we take that money out of the entire kind of picture, then we
    know that that is less money that is going into farmers'
    pockets because that is less money that is overall out there.
        Since I have just a little bit more time, I want to switch
    and talk about something else. I was glad to see that the Biden
    Administration filed a brief in the Edwin Hardeman v. Monsanto
    case supporting the right of states to regulate pesticides
    under FIFRA. Could you talk about the importance of the
    existing regulatory regime?
        Mr. Regan. Well, speaking as a former state regulator, I
    believe it is important that the Federal Government, especially
    EPA, plays its role to set standards to keep all people in this
    country safe. I think that there are certain benefits that
    states have to go above and beyond in order to shape delegated
    authorities in a way that they believe are more protective of
    their communities. And so we have a very respectful
    relationship or I have a very respectful relationship with all
    of the state environmental secretaries all across the country,
    and that ability to have some autonomy, I believe, is what
    makes our whole system great.
        Ms. Crockett. Thank you so much for that. And just to be
    clear, as a former practicing lawyer or recovering lawyer, I do
    think it is important that we have the ability that when our
    communities are being disproportionately affected, that we have
    the ability to say that we are going to sue on behalf of our
    constituents. So thank you so much.
        Mr. Regan. Thank you.
        Ms. Crockett. With that, I will yield back what I don't
    have.
        The Chairman. There you go. The gentlelady's time has
    expired. I now recognize the gentleman from Kansas, Congressman
    Mann, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Mann. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Administrator Regan, thank you for being here today. I
    represent the big 1st District of Kansas, which is more than
    60,000 farms, ranches, feedlots, ethanol plants, and
    agribusinesses. And farm country has made it loud and clear
    that they cannot survive when the government burdens them with
    nonsensical regulations and red tape.
        Administrator Regan, I am especially concerned with your
    proposed revisions to the interim decision for atrazine, an
    herbicide primarily used on corn and sorghum for weed control
    and a key tool for farming on more than 72 percent of the corn
    acres in my district, which is the western \2/3\ of Kansas.
        As you know, EPA announced those revisions that included a
    picklist of mitigation measures that producers would be
    required to implement when using atrazine. While the EPA did
    provide USDA with an opportunity to comment on those mitigation
    measures prior to announcing the revisions, none of USDA's
    feedback was incorporated into the proposed mitigations. Why
    not?
        Mr. Regan. Well, I won't agree to the premise that none
    were. What I can say is that this was remanded back to us by a
    court because of actions that the last Administration took, and
    so there is some guidance from the court that we are having to
    follow from a legal standpoint. I think we have proposed a lot
    of flexible mitigation measures for atrazine that farmers can
    actually choose from. We have asked for comments. Remember,
    this is a proposal. We have asked for comments. And at the
    request of the agriculture community, we have also convened a
    Science Advisory Panel this year to make sure that we are
    getting this right.
        So I think the conversation is still happening not just
    with USDA but with the farmers. But I think Secretary Vilsack
    and I would agree that we have respectfully taken and received
    each other's advice. But I think you heard him say when he
    testified before you, he has certain decisions he has to make
    as the Secretary of USDA, and I have to as EPA Administrator.
        Mr. Mann. Understood. Well, I would just urge you to work
    with USDA to incorporate scientific and agriculture producer-
    focused feedback. If these regulations go through, you are
    going to see a dramatic decline in the productivity of acres
    across rural America, food inflation like we have not seen
    before. And that is saying a lot, given the last couple years.
    So I hope you realize the seriousness with which these
    regulations will impact our producers. We should be thanking
    our producers for feeding us, not punishing them and making
    their job even more difficult with practices that have been
    implemented for decades. So I urge you and appreciate your help
    in making sure that we don't see that occur.
        And also--and this has been mentioned a little bit before--
    EPA's recent announcement on the delay of summer sales of E15
    in several states. And you discussed why you are waiting for
    2024 instead of implementing in 2023. While I appreciate the
    permanent allowance for this beginning in 2024, eight
    Midwestern states that requested it, Kansas obviously is
    missing from that list. So a couple questions. I guess, one, do
    you support year-round E15, and would you like to see it made
    permanent by this Congress?
        Mr. Regan. What I would say is if this Congress is drafting
    any legislation to move in that direction, we want to be able
    to provide technical assistance so that we can do so. When we
    look at these petitions that we receive, obviously, we do
    modeling and analysis to determine what that impact would be in
    those eight states, and that is what we have done. My
    assumption is we would have to do the same for the entire
    country if that were the direction that the Congress would like
    to move in. So I would like to reserve judgment as to whether
    or not I would like to see it until I understand if there are
    potential adverse impacts to public health.
        Mr. Mann. And I would just say we have had Republican and
    Democratic Administrations that have approved summertime sale
    of E15. I would like to think we have gotten past that. I would
    appreciate your support as you are looking at it.
        In regards to that, does EPA's announcement allowing for
    permanent E15 sales in the eight Midwestern states or will
    EPA's final rule around summer sales include a provision
    allowing EPA to approve a Governor's request for summer sales
    in the future? In other words, if you are from a state that is
    not a part of those original eight, will there be a process and
    a mechanism for other Governors and other states to join in?
    Because, best-case scenario, eight would turn into 50, and we
    would all just move on.
        Mr. Regan. I do know that there is a process that is
    available to all, and eight have chosen to do so.\2\ We have
    looked at those eight and that impact. It is my assumption but
    I can check with you that if others wanted to opt into a
    similar opportunity, that they would go through a similar
    rulemaking that we are going through now with those eight.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Editor's note: the information referred to is located on p.
    114.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Mr. Mann. I would appreciate if you would consider that in
    the rulemaking process because I think there is a good chance
    there are going to be a lot of other states, Kansas included,
    that want to be included.
        Last question, though, we are running out of time. Would
    you explain why EPA moved forward with the WOTUS rule before
    the Supreme Court ruled on Sackett v. EPA?
        Mr. Regan. Multiple courts had vacated the previous rule,
    and so there was no rule in place in theory. We were looking
    back at pre-2015. And so what we decided to do was move forward
    and try to engage our agriculture community, look at some
    exemptions and some exclusions, codify those, give a more
    narrow definition than in the Obama rule, and then be prepared
    to adjust to whatever the Sackett ruling was going to be.
        Mr. Mann. Thank you.
        The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
        I am now pleased to recognize the gentleman from Georgia,
    Congressman Bishop, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Mr.
    Ranking Member.
        Administrator Regan, thank you very much for being here. I
    appreciated your comments that the 2024 EPA budget request
    hearing held by the House Appropriations Committee last month,
    that while EPA is taking pesticides and herbicides off the
    market, that you need to be replacing them. So thank you for
    thinking of how that impacts our farmers to produce the food,
    the flowers, the fiber, and the fuel that we use every day.
        I serve middle and southwest Georgia, and farmers in my
    district need certainty in their crop protection tools. I know
    that you need permanent staff in place just to address the
    Endangered Species Act obligations, let alone to increase the
    number of product registration reviews that you can do to get
    through that process more efficiently and to find replacements
    when the courts revoke the tolerances of the existing products.
    So I am hopeful that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle
    will consider the farmers in the pesticide review process when
    looking at the EPA's budget for Fiscal Year 2024.
        Mr. Administrator, let me turn to FIFRA emergency
    exemptions. The FIFRA section 18 allows for emergency
    exemptions for unregistered uses of pesticides to address
    emergency conditions. With long-term drought taking over the
    nation and natural disasters becoming more frequent and more
    severe, we know that climate change is real and it is affecting
    the number of pests that our farmers have to face. Researchers
    at the University of Georgia have already identified several
    weeds that have become resistant to herbicides and pesticides.
    And I imagine that as we get warmer and the spring feels like
    summer here in D.C. already, insects will grow to numbers that
    our available crop protection tools will not alleviate.
        Can you tell us, what are the conditions for FIFRA's
    emergency exemptions? Are they just environmentally-based
    conditions or are they economic as well? Is the agency seeing
    an uptick of requests for emergency exemptions? And can you
    elaborate on the agency's approach to this uptick? Also, what
    is EPA doing to combat resistance in pesticides? And can you
    talk about how you are managing use to ensure that these
    important products remain effective tools for our producers?
        Mr. Regan. Well, thank you for that question, and I will
    start with the latter point, which is we are working very hard
    with managing the litigious environment we are in around some
    of the major tools that we discussed as to whether or not they
    can be used the way we are proposing and hoping to finalize, so
    that is one way is to create an avenue where we have addressed
    ESA and we can keep some of these products on the market.
        I think we are all recognizing that we have a number of
    products that we would like to see get through scientific
    review that we believe are stronger but less environmentally
    impactful, more efficient, and we just need to get them on the
    market. And in order to do that, as you have said earlier, we
    are asking for some resources to get the right people in so
    that we can get most of these products on the market.
        The science is there, the technology is there. We have the
    ability to arm our farmers with as many tools as they need. It
    is about getting them through that process. And I believe that
    if we are effective in doing that job, which we hope we can do,
    then we have much less of a need and a reliance on doing things
    at the last minute or under emergency conditions. And so that
    is our laser focus there.
        Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I am aware and I have heard comments
    that Secretary Vilsack has weighed in on several EPA matters,
    including Waters of the United States. And I am wondering if
    you can share with us how the EPA and USDA interact and
    collaborate on other issues as well, specifically, how EPA
    approaches consultations with USDA's Office of Pest Management
    Policy and prioritizes their comments on EPA's pesticide-
    specific dockets? And does EPA or the Scientific Advisory Panel
    review USDA's chemical use and statistics during the pesticide
    registration review process? And if so, what are the outcomes
    of considering USDA's data?
        Mr. Regan. The answer to the second part of that is yes. We
    take all that advice very seriously, and it goes through a
    rigorous process. And I would argue from an insider's
    perspective that a lot of, if not the majority of, USDA's
    advice is taken. It may not materialize in every single thing
    that happens, but we take that advice and we internalize that
    advice, especially as it relates to pesticides and stakeholder
    engagement on pesticides.
        I would say on WOTUS, I think we all came into this
    situation knowing that two Administrations prior didn't get it
    right. Multiple Supreme Courts have weighed in on this.
    Multiple courts have weighed in on this, and there is some
    ambiguity in the way the Clean Water Act is written. We tried
    to learn from the prior two failures. We tried to learn from
    what the Supreme Court has laid out, and we tried to put
    something that was durable in place.
        Mr. Bishop. Thank you. My time has expired.
        The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. I am now
    pleased to recognize the gentleman from Iowa, Congressman
    Feenstra, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Feenstra. Thank you, Chairman Thompson. And thank you,
    Ranking Member Scott. And then thank you, Administrator Regan,
    for being here. I think you are the first Administrator from
    the EPA that has been here since 2016, so I applaud you for
    doing this, I really do. And you and I have talked on the
    phone. We have talked via Zoom and things like that, and I am
    grateful that you allow us to engage with you.
        I know my colleagues have asked this question. I just want
    a little more clarity. Obviously, Iowa, 42 ethanol plants, E15
    is such a big deal. Emergency waiver for just this summer--and
    the reason I asked for an emergency waiver for this summer is
    that we can save families 90 a gallon on E15. Is this
    something we can still look at?
        Mr. Regan. It is, and I want to be very careful because I
    think prior Administrations attempted to issue E15 waivers, and
    they were overturned by the court, and that is because when you
    do it in an emergency setting, the law is very prescribed. You
    have to look at conditions on the ground at a certain time and
    meet certain thresholds. And so what the eight Governors have
    done, they have petitioned us, which we are going through a
    formal rulemaking process. So yes, at any time that we are
    asked to consider E15, we do, but if it is done through the
    emergency waiver, there are certain constraints that we have--
    --
        Mr. Feenstra. I understand. It is getting hot outside.
    Summer is coming. I am just asking, when can we have the
    ruling, do you think? I mean, do you see it in a week?
    Everybody is asking me, all my ethanol plants, everybody. Any
    idea?
        Mr. Regan. I can tell you we are looking at----
        Mr. Feenstra. No, no, no----
        Mr. Regan.--the conditions on the ground and----
        Mr. Feenstra.--I get it. I get it.
        Mr. Regan. If I give you an answer today, I can guarantee
    you that somebody is going to file in the court and it is going
    to be kicked out tomorrow.
        Mr. Feenstra. I know. Well, it is so important, and it
    saves our consumers 90 a gallon. When gas is so high, it is
    really a big deal, okay? So I am urging you to sooner than
    later because summer is right around the corner. I think it
    would be so important for our nation to do it this summer.
        A quick question also. Your agency just came out with
    obviously the new tailpipe regulations last week. Fifty-four
    percent of the new vehicles sold in the U.S. need to be
    electric by 2030. This is my question. EPA is using the Clean
    Air Act to justify these rules, all right, for regulating
    emissions. So in the agriculture community, this is what they
    are asking is if you can regulate emissions under the Clean Air
    Act, can you regulate emissions from a cow?
        Mr. Regan. No. We do not have the authority to regulate----
        Mr. Feenstra. Because you are taking a pretty big step on
    regulating emissions from a tailpipe. Is that any different
    than a cow and the flatulence that is coming out of a cow?
        Mr. Regan. What we proposed last week are technology
    standards, tried-and-true technology standards----
        Mr. Feenstra. Okay. I understand that.
        Mr. Regan. My point----
        Mr. Feenstra. I am not trying to put you in a lurch here.
    Could it also be from a tractor?
        Mr. Regan. There are certain regulations that govern
    emissions from tractors, from small engines, from large
    engines, from mobile sources, from stationary sources. If it
    burns increasing emissions it fits into our profile somewhere.
        Mr. Feenstra. Yes, yes. I fully understand. Thank you.
    Thank you for that. I appreciate you answering that.
        One other question on rodenticides.
        Mr. Regan. I have the same problem.
        Mr. Feenstra. Yes. So, obviously, you said the U.S.
    expressed frustration by the restrictions and it would be
    devastating to the U.S. agriculture community just going down
    the path. How can we justify these rules for the agricultural
    community abandoning this? This is going to be a big deal.
        Mr. Regan. It is, and this sort of fits into an earlier
    question about all of these pesticides and herbicides that we
    have been litigated on. I think we have met with USDA and other
    agencies to ensure that this proposal is practical and won't
    undermine food production or safety, so it is still in the
    proposal phase. We are looking very closely at these comments.
        Mr. Feenstra. Yes, yes. Well, I want to thank you for your
    comments and, again, always being open with me. I really
    appreciate that.
        I will just say from Iowa, I mean, these are sort of big
    overarching issues that, as the breadbasket to America, we are
    really concerned about. You add WOTUS on top of this and things
    like that. I mean, the fear is, does the Administration, does
    the EPA understand that we are the breadbasket to the world,
    and can we do things to be productive instead of punitive? And
    that is a great fear.
        So my time is up. Thank you for being here, and I look
    forward to positive things that can help agriculture in the
    future. Thank you.
        Mr. Regan. Absolutely. Thank you.
        The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
        We now recognize the gentleman from Florida, Congressman
    Soto, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Soto. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Administrator, thanks for your patience today, and you
    have shown yet again you are a class act. I have been through
    some of these big hearings with you in Energy and Commerce,
    too, and I appreciate your knowledge and dedication to the
    country.
        In central Florida, we have huge theme parks, but we also
    have a major cattle, citrus, blueberries, and strawberry
    agriculture in the area, and it is our second-largest industry.
    And the EPA plays a critical role, which is why we are so
    pleased to have you here as we are working on another farm
    bill.
        With the IRA passed, we are hopeful the Inflation Reduction
    Act will reduce emissions by 40 percent by 2030. Climate change
    is a threat to America's agriculture, but it would be great to
    get your opinion on how you see climate change affecting
    agriculture across the nation.
        Mr. Regan. You know, just in a whole host of ways. In my
    home State of North Carolina, a lot of viable ag property is
    now facing saltwater intrusion and looking at droughts in some
    parts of our country and floods in the other parts of our
    country. I think that our farmers are on the frontlines, but I
    also know that our farmers are also on the frontlines for
    solutions as well. And that is why I have reauthorized our
    Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Federal Advisory Committee
    because it is there where I get a continual, steady drumbeat of
    how we can put solutions in place to deal with some of these
    climate impacts from a mitigation standpoint, as well as an
    adaptation standpoint.
        Mr. Soto. Absolutely. And in central Florida, we face more
    extreme heat, which is affecting agriculture, as well as
    intensifying hurricanes, which have really hurt a lot of our
    local citrus in particular.
        I want to thank you for concurring with the states' waiver
    in the recent rectified pesticide that they are utilizing to
    help combat citrus greening, so we greatly appreciate that. Are
    you seeing a rise in the need of advanced pesticides because of
    climate change and other stresses that our farms are facing
    right now?
        Mr. Regan. We are. We are seeing, essentially, this is part
    of my frustration is not having the budget and the workforce.
    We have a lot of products that need to go through review that
    could be on the market that would put a lot more tools in the
    hands of our farmers. We just need to get it to them. We
    sometimes argue over pesticides and herbicides that have been
    out for a long period of time, and we have health data that
    show that they can be dangerous. But in addition to getting
    that right, there are a slew of new products and new
    technologies that we should be deploying because our farmers
    need every single tool they can get.
        Mr. Soto. If you could describe two or three of what you
    think are your most important visions as EPA Administrator to
    help farmers across the nation, what would they be?
        Mr. Regan. I think we really need to--and the President set
    this tone, right? Biofuels and advanced biofuels will have a
    role in this low-carbon economy. We need to make sure that that
    message is understood and that our rural communities know that
    they have a seat at the table from an environmental and
    economic standpoint, so I think that is critically important. I
    think the way that our agriculture community adapts to this
    changing climate is critical. Food, fiber, fuel, right? I mean,
    we know that we need those not just domestically but to
    continue to be competitive internationally. And so I have heard
    a lot about being in the seat or the position of putting a lot
    of undue regulations on folks. That is not what I want to do.
    The job that I do is through the lens of my grandfather, who
    was a small farmer. So what I am trying to do is work alongside
    Secretary Vilsack and others to be sure that we are not taking
    away tools but we are giving tools to our farmers and ranchers.
        Mr. Soto. Well, Mr. Administrator, when we had Under
    Secretary Xochitl Torres Small in our district, she got to see
    John Deere's facilities of the district that are working on
    electric farm equipment such as plows and the like. Are you
    seeing a rise in electrification in farming, and what does that
    portend for the future of addressing climate change?
        Mr. Regan. Listen, it is the whole gamut. I was in a small
    town in Kansas not too long ago, sitting in a million-dollar
    piece of farm equipment that is precision farming at its finest
    and then getting out of that piece of equipment and looking at
    how they are using drone technology. I mean, it is just
    amazing, and looking at all of the conservation tools to use in
    water, our crops, and the like.
        Listen, farmers are some of the most innovative and
    technologically savvy people in this country, so we need to
    start talking about it in that way. And that is what this EPA
    is trying to do.
        Mr. Soto. Well, when you see disruptions because of
    Ukraine's war with energy, it is critical we electrify farming
    as best we can. Thank you, Mr. Administrator.
        Mr. Regan. Thank you.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentlemen.
        I now recognize the gentlelady from Illinois, Congresswoman
    Miller, for 5 minutes.
        Mrs. Miller of Illinois. Thank you.
        Administrator Regan, you claim that the EPA and this
    Administration are helping agriculture, but you have created
    artificial incentives for solar panels that are causing
    farmland owners around the country, including my home State of
    Illinois, to abandon farming on farmland and instead put up
    solar panels to collect the huge subsidies. So I would like to
    know, do solar panels contain materials that are considered
    hazardous by the EPA?
        Mr. Regan. EPA doesn't incentivize solar panels, we are a
    regulatory agency. And we, through BIL and IRA, are
    incentivizing more resilient ways to facilitate energy. But, we
    regulate just about everything in this country, and so if there
    is something that provides any kind of hazard or harm, it is
    our job to ensure that no one is overly exposed, especially our
    rural and our farming communities.
        Mrs. Miller of Illinois. This Administration absolutely is
    incentivizing solar panels replacing farming on prime farm
    ground, so according to the EPA's own website, solar panels
    contain hazardous waste, including lead and cadmium that are
    harmful to human health and the environment. Mr. Chairman, I
    would like to enter into the record a section of the EPA's
    website titled, Are Solar Panels Hazardous Waste?
        The Chairman. Without objection.
        [The website snapshot is located on p. 102.]
        Mrs. Miller of Illinois. Thank you.
        Has the EPA conducted long-term research into the impact
    solar panels have on agricultural land or farm soil?
        Mr. Regan. I am not quite certain if we have or not.
        Mrs. Miller of Illinois. Okay. Are you aware of extensive
    public reporting that landfills will not accept solar panels
    because they are classified as hazardous materials? And are you
    aware of a major report in Los Angeles Times from 2022 titled
    California Went Big on Rooftop Solar. Now That is a Problem for
    Landfills?
        Mr. Regan. There are a lot of reports out there. What I can
    say is that most of the solar manufacturers want their product
    back because they are recycling these panels, and most
    landfills are prepared to handle the disposal of solar panels.
    Listen, in North Carolina, I understand the concern of solar
    panels being in competition with farmland, but the reality is,
    is that a lot of our farmers are not getting the compensation
    that they believe that they should, and they are having to find
    secondary and tertiary forms of income and participating in the
    solar market is a personal choice. It is a private choice, and
    so----
        Mrs. Miller of Illinois. Well, it is being driven by the
    Administration's dollars from Biden's policies.
        But I would like to enter into the record another article,
    California Landfills are Filling Up with Toxic Solar Panels.
        The Chairman. Without objection.
        [The article is located on p. 95.]
        Mrs. Miller of Illinois. Okay. Mr.----
        Mr. Regan. And I think we have seen solar panels competing
    with agriculture and farmland well before President Biden. I am
    from the State of North Carolina, from the eastern part of the
    state, and I have seen solar panels taking up agricultural land
    for over a decade----
        Mrs. Miller of Illinois. It is really amping up in my area
    in rural Illinois where we have the prime farm ground, flat,
    black dirt. It is being replaced by thousands of acres of solar
    panels that it is going to have a reclamation problem in the
    future.
        Mr. Administrator, I am very concerned that you are
    promoting a situation where prime farmland will become unstable
    or need serious remediation because of these solar panels. We
    just had solar panels catch on fire on the roof of a school in
    Illinois. They are not as safe as you are portraying them. So I
    want to ask you also, as a general principle, do you think the
    EPA officials should have the right to walk onto a farmer's
    private property without the farmer's knowledge or permission?
        Mr. Regan. I am not aware that we are trespassing on
    private property at all. Obviously, that is not within the
    bounds of the law, so I expect my staff to respect the law.
        Mrs. Miller of Illinois. Okay. Farmers are going to be very
    happy to know that, and we are going to hold you to your word.
    Farmers don't trust the Federal Government or bureaucrats from
    the EPA or from D.C. My constituents are very concerned about
    the spirit behind your increase in the EPA's power over farms.
        So, Administrator Regan, you mentioned that the challenges
    facing our food and agriculture are significant, but the only
    challenge you mentioned is climate change. What has been
    devastating to agriculture production has been higher natural
    gas prices, which makes fertilizer more expensive, and higher
    oil prices, which makes diesel more expensive. The EPA has
    become too big, too bloated, and too powerful, and our
    constituents are ready to cut back your agency to end this
    abuse. Thank you.
        The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back.
        I now recognize Mr. Casar from Texas for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Casar. Thank you, sir.
        Administrator Regan, thank you for joining us today.
        Mr. Regan. Good morning.
        Mr. Casar. The climate crisis threatens the stability of
    our farms and our food system. Farmers across our country
    depend on stable climate conditions to plan for production and
    harvest, and a changing climate impacts where and how we can
    grow our food. In December of 2022, the Texas Department of
    Agriculture released a report that found that climate change is
    threatening Texas' food supply. Last year was one of the driest
    years on record for Texas, with roughly \1/2\ the state still
    in drought conditions. The drought resulted in failed crops,
    low yields for farmers, diminished grazing, has forced ranchers
    to cull their cattle, and is driving up the price of food in my
    state. One eggplant and okra farmer I met with in San Antonio
    last week, told me he no longer has access to water because the
    lake his family has relied on for generations is drying up.
    Now, his family farm that he has worked on for decades is under
    existential threat. How can a farmer grow anything without
    water?
        Fortunately, the Biden Administration is taking historic
    steps to tackle this crisis by investing billions in drought
    mitigation, renewable energy, and climate-friendly agriculture
    practices. Administrator, your testimony mentions the work of
    the Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Federal Advisory
    Committee as it relates to climate change. Is there anything
    you can share about the committee's advice on climate
    mitigation at this point for the Committee?
        Mr. Regan. Well, thank you for that question, and I can
    tell you it is a FACA committee that I truly value. And, this
    FACA's focus for the next 2 years is exactly in the areas you
    are speaking of, both mitigation but more so adaptation. They
    have identified voluntary and incentive-based opportunities in
    public-private partnerships that EPA can support that will help
    our farmers and achieve some of our goals. So what they have
    done is they have brought to our attention some really
    innovative market-based incentives that we can begin to think
    about how that works in coordination with some of the more
    traditional paths that we take as an agency.
        Mr. Casar. Thank you for that important work. You also have
    mentioned in your testimony EPA's work to support innovators
    and innovation. Can you talk about the EPA's efforts focused on
    regenerative agriculture and the work to improve soil, water,
    air, and the climate?
        Mr. Regan. Absolutely. I was just visiting a farm in Kansas
    that really focuses on regenerative agriculture but also
    focused on precision farming at a level I had not seen before,
    which is some insight into--as we design our regulations,
    typically, if you are unaware of the level of technology and
    the practices that we are seeing on the ground, those
    regulations or even voluntary incentives that we are designing
    can't take that into account. So I don't believe you can do
    this job sitting behind a desk in Washington, D.C. I have been
    out all across this country, myself and Secretary Vilsack as
    well. We have hosted a lot of listening sessions, and we have
    done some hands-on experimentation with some of our farmers,
    and we are bringing that back to Washington, D.C. I think you
    are going to continue to see EPA adjust to what we are seeing
    on the ground for the foreseeable future.
        Mr. Casar. I appreciate you doing that, and I appreciate
    you traveling because wherever I have been across the State of
    Texas, this is something that we continue to hear about and
    appreciate that. There has to be tough and innovative short-
    term work for us to protect our farmers and our food system in
    the long-term with what it is we are facing with the
    environment, so I appreciate you and EPA's work and focus on
    this.
        Thank you, and I yield back.
        Mr. Regan. Thank you.
        The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
        I now recognize the gentleman from Tennessee, Congressman
    Rose, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Rose. Thank you, Chairman Thompson. And thanks to
    Ranking Member Scott. And thank you, Administrator Regan, for
    being here with us today and sharing your time with us.
        I want to begin by following up on the line of questioning
    that Representative Mann was pursuing. And I just want to
    reiterate the harmful impact that the ruling concerning
    atrazine could have on productivity, the rulemaking, and the
    counterproductive impact that I fear that it might have with
    respect to proven, effective conservation measures like
    reduced- and no-till practices. I know you are getting a letter
    that I cosigned that Representative Mann led and just hope that
    you will take a close look at that. I hope you will also look
    at all of the science, including the newer studies that provide
    a more complete picture of the state of science with respect to
    atrazine in particular.
        And then second, I want to follow up on some of the prior
    discussion about the WOTUS rule. And I heard your explanation
    about why you all went forward with the new rulemaking, but I
    want to just say I could not more strongly disagree that with a
    pending ruling from the Supreme Court, that the issuance--I
    believe the untimely issuance of this rule is counterproductive
    and just provides a greater level of confusion on what was
    already a very confused state of affairs. So I wish you all
    could have held off until the Supreme Court spoke on this
    issue.
        Frankly, I was most troubled by your--and I may have taken
    it out of context, but you said earlier we regulate just about
    everything in this country. And I think WOTUS exemplifies that
    as an overreach by EPA, a misreading of the authorizing
    legislation from this Congress. And I think it underscores
    that, frankly, Congress has got to be more careful in the
    future in a way that could be counterproductive and limiting
    and that we cannot continue to allow our regulators to have the
    breadth of discretion that we have given them in the past if
    they are going to misuse and use that discretion to expand the
    regulatory reach and burden that they put on American farmers
    and the American people.
        Administrator Regan, I want to shift gears. I have been
    troubled with a growing trend across the Federal Government
    where Federal agencies are sued by groups whose goals closely
    aligned politically with the Administration. Then the agency
    settles the lawsuit by entering into a friendly settlement
    agreement, which helps to achieve the political goals of the
    Administration. What really troubles me about this trend is
    that it appears intended to circumvent the traditional
    rulemaking process. Will you commit today to not allowing your
    agency to enter into settlement agreements designed to
    circumvent the Administrative Procedures Act?
        Mr. Regan. Well, I can tell you that we don't do that now.
    And, I can assure you that my General Counsel and all of our
    lawyers are fighting for the letter of the law, not for
    ideological purposes.
        Mr. Rose. Well, we have certainly seen examples of that
    happening throughout the government regulatory complex, and I
    hope you will be mindful that, again, that is one of those
    oversteps that should not happen and ultimately puts Congress
    in the difficult position of having to limit what discretion we
    allow you to have going forward.
        I want to shift gears again. Administrator Regan, yes or
    no, are you the main climate regulator of the Federal
    Government?
        Mr. Regan. I think the President has made it clear that
    this is a whole-of-government approach, and we are looking at
    more than just regulations to spur economic development, growth
    while we combat the climate crisis.
        We do have a role. Obviously, the Clean Air Act gives us
    the authority and, quite frankly, the mandate to regulate using
    the latest and greatest technologies. And so, yes, I follow the
    law, whether it is the Clean Water Act or the Clean Air Act,
    and I have an obligation to put rules out that create a
    competitive environment for this country.
        Mr. Rose. So personally, I have to tell you I am not sure
    whether EPA or at this point the Securities and Exchange
    Commission is the main climate regulator for the Federal
    Government due to the recently proposed rule entitled, Enhanced
    Standardization of Climate-Related Disclosures for Investors
    that the SEC is putting forward. Administrator Regan, was EPA
    consulted on the question of how expensive it will be for farms
    to comply with the proposed rulemaking from the SEC?
        Mr. Regan. We do our own cost-benefit analysis when we
    pursue these regulations. Obviously, we have our formula, but
    we consult with multiple agencies across the Federal
    Government. So I am not quite certain what that level of
    consultation was, but I can tell you we did not do the rule in
    a vacuum.
        Mr. Rose. I hope you will get back with me off the record
    about whether you were consulted and the degree to which you
    were.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Editor's note: the information referred to is located on p.
    115.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        And thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
        I am now pleased to recognize the gentleman from Illinois,
    Mr. Sorensen, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Sorensen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And welcome,
    Administrator Regan. As a career meteorologist, I appreciate
    your words of a government-as-a-whole approach. It was also a
    pleasure to welcome you to Rockford, Illinois, a few weeks ago.
    It is a pleasure to see you again.
        In Rockford, we saw how the investments provided in the
    bipartisan infrastructure law are improving access to clean
    water and the overall health of the people of Illinois. Of the
    farm bill, it is another bipartisan opportunity to make
    historic investments that improve water quality, by preventing
    runoff through conservation measures, and protecting soil
    health, all while creating jobs and securing our nation's
    economic vitality so that cities like Rockford and northern
    Illinois can improve the lives of everyone, including our
    producers. I look forward to collaborating further with my
    colleagues to deliver more Federal funding to these
    communities.
        So I would love to talk a little bit more about water
    quality. Administrator Regan, you mentioned in your testimony
    that the EPA plans to use the full flexibility of the Clean
    Water Act, the regulatory framework, to champion innovative
    financing to achieve water quality goals. What technologies and
    market-based models is the EPA considering?
        Mr. Regan. Well, the good news for us is we have a lot of
    water utilities out there and a lot of water utility
    associations that are on the cutting edge of taking a look at
    how they use specific rate-based formulas that are best for
    their customers to access these advanced technologies, whether
    it be carbon filtration or other types of technologies that
    might be suitable for small, medium, and larger utilities. We
    want to provide that flexibility. Our goal is to ensure that
    all of these can perform at a level that meets those pollution
    standards that we set. And we do take into account our smaller
    rural communities that we know don't have the tax base. And
    that is one of the great things about the bipartisan
    infrastructure law, over $10 billion to look at emerging
    contaminants like PFAS and then a set-aside of $3-$5 billion of
    that solely focused on our rural water systems. Secretary
    Vilsack and I have looked at our respective pools of money, we
    have decided to combine them, especially in our rural
    communities, to be sure that we are getting maximum leveraged
    power and potential to make our rural communities as
    competitive but as safe as possible.
        So, we are really proud of the partnership we have not only
    with our other Federal agencies but state and local and county
    governments as well. And they play a role in how we really keep
    their communities safe.
        Mr. Sorensen. And I appreciate that because that affects
    the farm communities where we are investing, for instance, in
    Lanark, Illinois, and we are working with folks in Alexis,
    Illinois, to bring about change in these areas.
        I would like to switch over to talk a little bit about PFAS
    for a moment. Farmers and ranchers are rightly concerned about
    the impact of these forever chemicals, the contaminated
    biosolids that may have been used as fertilizer that now
    contaminate their land. Am I correct in understanding of the
    law that biosolids applications are generally exempt from
    CERCLA, the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation
    and Liability Act? Are they exempt from that liability?
        Mr. Regan. What we have done is we have made it very clear
    that our goal is to go after the polluters, not our farmers,
    not our ranchers, not our water utilities. And so we are using
    our enforcement discretion. We have designed our enforcement
    discretion policy in a way that makes it very clear that we are
    not coming after the agriculture industry but we are going
    after those who have polluted these lands in the first place.
        Mr. Sorensen. Recently, the Environmental Working Group
    estimated that 20 million acres of fields could be using PFAS-
    laced biosolids as fertilizer. In several instances, PFAS have
    ended up in farm animals and milk, as well as sources of
    drinking water. How is the EPA planning to address PFAS in
    biosolids?
        Mr. Regan. Well, and this is a topic that I have discussed
    a lot with Congresswoman Pingree, and thanks to you all and her
    leadership, we have received $8 million to specifically do some
    research and development around the uptake of PFAS into our
    plants and saturation from biosolids and the like. So that is
    something that we are looking at very, very closely. But I want
    to reiterate, we believe that we have the safest food supply in
    the world, and we stand by that.
        Mr. Sorensen. And our farmers are great conservationists
    and want to do what is best not only for the current, but the
    next generation as well. Thank you for your hard work as well.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you.
        The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. I thank him.
        I am now pleased to recognize the gentlelady from Texas,
    Congresswoman De La Cruz, for 5 minutes.
        Ms. De La Cruz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for
    being here today.
        The Chairman. Congresswoman, check your microphone if you
    would there.
        Ms. De La Cruz. Hello, hello? Can you hear me? Yes? Okay.
        Thank you for being here today. I frequently hear from
    specialty crop growers in my district, which is in south Texas,
    about how your agency is seeking to restrict the use of crop
    protection tools necessary to increase yields. Now, by
    increasing yield, we can reduce the need for imports from
    foreign countries who don't have regulatory systems that are as
    safe as the United States. For example, onion growers in my
    district rely on the herbicide DCPA (dimethyl
    tetrachloroterephthalate). However, the EPA issued an
    unprecedented Notice of Intent to Suspend this chemistry. Tell
    me, how do you plan to address this specific issue?
        Mr. Regan. And can you remind me of which pesticide or
    herbicide you are speaking of?
        Ms. De La Cruz. So it is the herbicide DCPA.
        Mr. Regan. Okay. I will have to get back to you on that
    specific herbicide.
        Ms. De La Cruz. So let's move on to the next thing that is
    very concerning to my specialty crop growers in south Texas.
    What we need to know is how you are going to streamline the
    review process in labeling for new products of fruits and
    vegetables? Current labeling can take 10 to 11 years and cost
    millions of dollars. And so with fewer and fewer products to
    help our farmers, we need the insecticides, the fungicides, and
    even fertilizers that are lacking labels for produce. What are
    you able to do to help us streamline this process?
        Mr. Regan. Well, we put together a work group to focus on
    that. I think that what we have found ourselves in is a
    situation where there is a lot of litigation around our
    pesticides and herbicides that we are trying to dig out of
    because of the agency's, the courts would say, lack of focus on
    the Endangered Species Act. We also find ourselves under-
    resourced in the categories of how we can get not just new
    products into the market but our labeling and the like, and so
    we have requested resources in our budget.
        Ms. De La Cruz. What kind of resources are you talking
    about?
        Mr. Regan. Resources for more personnel. In this specific
    division, we have the same number of people we had in the late
    1980s and early 1990s, and so we are seeing an uptick in lots
    of products and opportunities for market penetration. We have
    just got to get these products through the review process.
        Ms. De La Cruz. So you talked about these lack of
    resources. You mentioned that before, that these lack of
    resources is what is prohibiting the streamlining process and
    other things that are important to farmers and ranchers. But I
    would like to remind you that Congress recently provided a
    robust increase for OPP appropriations, and PRIA 5 increased
    the maintenance and registration fees that fund OPP activities.
    So doesn't that mean that you have the opportunity to hire more
    personnel?
        Mr. Regan. We are working on hiring more personnel, but the
    time that I spent with the entire agriculture community, I
    think they would tell you, too, that we are so far behind and
    so under-resourced and have so many products that deserve to be
    in the market, in their hands as tools for our farmers that we
    need to continue to wrap up. I mean, we have to balance the
    fact that we are under a tremendous amount of litigation while
    we are reviewing a lot of new products, and we don't have the
    staff and the resources to do both of those things.
        So, listen, I would love to make sure that all of our
    farmers have all of the tools that they have, and I would like
    to also ensure that we are not being litigated and farmers are
    not being litigated and we are doing things in a very safe way.
    And I think that is the goal that we are pursuing.
        Ms. De La Cruz. Well, I think that the concern is that if
    we don't move faster, the ones who are really going to suffer
    are our farmers and ranchers, and thus, our American
    communities. And if we have to rely on foreign produce and
    foreign countries to feed Americans, then really it has become
    a matter of national security. So I would encourage you and the
    EPA to move this faster so that we will not have to rely on
    foreign countries to feed Americans. And with that, I yield
    back.
        The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back.
        I am now pleased to recognize the gentlelady from Michigan,
    Congresswoman Slotkin, for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Slotkin. Hi there. Thank you for joining us, Mr.
    Administrator. I am from Michigan where our new line is the
    home of the most diverse agricultural state in the country with
    regular access to water. So we are happy to be here.
        The questions I have for you are on PFAS. And just to
    review the setting, we are the state that had Flint, Michigan,
    right, an apocalyptic poisoning of an American city. So every
    Michigander of all stripes started looking more closely at what
    was in their water, right, from that event.
        And PFAS is an issue that I think we have been a real
    leader on in the State of Michigan, both looking for it,
    figuring out through our universities how to deal with it, and
    for a long time we were pushing various Administrators before
    your time and into your time on setting a true scientific
    standard for PFAS. We were so frustrated in Michigan in prior
    years that we went ahead and set our own PFAS standards that
    was based on science because we couldn't in good conscience
    tell people around, for instance, some of our retired military
    bases that they should just feel comfortable drinking their
    water because the EPA just hadn't moved on a scientific
    standard.
        So I want to thank you for making important announcements
    about a scientific standard on drinking water. That is very
    important. But the work is not complete because we need the
    same scientific standard for groundwater. Groundwater is
    connected, as we know, to a ton of things, particularly in ag,
    and we have the problem in our state not just with contaminated
    groundwater around some of our military bases, some of our
    industrial sites, but we have now seen in my own district how
    that circles around, gets into that sludge that is often then
    converted into fertilizer and contaminates our farmland,
    animals, I mean a whole host of problems. So I would love just
    a very quick answer. Can we count on you to do, similarly to
    the good work you did on drinking water, a groundwater standard
    based in science?
        Mr. Regan. We are moving, yes, we are. We have to do it for
    our drinking water, which we proposed. We are also looking at
    an interagency process right now looking at cleanup levels for
    soil and for water and other kind of contamination, so we hope
    to have that expedited as quickly as possible.
        Ms. Slotkin. What does that mean, timeline? Like, are we
    talking 3 months, a year, 5 years? And again, long preceding
    you where working it hard meant that we went for a long time
    without a real scientific standard on the water we were
    drinking. So give me an estimated timeline if you could.
        Mr. Regan. Yes, EPA has already--the best way for me to say
    it is we have completed our homework, and now it is in the
    interagency process, so we are getting some feedback from OMB
    and from others, and, as we get that feedback, we will make
    those adjustments and hope we can push this rule out as quickly
    as possible.
        Ms. Slotkin. Okay. Well, I would hope that within this year
    we could see some real movement just knowing how long these
    timelines are. And I have tried through my work on the Armed
    Services Committee to send like the big red flashing light to
    my former employer at the Pentagon, right, and say when this
    standard changes to be based in science, the U.S. military is
    going to have a responsibility around some of our sites for
    cleanup. You better start planning for that now. So if we are
    going to have to wait, please help our friends plan
    appropriately and game out what is going to happen.
        Mr. Regan. And I would say that Secretary Austin and I have
    had very good conversations around PFAS from day 1. He has been
    a very strong partner, along with Secretary Vilsack, so this is
    a whole-of-government approach.
        Ms. Slotkin. Okay. Thank you for that. So tell me about the
    fertilizer problem, the sludge problem, this contaminated
    wastewater remnants that then gets put onto our farmers'
    fields? And in some cases in my district farmers are losing
    their farms because of contamination. What work are you all
    doing on the sludge?
        Mr. Regan. Well, the first thing is we are taking that $8
    million that you all have granted to us to continue to do the
    research and development around the uptake potential and what
    that might mean. But we have also designed our enforcement
    policies that explicitly look at not focusing on the farmers
    and those who have applied the sludge but those who have
    created this mess, the polluters. We are focused on holding the
    polluters accountable. So we will continue to do the research
    and development that you all have given us the money to do, and
    we will keep our eye trained on those who have caused this mess
    in the first place.
        Ms. Slotkin. Thank you. And then one just final comment
    more than a question. So being from Michigan, we watched the
    announcement I believe last week on the new auto standards on
    electrification very closely. We had a big White House ceremony
    with all the big autos on the Rose Garden together, announcing
    our commitment that by 2030 we would have 50 percent of our
    fleet as electric. And that was done in coordination. I would
    just ask that going forward we realize success happens when we
    join hands and do this as a community rather than getting
    surprised by some of these standards. Thanks very much.
        The Chairman. The gentlelady's time has expired.
        I now recognize the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Alford,
    for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Alford. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Administrator,
    good to see you here today. I know it has been a long day. We
    are almost done. We are down to the front row.
        I know we have talked about atrazine and you have addressed
    some of those issues. We have a lot of corn farmers in our
    district, love the corn farmers. They are doing a great job.
    But this is a big issue for them. The proposed revision to the
    September 2020 interim decision, ID, for atrazine seeks to
    lower the concentrated equivalent level of concern. Can you
    commit to having the SAP consider other studies made available
    to you and the EPA that were not reviewed in the previous SAPs
    to make sure that the best available scientific data is used,
    sir?
        Mr. Regan. Let me circle back with my staff to see what has
    and has not been considered, and we will follow up with you on
    specifically those studies.
        [The information referred to is located on p. 115.]
        Mr. Alford. But it would make sense to use the best
    scientific data, would it not, sir?
        Mr. Regan. We definitely want to use the best scientific
    data.
        Mr. Alford. Yes, good deal. I would appreciate a follow-up
    on that from your staff.
        Mr. Regan, why does the Biden Administration want to get
    rid of gas stoves for 40 percent of the American people?
        Mr. Regan. I don't think that is true, but the regulations
    that focus on gas stoves are not within the confines of EPA, so
    I would have to defer the specifics in terms of the
    technicalities and the regulations to the Department of Energy.
        Mr. Alford. I know the Department of Energy has weighed in
    on this, so has the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.
    But the EPA has also weighed in to some degree on the safety of
    gas stoves and potential emissions from gas stoves that could
    be harmful. So what is the EPA's take on this?
        Mr. Regan. I have not been made aware of that we have
    weighed in on gas stoves. That is not something that I have
    commented on or that----
        Mr. Alford. Are gas stoves safe for the American people?
    Are they safe for the environment?
        Mr. Regan. I am sure my mom is watching this hearing, and
    she loves her gas stove, and she seems safe to me.
        Mr. Alford. So your mom would vote for keeping gas stoves
    in America?
        Mr. Regan. She sure would.
        Mr. Alford. All right. I will take that as a good answer
    from you, Administrator Regan.
        Last question, chlorpyrifos, I always have trouble
    pronouncing that.
        Mr. Regan. Me, too.
        Mr. Alford. All right. Let's just call it the big K, how
    about that--or the big C. It is spelled with a C. Anyway, the
    Biden Administration has allocated tremendous resources
    allegedly out of a desire to support American agriculture, but
    EPA's approach to chlorpyrifos flies in the face of that. Is
    the White House aware of the economic harm caused by EPA's
    approach? And if so, what is the jurisdiction, and how does EPA
    intend to make producers whole?
        Mr. Regan. We are working very hard on this issue, and I
    have spent a lot of time with Secretary Vilsack on this issue.
    And I think the frustrating part about this is the courts were
    fed up that EPA had not moved in a specific way, so the courts
    rendered a judgment that set a timeline very stringent and a
    bar very high that is atypical of any other pesticide that we
    have jurisdiction over. And so we made the decision that we
    made based on the science but also based on our legal
    obligations of the requirement of the 9th Circuit Court.
        Mr. Alford. Okay. Thank you so much. I appreciate your
    testimony here today. And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        The Chairman. The gentleman yields back his time.
        I am now pleased to recognize the gentlelady from
    Washington State, Congresswoman Gluesenkamp Perez, for 5
    minutes.
        Ms. Perez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And thank you, Administrator Regan, for being here today. I
    wanted to share some concerns I have about the impact that your
    recently proposed rules on vehicle emissions may have on rural
    communities and agriculture. So just yesterday I actually sent
    a letter to the EPA, DOT, and DOE outlining these concerns. I
    sincerely appreciate the need to address the climate crisis on
    all fronts, but I want to ensure that we are not
    disproportionately impacting rural communities in my district.
    So it's about a 4\1/2\ hour drive across my district, big
    district, there are only 100 EV charging stations in my
    district. There are two in my county, Skamania County. Both of
    them are at resorts. We are also already experiencing a
    nationwide shortage of qualified electricians. Anyone who is in
    need and waiting for a residential electrician knows this.
    Workforce shortages, particularly those in the trades, are even
    more acute in rural communities. So I want to make sure that
    the EPA has considered the significant workforce development
    challenges that must be addressed to train electricians for a
    large-scale rollout of EV charging infrastructure. And while
    this rule does not affect farm equipment, I want to ensure
    future rulemaking keeps this context in mind.
        So I am hoping that you can speak to how the EPA will keep
    the constraints of workforce shortages and the needs of rural
    communities in mind in future rulemaking on vehicle emissions,
    particularly when it comes to agricultural vehicles such as
    tractors.
        Mr. Regan. Absolutely. This is focused on cars, trucks, and
    heavy-duty vehicles, primarily as a technology standard that we
    have used for the past 40 years that takes into account the
    Inflation Reduction Act but also the CHIPS and Science Act
    (Pub. L. 117-167, Division A, CHIPS Act of 2022 and Division B,
    Research and Development, Competition, and Innovation Act) and
    other Acts that are really trying to reinvigorate domestic
    manufacturing here and job training. The rule that we have
    proposed--and it is a proposal--would kick in, in the year
    2027, and it would take into account all of the components that
    you just described that need to be in place for this rule to
    take full effect and get maximum opportunity out of it.
        But we have to remember it is a proposal. We are going
    through a public comment period. We are engaging with all of
    our workforce, our automobile manufacturers, and you all in
    Congress to be sure that what we finalize is not punitive but
    is an opportunity for this country.
        At the same time, I think the RVOs in 2022 are the highest
    renewable volumes ever done by any Administration. And as we
    look at the set rule for RVOs for 2023, 2024, and 2025, we are
    going to be sure that we continue with that trajectory. We are
    going to walk and chew gum at the same time. There is a
    significant role for biofuels and advanced biofuels in this
    country, and we don't have to have one without the other.
        Ms. Perez. Thank you. A few weeks ago, I received requests
    for Congressional funding, and one pervasive theme was
    municipal water infrastructure problems across the district. Is
    there any more romantic term in the English language than
    biosolids? I haven't found it. This touches every county in my
    district. Over and over, we see infrastructure that has passed
    its recommended lifespan, undersized, or on the brink of
    collapse. In order to resolve this, municipalities are often
    forced to implement Band-Aid solutions or take out incredibly
    large loans. Some wastewater systems are also beginning to
    fail, releasing untreated water into local environments, which
    poses severe health risks to residents and neighbors.
        So local governments cannot address this problem alone. I
    appreciate the work the EPA has done with the bipartisan
    infrastructure law funding and partnership from the USDA with
    the Closing America's Wastewater Access Gap Community
    Initiative. Administrator Regan, right now, the program is a
    pilot in eight mostly eastern states. What is the ultimate goal
    for this program in terms of serving communities countrywide on
    the West Coast where I am?
        Mr. Regan. Yes, I think we have 11, and we do have some on
    the West Coast as well in terms of closing the wastewater gap.
    And, listen, we designed these pilots so that it could be
    reflective of all communities across this country. Thankfully,
    between President Biden's leadership and Congress, we were
    awarded $50 billion for these sorts of issues, not just for
    water infrastructure with that $50 billion, but billions to
    focus on emerging contaminants and other pollutants of concern.
        And so we are going to continue to be sure that these
    resources are distributed evenly and fairly all across the
    country, but these pilot projects to close this wastewater gap
    are important because we are getting real-time data for local
    solutions on how to use these resources the best.
        Ms. Perez. Thank you so much. I yield back.
        The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back.
        I now recognize the gentleman from New York, Mr.
    Langworthy, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Langworthy. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and
    Ranking Member.
        Administrator Regan, I know that many of our----
        The Chairman. Congressman, check your microphone if you
    would. Just get a little closer to it then.
        Mr. Langworthy. Hello? Can you hear me? Is that better?
    Okay.
        Many of our colleagues have shared concerns over the course
    of the Biden Administration talking about the radical new WOTUS
    rule, but I think it cannot be emphasized enough just how
    harmful this rule will be for our agricultural industry. In
    speaking with farmers in locally municipalities in my district
    in rural upstate New York on the western end of the state and
    the southern tier, we extrapolated that under the EPA penalty
    scale, a Clean Water Act violation could run one of my
    producers a whopping $56,000 a day per violation. Administrator
    Regan, I have a lot of small generational family farms in my
    district, and a $56,000 slap a day from Washington bureaucrats
    will put them completely out of business forever, and there
    will not be new agricultural leaders coming into an area like
    mine in New York State to fill that void.
        Administrator Regan, these new emissions standards that EPA
    are proposing for electric vehicles are very concerning,
    particularly due to the physical differences between the
    refueling of an electric car and a traditional vehicle, and
    notably, the significant time disparity, that it can take ten
    times longer to fill up the tank for an electric vehicle than
    it would a traditional agricultural vehicle working off of
    diesel. This would have crippling impacts on our agricultural
    industry.
        And with that, we have a very large dairy presence in my
    district. Safely and timely transportation of milk from farm to
    processing facility to the consumer is of the utmost
    importance. Considering the perishable nature of the milk and
    the other dairy products they transport and the distance
    between these facilities, it is almost a ten-fold increase in
    fueling time for EV trucks over the traditional vehicles. I am
    concerned that the EVs are not a suitable medium to transport
    milk products at this time at this level of infrastructure. So
    how can we ensure the charging times don't impede on farmers'
    or cooperatives' ability to move milk and quality of product?
        Mr. Regan. Thank you for the question. First of all, I
    would like to say that we have put forward a very aggressive
    biofuels agenda that coincides with this EV proposed
    regulation. Listen, the proposal doesn't kick in until 2027,
    and then that will be for cars, light-duty trucks, and some
    heavy-duty trucks. But there will not be a mandate or any kind
    of immediate transition that takes place that doesn't allow for
    biofuels and advanced biofuels to compete. And we are making
    sure of that. And that is why when we look at the set rule and
    as we look at the RVOs for 2023, 2024, and 2025, we want them
    to continue from where we left off in 2022. By the way, 2022
    was the highest RVO that any Administration has ever put in
    place. So this President and I are very serious about biofuels.
        Mr. Langworthy. Thank you. I led a letter with Members of
    our New York delegation to our Governor, who is also pushing a
    very similar one-size-fits-all electrification policy to rural
    New York that will directly impact our farmers. And these
    policies that I am concerned with, along with our producers,
    that between the Federal and the state government, we are
    looking at very serious, serious problems here.
        In turning to the EPA's chemical regulation process, I know
    that the EPA is working on a roadmap to address the Endangered
    Species Act process. But keeping tools in the toolbox for our
    growers is very important to me. And in my district, we have
    part of the Lake Erie Grape Belt, home of the Niagara and
    Concord grape. For Concord and Niagara grapes, production costs
    are $1,800 an acre, and the current market price is of $300 a
    ton for the fruit. A grower needs to produce 6 tons an acre to
    break-even. If, for example, our growers run out of tools to
    control a disease like black rot fungus, it could easily cut
    that yield in half. And at 4 to 5 tons an acre, the grower
    would be operating below production cost, and the business
    would fail.
        Mr. Regan, these are the realities that specialty crop
    growers in my district and in Florida, Texas, and California,
    and everywhere else have to contend with. And when the EPA
    pushes ever-more stringent rules and regulations that look good
    on paper here in Washington, D.C., but they don't actually work
    on the ground, that costs an arm and a leg to our growers. We
    are putting our farmers out of business, and our farmers need
    support, not to be told to roll with the punches, that the
    Administration issues all sorts of new constructs and expensive
    rules and regulations. And I strongly encourage a change of
    course here.
        And with that, Mr. Chairman, I do yield back.
        The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
        I am now pleased to recognize the gentlelady from Illinois,
    Congresswoman Budzinski, for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Budzinski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And it is great to
    be with you today, Administrator Regan. Thank you for joining
    us. I am really looking forward to working with you and your
    team on a host of issues, and I have really appreciated today
    all of your support for biofuels in particular. There has been
    a lot of conversation around that topic obviously today at the
    hearing, so thank you for that.
        I do want to highlight one important issue specifically
    within my district and just start by telling you the story of
    one of my constituents, Walter Byrd. Walter Byrd is from
    Cahokia Heights. Cahokia Heights is just on the other side of
    St. Louis. It is just adjacent to east St. Louis. And Walter,
    like other citizens in Cahokia, has dealt with decades of
    flooding of both stormwater and sewage anytime there is heavy
    rainfall in the area. And we have a lot of rainfall. More
    flooding is happening within this region every year. In fact,
    since 2019, residents, as a part of a recent court filing, cite
    91 documented instances of raw sewage coming out of government-
    owned pipes and into their home. Walter and his friends and
    neighbors suffer from both the economic devastation of their
    ruined homes but also the health implications of asthma, sinus
    infections, and bacterial stomach infections from exposure to
    this raw sewage. Walter is a retiree, and many other folks in
    the community struggle to be able to find the money for repairs
    when these types of flooding occur.
        Walter is not alone. Unfortunately, this is a 2 decade old
    problem in this community that local, state, and Federal
    Government have not been able to solve, while residents
    continue to be unable to drink water and live amongst the raw
    sewage. This part of my district also happens to be 95 percent
    Black, and I think it is not an accident that we have allowed
    these unacceptable conditions to continue in poor communities
    of color.
        Mr. Administrator, I know you have prioritized
    environmental justice, and that is wonderful, in your work and
    during your tenure. You have utilized your agency as a way to
    convene multi-agency approaches to catastrophic problems like
    the one I am just now highlighting for you. And that is how the
    Flint issue was dealt with, I know, with the support of your
    Administration or from the EPA at that time.
        I have admired, too, how your agency has been responsible
    for coordinating interagency efforts to restore the Great Lakes
    as well. Today, I am asking you and your team, would you be
    willing to take on this Cahokia Heights challenge that we are
    facing with more of a hands-on approach by appointing a
    coordinator, a coordinator from your office, to help us to
    ensure that the infrastructure upgrades can be made possible?
    And I am sure you are aware Senators Duckworth and Durbin have
    really been leading in this space as well and have secured a
    significant level of Federal funding through the SRF grant
    program. But the community needs real-time, immediate technical
    assistance in order to be able to access that funding, or this
    decades-old problem continues to persist, and it is very
    serious. So I would love to have your commitment today to
    tapping someone on your team to help drive this process in the
    community and help us to get these needed funds to where they
    need to be.
        Mr. Regan. You have my commitment to do that.
        Ms. Budzinski. Thank you so much. Thank you. I really
    appreciate that. That will make a tremendous difference for
    this community. Thank you.
        Mr. Regan. Absolutely.
        Ms. Budzinski. And with that actually I just want to yield
    back my time, so thank you so much. Thank you.
        The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back. I am now pleased
    to recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Duarte, for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Duarte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you,
    Administrator Regan, for being here today.
        Mr. Regan. Thank you.
        Mr. Duarte. I really do want to sincerely thank you for
    coming and playing ball. You are answering the questions, you
    are engaged. That is not always what we get from every witness,
    especially high-level Administrators and Secretaries, and so I
    sincerely appreciate your playing ball.
        So I know you are not tired of talking about the Clean
    Water Act. You seem tireless, and that would be the only
    reason. I was prosecuted under the Clean Water Act not by the
    EPA, who actually had the subject matter jurisdiction to
    prosecute me under the Clean Water Act, but when the EPA
    demurred under the Obama Administration, the case was then
    picked up by the Department of Justice, and the Army Corps of
    Engineers and Department of Justice then prosecuted me as a
    farmer for planting wheat in a wheat field. So I just want to
    go through some of the details of that and make sure that--you
    have done a fairly complete job explaining your prior converted
    crop plan definitions, your field hearings, your engagement
    with industry and agriculture to make sure that you know what a
    wetland is and what the rules are, and had any of those been
    applied appropriately, I would not have been prosecuted. And we
    had prior converted crop land that met all of the definitions I
    read in your testimony, and I believe that is why the EPA
    didn't prosecute me.
        So I am asking you specifically, will you engage with the
    Department of Justice, the Army Corps of Engineers, and other
    agencies who may think industriously how to prosecute farmers
    for growing wheat in wheat fields or practicing normal farming
    practices on other previously converted farmlands to stay out
    of your subject matter jurisdiction?
        Mr. Regan. Well, thank you for that question, and I have
    already been consulting with DOJ, Army Corps, and USDA, and I
    think this is an unprecedented level of coordination. At least
    that is what Secretary Vilsack and others tell me because I
    think we need to have a better understanding of what is
    happening across our agencies to be sure we are interpreting
    these rules in the exact same way. There was another one of
    your colleagues that mentioned there might be some
    discrepancies in interpretations as well, so if there is any
    specific definition or issue that you see on the horizon that
    may be complicated by the viewpoint of four agencies, please
    call that out to our Administration.
        Mr. Duarte. I would just offer that you look at the Duarte
    wetland prosecution expert report and go through it and just
    examine for yourself what was mini-mountain ranges, plow
    furrows 4" tall, pebble distribution surveys through the soil
    to see if my plowing redistributed pebbles, and you will
    probably have a good laugh. But then please realize that these
    prosecutions aren't just civil prosecutions. These are criminal
    prosecutions. I was threatened every step of the way with
    criminal penalties for planting wheat in a wheat field.
        When you go to the level of criminalizing farming
    practices, your requirement to define what is a violation of
    the Clean Water Act and what is a criminal offense to the Clean
    Water Act is very, very important. And I would offer that the
    significant nexus test, some of the farmland definitions being
    used in your WOTUS rule are absolutely too vague to provide the
    basis for any kind of criminal prosecution. This is not filling
    a river. This is prairie potholes, these are vernal ponds.
    These are swales across farmland, literally low spots in grass
    fields that collect water after rainstorms.
        Mr. Regan. And many of those items that you just laid out
    fit into that category that we have codified as exemptions or
    exclusion in the language to be as clear as possible. But I
    will circle with my team. My understanding is this is something
    that Army Corps of Engineers pursued against you.
        Mr. Duarte. Army Corps and the Department of Justice
    Division of Environment and Water put a whole prosecution team.
    We had ten experts on a 450 acre wheatfield for 10 days digging
    up the vernal ponds 2 and 3 deep where I told them only 4" to
    7" was their conclusion. So anyway, I would offer you to look
    at that.
        I am also wanting to ask you--I agree. I farm in a
    sustainable winegrowing program in California, another ranch
    that I farm, and we like the soft insecticides. We like the
    soft pesticides. We try and stay away from the hot stuff when
    we can. And as a nurseryman, I also want that hot stuff around
    for when I have an exotic pest issue. I really want to whack it
    with some chlorpyrifos. And I have no trouble pronouncing or
    saying chlorpyrifos. It should be in the arsenal. I don't want
    to use it regularly.
        But please do what you can even if it means contracting out
    some of the research and approval to private research firms
    that you can find credible to do some of the backlog. We can
    appropriate the EPA money and authorize it time and time again,
    but if EPA wants to go hire more sustainability engineers or
    woke yoga instructors, we can't do anything about that. So if
    you have short resources, please get everybody back to work,
    and then find out how we can use some privatization to get some
    of these new ag tools through the regulatory process.
        And thank you very much. I yield back.
        Mr. Regan. I appreciate it.
        The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
        I am now pleased to recognize the gentlelady from Ohio,
    Congresswoman Brown, for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Brown. Thank you, Chairman Thompson and Ranking Member
    Scott. And thank you, Administrator Regan, for being here
    today.
        As you have indicated several times, it is important that
    the EPA and the United States Department of Agriculture have to
    work hand-in-hand to provide farmers and ranchers with the
    tools they require to supply food for the country. It is
    imperative the regulatory process at the EPA be science- and
    fact-based and free from political bias.
        So, Administrator Regan, how has your work in the
    Administration improved the regulatory and review process for
    new and existing crop protection tools available to farmers?
        Mr. Regan. We take that very seriously, and I think we have
    a good roadmap to think through how we look at this review
    process. I think our challenge is, again, twofold. The agency
    hasn't done the best job according to the courts in looking at
    applying the ESA. And then we have had a backlog of new product
    registrations that are prepared to hit the market. So we have
    to dig out of litigation, and we have to get some new products
    on the market. I think we have a strong review process. We just
    need more resources to do it.
        Ms. Brown. Thank you. Now, when you came to Cleveland last
    year, we talked about lead poisoning and how Cleveland is a
    city that has been faced with historic disinvestment and is one
    of the epicenters of the lead crisis.
        As you know, the problem of environmental injustice extends
    beyond just lead. Researchers found that increased agriculture
    pesticides used and related toxicity risk for humans occurred
    the most in areas where people of color and limited resources
    are, communities that are particularly vulnerable to
    environmental injustices. Communities of color are shouldering
    the biggest burden of pesticide exposure.
        So, Administrator Regan, how critical is it that the EPA
    assists state and local agencies in performing seasonal air
    monitoring for pesticides in certain high-use areas?
        Mr. Regan. It is really critical that we put all measures
    in place, that we protect everyone equally across this country,
    especially those who are most vulnerable. And in the design of
    our Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights Program, we
    have created a new program office that is geared to work with
    all of our media offices, our air office, our water office, to
    provide technical expertise, legal advice, engineering advice
    across all of those media. And all of that trickles down to the
    partnership that we have with our state agencies. No two
    communities are exactly the same, and we recognize that. And so
    in order for our laws to reach their full potential and protect
    everyone, we are leveraging all of that infrastructure and
    resources down to protecting that individual. So whether it is
    advanced monitoring for air or water or ensuring that these
    historic resources from BIL and IRA get to every single person,
    we are going to do all of that.
        Ms. Brown. Thank you so much. And finally, what steps is
    EPA taking to implement more equitable policies to better
    protect vulnerable communities?
        Mr. Regan. We have embedded environmental justice and
    equity into the very DNA of the work that we do. And that is
    where, whether it is Lowndes County, Alabama, or McDowell
    County, West Virginia, in Appalachia, we have seen far too many
    communities across this country who are on the frontlines of
    pollution and disinvestment. And so our programs are designed
    to ensure that all of the resources that flow to EPA and flow
    to the states are distributed to those who are most in need, no
    matter the color of your skin or the ZIP Code you live in. And
    we have metrics in place to ensure that that happens. But we
    are also designing our laws and regulations to be sure that no
    populations are left out as well. We believe that these
    resources and these structural changes will create a safer and
    better America.
        Ms. Brown. Thank you. And thank you again for coming to
    Cleveland. I look forward to your return, and I look forward to
    continuing to collaborate with you on important matters like
    this.
        And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
    time.
        The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back.
        Mr. Regan. Thank you.
        The Chairman. I am pleased to recognize the gentleman from
    Iowa, Congressman Nunn, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Nunn. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you,
    Administrator Regan, for joining us today. I think we have
    walked through a lot of issues. I really want to highlight your
    commitment or at least the EPA's decision to look at an all-of-
    the-above energy solution for our country right now,
    particularly at a time when your son, my daughters are having
    expense at the gas but as well as the supply chain that
    provides everything for our families.
        We are looking at a situation where we enjoyed having you
    and the President in Iowa at a little ethanol plant in Menlo.
    At this facility, the commitment was made that ethanol was part
    of this all-of-the-above solution. And at that time, the
    President guaranteed a waiver for year-round E15. Now, your
    agency has looked at a 2024 opportunity to have ethanol be part
    of the solution for our energy challenges. But before us today,
    the EPA--and we have sent a letter to this earlier in the year
    highlighting that we are going to shut down E15 sales over the
    course of this summer. I would like to understand why is that?
        Mr. Regan. Going to shut down?
        Mr. Nunn. The sale of E15 year-round.
        Mr. Regan. For Iowa?
        Mr. Nunn. For the country.
        Mr. Regan. I don't think we have issued a shutdown for the
    sale of E15. I think last year E15 received an emergency
    waiver, which has a limited lifespan. And so each summer, if we
    are going to use that emergency waiver----
        Mr. Nunn. Yes. So let me ask you this. Are you going to use
    that emergency waiver this summer?
        Mr. Regan. Well, as I have said earlier today, we are
    taking a look at that. All options are on the table, and that
    waiver is available, but there must be certain conditions that
    are present. And the reason I am saying it this way is because
    previous Administrations have used that waiver and the courts
    have immediately struck them down for not meeting that----
        Mr. Nunn. Yes. Do you know how many days until the EPA will
    make the decision? Because we have been asking for this for a
    while.
        Mr. Regan. Sure, and others have as well, and I don't have
    an answer for you. I can----
        Mr. Nunn. So here is my challenge. Look, Iowa farmers are
    already in the field. Farmers across the area, producers are
    already in the field. It is not a remote job. It is not
    something that you can phone in. The reality is we have 11 days
    before suppliers are going to have to make a decision whether
    they are going to continue the sale of E15. And the reality is,
    is for your family and mine in the Midwest, that is a massive
    increase in the price of fuel costs for those both using it and
    those providing that supply chain. Do you think within the next
    11 days we will be able to get an answer on this?
        Mr. Regan. I can tell you that my staff has not come to me
    with the level of evidence that we need to make that decision
    today.
        Mr. Nunn. What has changed from last year? Last year, we
    were told it was the war in Ukraine. Last year, we were told
    that fuel prices were high and the President himself demanded
    that this was a way that we could provide affordable fuel for
    families. What has changed from last year?
        Mr. Regan. And you have listed a number of conditions that
    were present last year, and----
        Mr. Nunn. I would offer they are present today as well.
        Mr. Regan. And also, there were a number of conditions that
    DOE indicated that were present as well. And so I can tell you
    that I am talking with Secretary Granholm and DOE, and my folks
    are looking at this. I am not in a position, nor should I be
    legally, to tell you today, especially if the evidence isn't
    present right now----
        Mr. Nunn. We would like to have an answer ideally within
    the next 11 days. I know that is a high-pressure environment,
    but so is the rest of the country under it.
        I would like to move onto WOTUS.
        Mr. Regan. And if the conditions exist on the ground within
    those 11 days, then you will see this EPA move.
        Mr. Nunn. I look forward to that. Thank you.
        Specifically, on WOTUS, many of our colleagues have
    highlighted here that your ability to redefine this is costing
    a number of individual farms a lot of money on a daily basis.
    In my home State of Iowa, Mr. Regan, nearly 97 percent of my
    state would be impacted by the Biden Administration's
    definition of WOTUS. Now, that is the epitome, in my opinion,
    of a lot of government overreach into individual family farms.
        So here is my ask. As opposed to the exclusions and
    exemptions which impact a very small number of people who have
    jumped through the wickets to be able to get an answer back,
    would EPA consider scrapping this process, restarting and
    working with Members of Congress to really move this forward so
    that individual farmers, as has been highlighted, aren't being
    fined up to $50,000 a day, ultimately potentially shutting down
    their farm and the food network for the country?
        Mr. Regan. That offer has been made to my two predecessors
    and two Supreme Court Justices have weighed in, and we have
    seen multiple courts across the country weigh in. I can tell
    you that I worked with Members of Congress, I have worked with
    the agriculture community, and I recognize that this isn't
    exactly what everyone wants. But that is because there are some
    constraints with the law of the Clean Water Act, in addition to
    what we have learned from cases from Obama and from Trump.
    Remember, the navigable waters rule under President Trump was
    vacated by multiple courts. So I get the frustration. I had
    this frustration----
        Mr. Nunn. I appreciate that. In my remaining time, I would
    like to say I don't want to rehash the last two
    Administrations. I want to talk about where this Administration
    is going forward to be a leader in this fight. I appreciate
    your time.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back mine.
        The Chairman. Will the gentleman yield just a couple
    seconds here of your remaining time?
        I would love to know when did you reach out to the
    Agriculture Committee, and whom did you work with on WOTUS?
    Because I didn't get those calls. I didn't get that
    collaboration. And unfortunately, Ranking Member Scott had to
    step out, but I think he has been on board in sharing our
    concerns with WOTUS, so who did you talk with when you said you
    have engaged the Agriculture Committee?
        Mr. Regan. Well, I talked with Chairman Scott. I mean, he
    was the Chairman when I came in and my staff.
        The Chairman. Okay.
        Mr. Regan. We will get the names, but we have worked with a
    number of staff on this Committee. I have also worked very,
    very closely--I am not saying we agree--but worked very closely
    with Zippy Duvall and the Farm Bureau----
        The Chairman. Specifically, you had mentioned working with
    the Agriculture Committee.
        Mr. Regan. Yes.
        I think I said community, but I will----
        The Chairman. I am sorry. Well, if you said community, I
    misunderstood.
        Mr. Regan. But Committee, I have worked and reached out
    with Chairman Scott as well, so I don't want to say we have not
    engaged with this Committee either.
        The Chairman. Okay. Well, there is one side of the aisle
    you haven't engaged in, and I will follow up with Ranking
    Member Scott.
        Now, I would recognize the gentleman from California,
    Ranking Member on the Livestock, Poultry, and Dairy
    Subcommittee, Mr. Costa, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Costa. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And,
    Administrator Regan, thank you for your patience and your
    answering the questions that Members have asked.
        I am not going to belabor the issue on the flexibility that
    EPA has with regards to pesticides and herbicides in the
    application. We have had atmospheric weather challenges across
    the country and in the San Joaquin Valley. Certainly, as you
    noticed in the floods that have taken place, they have occurred
    there as well. That has delayed spring planting, and it has
    changed our flexibility on how we utilize these various
    management tools to get our crops in the ground and to
    successfully harvest them at the end of this year. I will hope
    that EPA will be flexible in their management and jurisdiction
    in every region of the country, including California.
        I have been wanting to get down and sit with you to talk
    about another issue, and that is the San Joaquin Valley Air
    Pollution Control District. Are you familiar with the San
    Joaquin Valley, Administrator Regan?
        Mr. Regan. I am, yes.
        Mr. Costa. You know that it is perhaps the richest
    agriculture region in the country?
        Mr. Regan. Yes, I do.
        Mr. Costa. You know California and the $51 billion last
    year at the farm-gate?
        Mr. Regan. Governor Newsom reminds me all the time.
        Mr. Costa. Yes. Well, good. Good. The valley where we farm
    there is dynamic, and it is diverse, but we have a mountain
    range on the east side that is 14,000. At the back end is the
    Tehachapi, which is 5,000 to 6,000. On the west side it is
    like a bathtub are the Coast Range Mountains. We are in a
    locked-in air basin. Do you know that?
        Mr. Regan. Yes, I understand.
        Mr. Costa. Okay. And so trying to reach attainment status
    is a challenge that we have been working on for decades. Do you
    understand that?
        Mr. Regan. I absolutely am aware of that.
        Mr. Costa. I created the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution
    Control District back in 1988 when I was in the state
    legislature, and we have tried mightily to comply with all the
    standards. I have supported CAFE standards. I have supported a
    host of other clean-air standards. But it is difficult because
    the valley has grown at a higher rate in population and
    utilization than other parts of California. Do you know that?
        Mr. Regan. Yes.
        Mr. Costa. Do you know that the 80 percent or more of our
    emissions are mobile-related emissions, and less than 20
    percent are stationary sources of emissions?
        Mr. Regan. Which is typical of most of the country, yes.
    Mobile sources----
        Mr. Costa. Yes, and do you realize that I-5 and Highway 99
    are major transit corridors, along with the two major
    railroads, Burlington Northern and Union Pacific, in which air
    pollution is created that goes in and through the valley but is
    not responsible so much by the people who live there? Do you
    understand that?
        Mr. Regan. You know your community much better than I do,
    sir.
        Mr. Costa. Well, of course I do. I have represented it for
    41 years, nine out of the ten counties. So what has happened
    is--and I have been wanting to sit down with you, and I want to
    give you an opportunity to help me solve this problem. We have
    met with your regional administrator Martha Guzman, and we had
    a conversation here in the last 2 weeks. It was unsatisfactory.
    EPA, in my opinion, because of actions you have taken earlier
    this year, you have put yourself in a box, and I want to try to
    help you get out of the box. Do you want to punish the people
    of the San Joaquin Valley--and I have supported all the
    bipartisan infrastructure package--from receiving their fair
    share of transportation funds because of this box that you have
    put yourself in, in terms of our ability to comply with the
    latest standards?
        Mr. Regan. I don't think I am in a box, and I think we have
    a discussion----
        Mr. Costa. Do you want to punish the people of the valley
    and prevent them from receiving monies that they, as taxpayers,
    deserve----
        Mr. Regan. We have a solution to avoid any kind of
    disruption to----
        Mr. Costa. Well, then why don't you sit down and talk with
    me so we can work through this?
        Mr. Regan. I have never been offered to, but I absolutely
    will.
        Mr. Costa. No, I have been trying to reach you here for the
    last week to sit down and have a conversation----
        Mr. Regan. Well, we can talk after this----
        Mr. Costa. You have been busy.
        Mr. Regan.--I will give you my cell phone number----
        Mr. Costa. I understand. I have been busy, too.
        Mr. Regan. This is the first time that I have heard----
        Mr. Costa. We are all busy.
        Mr. Regan.--you wanted to talk.
        Mr. Costa. What?
        Mr. Regan. This is the first time I have heard that you
    want to talk about this issue.
        Mr. Costa. Really? Well, then you have to talk to your
    staff because we have been trying to reach out to you for days.
        Mr. Regan. Well, as far as I understand, this problem has
    been going on for more than days.
        Mr. Costa. No, no, no, I know, but----
        Mr. Regan. And my senior leadership has been working on
    this----
        Mr. Costa.--after the meeting that we had with your
    regional administrator, it was clear to me that they were on a
    course hell-bent to go ahead, not provide the flexibility
    necessary so that we could comply and submit the updated plan.
        Mr. Regan. Well, we will respectfully disagree on the
    facts, and maybe you and I can sit down and talk about them.
        Mr. Costa. Well, I would hope so, so we will set that up,
    right?
        Mr. Regan. Sounds good to me.
        Mr. Costa. I want you and I to become best friends.
        Mr. Regan. I believe that can happen.
        Mr. Costa. Good, because I am a problem solver.
        Mr. Regan. Me, too.
        Mr. Costa. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Regan. I appreciate it.
        The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
        I now recognize the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Van
    Orden, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Van Orden. Mr. Administrator, I would like to make a
    general comment before I get to you.
        In my former vocation, I was a Navy seal, and two of the
    core missions of the seal teams are counterterrorism and
    hostage rescue, and I would like to assure my colleagues on
    this Committee that the Republican Party generally, nor the
    Speaker of the House, are holding SNAP benefits hostage, and
    that using inflammatory language like this will not help us
    move forward to pass a farm bill in a timely manner. I believe
    that is counterproductive.
        You are very proud to tell us that your RVOs are bigger
    this year than a long time, is that correct?
        Mr. Regan. The largest that has ever been done, 2022.
        Mr. Van Orden. That is great. Was your agency sued to make
    sure that those RVOs came out?
        Mr. Regan. I think this agency has been sued numerous times
    on the RFS.
        Mr. Van Orden. The answer to that question is yes. And so
    your agency had to be sued by industry to get those RVOs out?
    And this--yes, they did.
        Mr. Regan. No, I think they were sued during the last
    Administration and they didn't get them out. And they were
    sued----
        Mr. Van Orden. Mr. Administrator listen----
        Mr. Regan.--in the Administration before that and they
    didn't get them out.
        Mr. Van Orden. Your agency had to be sued to get these RVOs
    out, and here is the problem. When we are talking about not
    getting E15 out for this summer, it is because of your agency's
    inability to do your job in a timely manner. It is----
        Mr. Regan. Did the last Administration----
        Mr. Van Orden. Let me finish what I am saying.
        Mr. Regan. Did the last Administration do it?
        Mr. Van Orden. Let me finish what I am saying because it is
    2023, sir----
        Mr. Regan. Yes.
        Mr. Van Orden.--and you are working for the Biden
    Administration, so your agency's inability to do your job in a
    timely manner does not constitute an emergency. It constitutes
    a crisis for our farmers and other consumers. So I am going to
    ask you directly because the conditions are identical or even
    worse than they were when you did this emergency waiver for E15
    to be used year-round. The eight states have wanted to.
    Wisconsin is one of them that I represent. I am going to ask
    you directly. Use the empiric knowledge that you gathered to
    get this waiver to use E15 year-round, use the same information
    because it hasn't changed so that we can use E15 this year.
        Mr. Regan. If that were the----
        Mr. Van Orden. I am going to ask you to do that----
        Mr. Regan. If that were the case----
        Mr. Van Orden.--I'm going to----
        Mr. Regan. If that were the case, it would be----
        Mr. Van Orden.--move onto something else, okay? I am asking
    you to do that because it hasn't changed. You don't have to
    redo studies. That is----
        Mr. Regan. So you don't want a response?
        Mr. Van Orden.--BS.
        Mr. Regan. You don't want a response?
        Mr. Van Orden. Okay, yes. Go ahead, please.
        Mr. Regan. If the conditions were the exact same as they
    were last year----
        Mr. Van Orden. They are the same or worse----
        Mr. Regan.--I am the same Administrator, I would have
    issued that E15 waiver.
        Mr. Van Orden. Okay. I am----
        Mr. Regan. It is the same Administrator----
        Mr. Van Orden.--telling you right now that the conditions
    are the same or worse, and you are doing this, and this is a
    shuffle, and it is not acceptable.
        All right. I want to talk about the national security and
    human implications of your decision to have at least 50 percent
    of the cars be EVs by 2030, okay? There is not a single
    electric vehicle that is produced that doesn't have critical
    components to that car manufactured or processed by the Chinese
    Communist Party. So because of this policy, are you telling me
    that the Environmental Protection Agency and the Biden
    Administration are willing to turn over the ability for the
    United States of America to transport its own people to the
    Chinese Communist Party?
        Mr. Regan. No.
        Mr. Van Orden. You are not? Well, then, you need to get rid
    of this rule. Do you understand the 70 percent of all the
    cobalt that is produced in the world comes from the Democratic
    Republic of Congo?
        Mr. Regan. I understand.
        Mr. Van Orden. And do you understand that cobalt is a key
    component for these EVs?
        Mr. Regan. Listen, I understand that this rule is proposed
    for 2027----
        Mr. Van Orden. Okay. Hold on now.
        Mr. Regan.--and it is a proposal. It is a----
        Mr. Van Orden. Okay.
        Mr. Regan.--proposal. You act like this is a mandate----
        Mr. Van Orden. Yes, I do----
        Mr. Regan.--that starts tomorrow.
        Mr. Van Orden.--because I have worked with the
    Environmental Protection Agency before----
        Mr. Regan. You are making a lot of----
        Mr. Van Orden.--so this is----
        Mr. Regan.--assumptions.
        Mr. Van Orden. Listen, man, are you aware that a
    significant portion of the cobalt that is produced in the
    Democratic Republic of Congo is mined by children?
        Mr. Regan. I am aware that----
        Mr. Van Orden. Okay. So are you aware as the leader of the
    Environmental Protection Agency in the Biden Administration
    willing to push this environmental agenda on the backs of child
    miners in the Democratic Republic of the Congo----
        Mr. Regan. No, that----
        Mr. Van Orden.--because that is the reality, sir.
        Mr. Regan. That is an absurd statement.
        Mr. Van Orden. That is not an absurd statement.
        Mr. Regan. That is an absurd statement.
        Mr. Van Orden. It is reality. I can give you article after
    article after article after article detailing this out. This is
    the reality. You guys are putting an environmental agenda over
    child miners in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The
    Environmental Protection Agency----
        Mr. Regan. That is absolutely false.
        Mr. Van Orden.--and the Biden Administration are putting
    the national security----
        Mr. Regan. Absolutely false.
        Mr. Van Orden.--of this country at risk because every
    single electronic vehicle has components that is either
    manufactured or processed by the Chinese Communist Party. That
    is a reality.
        Mr. Regan. Absolutely false that our regulation is
    profiting from child labor on the continent of Africa.
        Mr. Van Orden. Then where are you getting your cobalt?
        Mr. Regan. Absolutely false.
        Mr. Van Orden. Where is the cobalt coming from?
        Mr. Regan. The----
        Mr. Van Orden. Seventy percent of the world's cobalt is
    coming from the Democratic Republic of Congo. A significant
    portion of that cobalt is mined by children. That is where the
    components are coming from. You can't miracle this one.
        Mr. Regan. The proposal--the proposal--proposal doesn't
    kick in until 2027. This is a conversation.
        Mr. Van Orden. This is wholly unacceptable.
        Mr. Regan. This is a conversation, not a mandate. It is a
    conversation.
        The Chairman. The gentleman's----
        Mr. Van Orden. It is wholly unacceptable.
        The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
        Mr. Van Orden. Thank you.
        The Chairman. I now recognize the gentlelady from
    Connecticut, Congresswoman Hayes, for 5 minutes.
        Mrs. Hayes. Thank you, Chairman Thompson.
        Administrator Regan, thank you for being here today. You
    are almost there. Thank you for your grace answering the
    questions of this Committee.
        I am going to take a little bit of a different approach. I
    have some questions that really are relevant in my district.
    The EPA plays a critical role in the viability of farms in the
    United States. Today, I want to discuss the importance of your
    Brownfields Program.
        Across our nation, communities are dealing with the legacy
    of industrialization and pollution. In my district in
    Connecticut, towns have benefited from their location along the
    Farmington, Housatonic, and Naugatuck River Valley as factories
    sprang up during the 19th and 20th centuries. Most of those
    factories today are gone, but the pollution remains. Decades of
    disinvestment have left the poorest families living near these
    toxic sites breathing dirtier air, drinking more polluted
    water, and walking on contaminated soil.
        Thanks to the Brownfields Program, communities in my
    district are rebounding. In Cheshire, town officials are
    revitalizing their downtown around a former Brownfield, turning
    it into a shared community art space. In Torrington, there is
    riverfront property that once sat as an unused factory, and it
    is now affordable housing. In New Britain, EPA funds have
    helped remediate a former greenhouse gas station and auto shop
    into an urban organic farm that now provides farm-to-school
    meals for students. And in my hometown of Waterbury, a
    Brownfield has now become a fish farm that sustainably produces
    branzino here in the United States.
        My question for you today, Administrator Regan, is do you
    agree that the EPA's Brownfields Program can grow local,
    sustainable food systems for disadvantaged communities? And do
    you believe that this program receives adequate funding to make
    environmental justice communities like the ones I just
    described whole again?
        Mr. Regan. Well, thank you for that, and I will tell you,
    as the State Secretary of North Carolina, the Brownfields
    Program was my favorite program because of all of the things
    you just laid out you see in all of these communities across
    the country. I will say that we have asked for an increased
    budget this year that would help sustain a lot of the great
    work you are talking about and discussing all across the
    country. But thanks to the bipartisan infrastructure law we
    have about $1.5 billion to the Brownfields Program over 5 years
    appropriated at $300 million increments. This is going to
    transform communities all across this country, not just from an
    environmental standpoint; but, as you have articulated,
    economic development, jobs, and just confidence in some of
    these blighted communities. This is an awesome opportunity.
        Mrs. Hayes. Thank you. And I know firsthand what that means
    because it is transforming my district. There are many places
    that literally I spent my lifetime watching blighted spaces
    just abandoned that are now thriving again. And to your point,
    thanks to the bipartisan infrastructure law, many of these
    factories are being transformed in a very different way.
        Also, thank you for your persistence in preserving farmland
    as a priority. And I believe every Member of this Committee
    shares that priority. Specifically in Connecticut, open land is
    hard to come by, and the cost of land can be prohibitive for
    new farmers. We have many urban farmers, lots of creative
    strategies, a very intentional vo-ag school. My district is a
    combination of rural communities and cities, and I think that
    we have to rethink our approach to agriculture and EPA to
    include all communities across the country in a very different
    way. In your view, can remediating Brownfields preserve
    undeveloped farmable land? And what can the EPA and Congress do
    to educate the public on the safety and viability of former
    cleanup sites?
        Mr. Regan. I think so. I think obviously in our Brownfields
    Program we look at the level of cleanup needed for the project
    at hand and whether it is a green space or agriculture use or
    mixed-use planning. It would provide a tremendous opportunity,
    especially as you have touched on urban farming. My father was
    an agriculture extension agent, and I understand the importance
    of that educational component from agriculture. So yes. The
    answer is yes. I believe that together, putting our heads
    together with these historic resources, absolutely.
        Mrs. Hayes. Administrator Regan, I thank you for your time
    today and for your unyielding grace before this Committee.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back.
        I am now pleased to recognize the gentleman from Arkansas,
    Mr. Crawford, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Crawford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Administrator Regan, I have a letter here dated January 26.
    It is signed by no less than 196 Members of Congress. Twenty-
    four of those Members are on this Committee. It is addressed to
    you, the Administrator of the EPA, as well as Michael Connor,
    the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. As a
    reminder, this is January 26. The response dated yesterday, and
    it says here, ``While your letter did not pose any questions,
    please do not hesitate to contact us in the future,'' yada,
    yada, yada. And it is not signed by the Administrator, to whom
    it was addressed. It is signed by Radhika Fox, Assistant
    Administrator in the Office of Water.
        My question is why did you wait this long to respond? Is it
    a coincidence that we received this yesterday, the day before
    your testimony? And why did you not take the time to respond?
    The deal is there is not necessarily any specific questions
    posed, but this was an opportunity for you to defend WOTUS. So
    my assessment is by the fact that you chose not to respond, in
    fact, didn't sign the letter that we received yesterday, that,
    in effect, you are stating that there is no defense of WOTUS.
    Otherwise, you would have taken this opportunity to make the
    defense of this rule. Your comments?
        Mr. Regan. I will circle with my team to see how the
    decision was made. Obviously, that letter was routed to
    Assistant Administrator Fox because she is the head of the
    Office of Water. But let me look into that and determine how
    that was done.
        Mr. Crawford. I hope you will because this was either a
    failure of your staff to apprise you of this letter or an
    attempt on the staff's part or your part to not inform and
    respond to a letter that was dated January 26.
        We will move on. Administrator Regan, last month, the EPA
    issued a final rule in the form of a memo that directs states
    to assess cybersecurity of public water systems during periodic
    sanitary surveys under the Safe Drinking Water Act (Pub. L. 93-
    523). Since this was in memo form, there was no opportunity for
    public review or comment. Of note, the inclusion of
    cybersecurity within sanitary surveys does not recognize the
    limited capacity of state personnel with regard to technical
    expertise or staffing, et cetera.
        So my question is to what extent does the EPA know the
    capacity of drinking water systems across America who have
    trained employees who can adequately operate systems under
    those new guidelines?
        Mr. Regan. We have a very good understanding thanks to our
    relationships with our state secretaries, as well as local
    organizations. And I think the calculus that was made by
    Assistant Administrator Radhika Fox was that this was something
    that we could incorporate in a process that was already being
    underway to get this very important information.
        Mr. Crawford. So why does the EPA not implement bright-line
    or quantitative parameters in their WOTUS test even though that
    could help avoid confusion and possible litigation with
    landowners? Could specific parameters be implemented regionally
    to account for regional differences?
        Mr. Regan. I am sorry?
        Mr. Crawford. What I am asking for is why not be more clear
    and concise in these quantitative parameters in the WOTUS test
    even though--I mean, that could help avoid a lot of confusion
    and possibly litigation. We know litigation is coming. Could
    specific parameters be implemented with regard to the regional
    differences that exist with respect to WOTUS?
        Mr. Regan. I think what our staff did was wrote those
    parameters in accordance to the way the Clean Water Act
    requires that we do, not overreaching and not trying to be
    overly prescriptive but given the flexibility that the Act
    affords us. We attempted to do outreach and stakeholder
    engagement. We did ten additional roundtables in addition to
    the rulemaking process so that we could be on our game in terms
    of implementation. And we did it in consultation with the USDA.
    Listen, this is a very difficult rule, as history would
    demonstrate, but I think what we provided was something that
    was durable and had learned some lessons from the prior two
    rules, which is why we went forward with what we went forward
    with.
        Mr. Crawford. Well, at a time of rampant inflation, and
    nobody--particularly hardworking men and women who put food on
    our tables and clothes on our back--need additional expenses
    thrown on them at a time when they are trying their best to
    continue that food supply.
        So my question again is what is the rush? Why not do some
    due diligence on behalf of America's farmers and ranchers and
    the taxpayers? And particularly when we have a Supreme Court
    case pending and the Administration chose to move through and
    rush this cumbersome law and costly rule that will ultimately
    have to be changed? What do you say to that?
        Mr. Regan. Yes, I say that the courts vacated the previous
    navigable waters rule of the previous Administration, and it
    left a void that took us back to pre-2015. There was some
    litigation risk to the agency for not fully enforcing the Clean
    Water Act, so we began moving forward to put this rule into
    place.
        I will tell you that we will respect the ruling of the
    Supreme Court, but we won't be starting from scratch. We will
    be able to take that ruling and move forward with something
    that is codified by the Supreme Court in the rule that we put
    in place.
        Mr. Crawford. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
        I now recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Congressman
    Jackson, for 5 minutes of questioning.
        Mr. Jackson of Illinois. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Regan, I would like to say a special thank you. I am
    very familiar with the work you have done in the under-
    resourced department that you have. I think we need to put that
    in context, that you have more to do, and your department is
    even more critical and more essential, and your budget does not
    reflect the scope and the safety and security you provide for
    us all.
        I come from Illinois, 1st District, and we have a lead
    water problem. Illinois, as you know, and you have spent much
    time there, and I thank you for your service--has the most lead
    service lines in the nation. What I am incurring, and I see it
    nationwide--is smaller municipalities do not have the resources
    to tap in and reach out and understand all of the programs that
    are available. And I would like to ask you, are there any
    initiatives that we can create going into the future to reach
    out to the municipalities that are poor and marginalized that
    do not have the sophistication if you will or the
    administrators in-house to ensure that they access these great
    programs? So the programs are available, but they are
    inaccessible to many at the local level. If you could comment,
    I would appreciate that.
        Mr. Regan. Absolutely. And we used a portion of the
    Inflation Reduction Act to launch what we are calling these
    TCTAC (Thriving Communities Technical Assistance Centers)
    centers, and they are technical centers that are basically 17
    of them across the country that are leveraging partnerships
    with state and local and grassroots organizations. Those TCTAC
    centers have about $10 million apiece to create this network so
    that we can be sure that not only do these organizations,
    municipalities, and local organizations understand where their
    dollars are, but we can help build some common capacity so that
    they can reach those dollars.
        We have about $15 billion dedicated to lead service line
    replacement, $15 billion, and then in the Inflation Reduction
    Act about $3 billion focused on environmental justice and
    equity issues. So we have a lot of resources out there that we
    want communities like the one you described to have access to.
        Mr. Jackson of Illinois. And, again, I would like to
    personally invite you out to the district. You have been there
    many times before. I would welcome you to come back. And if
    there is a way that I can help pilot this, even though there
    are TCTAC, not TikTok centers, correct, that there is still the
    accessibility on those municipalities that are overrun with so
    many other issues, I would like to do my part to close the gap
    to reach out to those in the center if you could direct me and
    facilitate.
        And I thank you very much for your knowledge and your time
    that you spent before us today and your commitment that you
    have shown over the years.
        Mr. Regan. Thank you.
        Mr. Jackson of Illinois. Continued success.
        Mr. Regan. Thank you.
        Mr. Jackson of Illinois. I yield my time back, Mr.
    Chairman.
        The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
        I am now pleased to recognize the gentleman from Indiana,
    Mr. Baird, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Baird. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really appreciate the
    opportunity to be here with you. And I really appreciate you,
    Mr. Administrator, for sharing with us your perspectives. So my
    first question deals with the EPA and the FDA recently
    published white paper that proposes moving a number of animal
    products that are currently regulated by the EPA and place them
    under the jurisdiction of the FDA. This is a major regulatory
    change and an impact that has an influence on livestock
    producers and pet owners that rely on the product for health
    and welfare of their animals. While this proposal is currently
    open for public comment, many stakeholders need more time to
    fully analyze the impacts of this proposal and have requested
    an extension.
        So, Administrator Regan, I would appreciate your comments
    about justification for this jurisdictional change. And then
    following that, if you would consider extending the comment
    period?
        Mr. Regan. Well, thank you for that question, and that
    exact action has not reached my desk, so let me go back and do
    some due diligence on that. And for those who are governing
    that process, I will inquire with them about the extension.
        [The information referred to is located on p. 115.]
        Mr. Baird. Thank you. So my second question deals with
    biotechnology. I am a strong advocate for research, and I
    really think biotechnology is going to be extremely important
    as we try to feed the nine billion people, as well as our own
    people, in the future here.
        But the EPA renewed their biotechnology innovation efforts
    under President's Executive Order on Advancing Biotechnology
    and Biomanufacturing, Innovation for a Sustainable, Safe, and
    Secure American Bioeconomy. Under the new Executive Order, EPA,
    USDA, and FDA are set to renew their efforts to improve the
    clarity and efficiency of regulatory processes for
    biotechnology products. According to the EPA, these efforts are
    intended to facilitate innovative solutions for challenges
    facing agriculture.
        So I am just asking, my question is can you talk more about
    what EPA is doing to move these regulatory processes forward so
    that we can get more innovative solutions into the hands of
    farmers and ranchers?
        Mr. Regan. Well, we are. I can tell you that my folks,
    whether it be out of my front office with my senior advisor of
    ag or through all of our organizations, we are having more
    outreach with the agriculture community, with the farming and
    ranching community as we take a look at streamlining all of our
    decision-making, especially as we think about biotechnology,
    biofuels, and looking at mitigation and adaptation to climate.
    So we have a network in place, again, out of my front office
    and in the front office of my major media offices to ensure
    that agriculture has a seat at the table and has direct input
    into all of these regulatory processes we are attempting to
    streamline.
        Mr. Baird. I appreciate that very much. And I think it is
    very important that stakeholders have a place at the table, and
    I think agriculture and ranchers and agribusiness do need that,
    so I am glad to hear your comments and your perspective in that
    regard.
        My third question deals with the Endangered Species Act. It
    seems to me like with the endangered species that the EPA
    continues to expose itself to litigation, and I think it
    probably needs to really conduct an investigation or evaluation
    of the Endangered Species Act and then have a consultation with
    the U.S. Fish and Wildlife because these entities are causing
    significant problems for a lot of our producers and ranchers.
    So I would just like some idea of what your plan might be to
    expand any kind of consultations or contact with those
    agencies.
        Mr. Regan. We have been in consultation with those
    agencies. A number of us have been in consultation because we
    all find ourselves under a layer of litigation for the past 40
    or 50 years that have caught up to us. And so now,
    collectively, all of us are trying to think through how do we
    settle and get out of that litigation while preserving as many
    tools as possible for our ranchers and farmers and then get the
    resources so that we can get some of these new products off the
    shelves and onto the market that properly take into
    consideration the ESA.
        Mr. Baird. Thank you very much. I appreciate your comments.
    My time is up. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
        I am now pleased to recognize the gentleman from
    California, Mr. Carbajal, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you, Administrator Regan, for coming here today. I am
    reminded when I consider some of the questioning that has gone
    on today how, during the Nixon Administration, there was a
    bipartisan call for his resignation for some of the obvious
    things that he has become famous for. But one positive thing
    that he became famous for is the establishment of the EPA. And,
    you have a very difficult job because you have to enforce
    regulations that do some things that we as a society, as a
    country want to be done, improve our air, safeguard our water,
    protect the environment, protect our public health so that our
    Americans could have a better quality of life.
        Now, the low-hanging fruit has been done early on. The
    floor of regulation and standards have been set. And now there
    is a lot more that needs to be done so we continue to improve
    our health and our environment, a better environment for our
    farmers and our ranchers, continue to work on the floor that we
    have established of achievements. And now it is tougher, so
    those regulations continue to be put forth.
        I don't always agree with the EPA. Usually, it is on timing
    or phased-in efforts. But I just want you to know how much I
    respect you personally for all the work you have done and
    continue to do and those that have come before you. You have a
    tough job. I commend you for your effort and your good work.
        Mr. Regan. Thank you.
        Mr. Carbajal. Administrator Regan, I represent the Central
    Coast of California, also known as paradise, but even though we
    are paradise, it doesn't prevent us from experiencing natural
    disasters, which our area was hit with two atmospheric storms
    recently. This caused major flooding, resulting in crop loss
    and millions of dollars' worth of damages. You mentioned in
    your testimony the challenges that farmers and ranchers face as
    we continue to deal with the impact of the climate crisis. Can
    you elaborate more on how the EPA is working with the USDA to
    combat these challenges?
        Mr. Regan. Well, thank you for the compliments, and thank
    you for the question. I think Secretary Vilsack has a number of
    programs that fit under his umbrella that do have some
    spillover into ours. And I can tell you that on the mitigation
    side when we look at how we can reward our farmers and ranchers
    for doing voluntary actions but also account for the carbon
    reductions we are seeing on the mitigation side, that is an
    area that we are working hand-in-hand in, among many others.
        My Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Federal Advisory
    Committee is also another group of advisers that I have that
    are helping us think through creative mitigation opportunities
    to reduce climate pollution, but more importantly or just as
    importantly, think about how we adapt to the changing climate.
    So as Secretary Vilsack and I think about combating drought or
    flooding or, like in my home State of North Carolina, saltwater
    intrusion that is impacting farmland, we are really taking
    advice from this Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Federal
    Advisory Committee on what are some of the best practices we
    can put in place to adapt to this change in climate.
        Our farmers are on the frontlines. Our farmers are on the
    frontlines. They have very tough, hard jobs. And so we don't
    want to be viewed as just regulators. We want to be viewed as
    partners. And I have tried very hard over the past years to
    present EPA as a partner in as many ways as possible.
        Mr. Carbajal. Thank you. I also understand that pesticides
    are essential to the agriculture sector. Can you explain what
    the EPA is doing to look for viable alternatives to some of
    those most toxic pesticides to protect our farmers, to protect
    our farmworkers, and really just provide more tools to be able
    to continue agriculture prosperity but yet safeguard our
    environment and those that could be harmed by pesticides? And
    we are trying to do that in the farm bill; but, other research
    and efforts you are involved with would be greatly appreciated.
        Mr. Regan. Well, absolutely. And I think that, in addition
    to some of the more traditional pesticides and herbicides that
    we are trying to work and ensure that they can be utilized in
    the safest form possible, we are also looking at a number of
    exciting new products that are ready to hit the streets but
    need to go through a scientific review by the agency and get
    that greenlight. And so we have asked for in our previous
    budget, we are asking for in our current budget, the resources
    to get the personnel so that we can get these review processes
    underway.
        Science and technology is amazing, and we have a lot of new
    products at our fingertips that are much safer, have less of an
    impact on the environment, and could be awesome tools in our
    farmers' toolbox.
        Mr. Carbajal. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Chairman, I am out of time. I yield back.
        The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
        I now recognize the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Finstad,
    for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Finstad. Thank you, Chairman Thompson and Ranking
    Member Scott, for holding this important hearing today. And
    thank you, Administrator Regan, for being here.
        So a few weeks back in March when Secretary Vilsack was
    here before our Committee, he said that he doesn't want the EPA
    Administrator calling him and telling him how to do his job.
    So, Mr. Administrator, as a fourth-generation farmer who
    represents a lot of farmers in southern Minnesota, I am proud
    to stand up for farm country. Farmers are the best
    environmentalists in the world, and we are tired of the EPA
    bureaucrats telling us how to farm while we are out there busy
    every day working to feed and fuel the world.
        So with that being said, Administrator Regan, EPA's Office
    of Pesticide Programs is earning a reputation in farm country
    for being unfriendly to farmers and taking overly restrictive,
    unscientific approaches to regulating pesticides, including
    measures regarding your ESA workplan, chlorpyrifos, atrazine,
    and many other issues.
        So in response to Mr. Lucas earlier, you said the bar the
    court set on chlorpyrifos was too high. So, Administrator
    Regan, my question for you is pretty simple. Have you read the
    court order? The court order actually did afford you the option
    to make a safety determination, and EPA already had 2020
    science on hand to support retaining use of this product. Any
    comments on that?
        Mr. Regan. I have read the order, and my staff has read the
    order, and the wording of that particular judge's order went
    above and beyond the standard language that we use when we
    determine what is safe. And so, again, if you read that order
    very closely, you see a very frustrated judge that set a bar
    much higher for chlorpyrifos than any other thing that we
    regulate. And it was just a step too far for us to make. I
    don't think that EPA and USDA disagreed on the science.
        And I think Secretary Vilsack is right. He doesn't want me
    telling him how to do his job. He knows that I have to stand in
    front of a judge, not him, which is why he is not wanting to
    tell me how to do my job with chlorpyrifos.
        Mr. Finstad. So, Mr. Administrator, I am sure you can
    appreciate the frustration we in farm country have. I mean, it
    is like a dog chasing its tail. We look to the USDA to provide
    us that strong leadership and that scientific backbone to help
    us produce food to feed the world, and then we have the EPA and
    we have you saying you are fighting with the courts and
    lawsuits and all of these different things. To me, there seems
    to be some tools at your disposal, and we are just not taking
    advantage of them.
        Moving on here, the biodiesel, renewable diesel industry
    provides a substantial economic benefit for my state's soybean
    growers. Without the RFS market, soybean prices could drop by
    about 13 percent. Meanwhile, the EPA has proposed volumes for
    advanced biofuels and biomass-based diesel for the next 3 years
    that are below what the industry is producing today. So are you
    aware that there has been over $6 billion in announced
    investment to increase oilseed crush capacity, and this is now
    in jeopardy as a result of the EPA's RFS proposal?
        Mr. Regan. I have met with the biodiesel, biofuels groups,
    and they have made us aware of some information. They have also
    given us some information through the comment period. And
    listen, we are taking that information under consideration. I
    can't say more because this is a comment period, but I can tell
    you that we have heard these communities, and we are governing
    ourselves accordingly.
        Mr. Finstad. I appreciate the fact that you just mentioned
    that you are listening. I really do. Just my advice is please
    continue to do that and if we have the opportunity to meet off-
    line, I would love that, to talk to you about the importance
    this is to us as farmers in farm country and in southern
    Minnesota.
        In the 2014 Farm Bill, Congress directed the EPA to
    establish a standing Agricultural Science Committee under the
    Science Advisory Board to provide scientific and technical
    advice relating to matters with significant direct impact on
    enterprises engaged in ag production. How many times has the
    EPA's Ag Science Committee met since you became administrator?
        Mr. Regan. I would have to check with my staff to get the
    accuracy of that number.
        Mr. Finstad. I looked ahead. The answer is zero. Your
    agency has proposed and finalized hundreds of rules in the last
    3 years, many with significant economic impact for farm
    country. How many of these rules have received review by the
    EPA's Ag Science Committee, as directed by Congress in the farm
    bill?
        Mr. Regan. It sounds like you have a number that could be
    or let me check with my staff----
        Mr. Finstad. Yes, it rhymes with hero, and it is zero. The
    answer is zero. So, the question is do you believe that the
    Biden Administration's WOTUS rule limiting safe and effective
    crop protection tools--these have significant impacts in farm
    country. Don't you think the Committee's--my time is up. We
    will talk off-line. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentlemen. The gentleman's time
    has expired.
        I am now pleased to recognize the gentlelady from Oregon,
    Congresswoman Chavez-DeRemer, for 5 minutes.
        Oh, I am sorry, wrong side of the aisle. It took me till
    the end to screw up this time.
        All right. Ms. Craig from Minnesota--sorry about that--you
    are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Craig. That is okay, Mr. Chairman. Thank you so much.
    You gave me time to sneeze.
        The Chairman. All right.
        Ms. Craig. Thank you, Ranking Member Scott, Chairman
    Thompson, and of course thank you for being with us here today,
    Administrator Regan.
        The work that you and the Biden Administration have done
    following the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act to invest
    in innovative strategies to cut climate pollution, create good-
    paying jobs for Minnesotans, and accelerate our transition to
    clean energy across the State of Minnesota truly makes a
    difference in every single one of our communities. The U.S. is
    currently transitioning to a cleaner, greener economy to ensure
    that we preserve a healthy planet for our children to grow up
    in.
        That being said, I am concerned about the EPA's approach
    with regard to this clean energy transition. In the past few
    months, despite previous support, your policies have alienated
    the renewable fuels sector. The EPA's proposed RVOs shifted
    away from investments in the Higher Blends Infrastructure
    Incentive Program. Biomass-based diesel supports over 75,000
    jobs, contributes over $23 billion annually to the American
    economy, and reduces greenhouse gas emissions by approximately
    74 percent when compared to petroleum diesel. These RVO
    standards overlook those advancements.
        Furthermore, the EPA's proposed new car pollution rules
    released last Wednesday was another hit to the renewable fuels
    sector. These rules also overlook the strides biofuels have
    made in decreasing greenhouse gas emissions and further limit
    the biofuels market.
        You referenced in your testimony that you have a strong
    desire to work closely with the farming community to promote
    practical, science-based policies that protect the environment
    and support the U.S. ag system. I am concerned that these
    proposals are not practical for the agriculture community. Not
    only do these recent EPA actions fail to consider the existing
    capabilities of the renewable fuels market and its potential
    for growth, but they undervalue the American farmers who rely
    on the same biofuels market the U.S. Government has been
    incentivizing for the last decade.
        So, Administrator Regan, in response to the crippling
    effect of rising energy prices Americans have experienced
    across the country, in April, President Biden took bold action
    to address this issue through an emergency waiver to allow E15
    gas to be sold during the summer of 2022. Yet here we are
    again. We have heard nothing on the status of a nationwide
    waiver for this season. As we approach the summer driving
    season, we are again facing the same challenges. So I guess I
    will just ask the question. Will the Administration act in time
    for the summer driving season to permit the sale of E15 year-
    round across the country?
        Mr. Regan. I can tell you that we haven't taken anything
    off the table and that the E15 waiver is being looked at as a
    potential tool for this summer, in addition to the longer-term
    strategy around our response to the eight Governors for year-
    round E15 waiver for those eight states in the year 2024.
        Ms. Craig. I know that rising fuel and energy prices are
    impacting the budgets across the country. Let me just ask you
    this because with the tailpipe emissions standards that were
    just released, those goals are stronger than what the Biden
    Administration even asked for. So let me just ask you this.
    Given the dialogue today, the tailpipe emissions standards,
    does the American biofuels market industry have a future in EPA
    policy?
        Mr. Regan. It absolutely does. In 2022 I finalized the
    strongest RVO in history. And in 2023, 2024, and 2025, we are
    maintaining that trajectory. It was a proposal. We are taking
    comments on that rule holistically but also, as you pointed
    out, on the biodiesel side, and we are going to make
    adjustments based on those comments and come out with a very
    strong final rule. I am working with the DOT and DOE and USDA
    to focus on how we can ensure that aviation fuels are a strong
    player in the market here. So I consider us walking and chewing
    gum at the same time. I don't believe that these car rules are
    alienating agriculture or rural communities. I think that we
    have complementary policies so to speak that will drive us to a
    low-carbon future.
        Ms. Craig. Why does the EPA wait until the last minute
    every single summer to issue the waiver?
        Mr. Regan. I think that it is not necessarily waiting until
    the last minute, but I think if you look at prior
    Administrations that have proactively issued those waivers or
    gone too quickly, the courts have struck them down. So we have
    some precedence we have to watch out for. There are certain
    market conditions that must be present in order for EPA to
    utilize that waiver. And my staff is taking a constant look at
    when they become present, we can take action.
        Ms. Craig. Mr. Regan, I am out of time, so I will yield
    back to the Chairman.
        The Chairman. The gentlelady's time has expired.
        I now recognize the gentlelady from Oregon, Mrs. Chavez-
    DeRemer.
        Mrs. Chavez-DeRemer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is on
    rodenticides. And thank you for being here.
        Mr. Regan. Thank you.
        Mrs. Chavez-DeRemer. I appreciate it.
        On November 29, 2022, the EPA released a public comment on
    the proposed mitigation measures for 11 rodenticides. Many of
    the proposed mitigation measures would place severe
    restrictions on the use of those rodenticides, which would
    hamper the ability of growers, consumers, schools, businesses,
    and healthcare facilities to control rats, mice, and other
    rodents in order to comply with food safety regulations
    required for rodent control. The limitation of access to vital
    rodenticides would harm America's public health, food supply,
    and infrastructure, not protect them. The proposed measures
    would also hamper environmental justice efforts by increasing
    the cost of rodent control and making food more expensive for
    those who can least afford it.
        These proposed mitigation measures include classifying all
    non-consumer products as restricted-use pesticides. This would
    require users of these products to become licensed or state-
    certified applicators for some products and prohibit the
    surface application methods currently used to protect many of
    these crops.
        This would also require growers to conduct carcass searches
    for 2 weeks after applications are made and include additional
    limitations on product use based on the presence of endangered
    species at that location. It is my understanding that in
    addition to impacting growers, livestock operations, food
    suppliers, and homeowners, these restrictions could hamper the
    efforts of some USDA operations such as the Animal and Plant
    Health Inspection Service. It could interfere with the
    Service's efforts to contain the spread of highly pathogenic
    avian flu, which has led to the death of more than 50 million
    chickens and turkeys.
        So my question, will the EPA work with rodenticide
    registrants, product users, and the USDA to ensure that any new
    mitigation measures are practical, science-based, and allow for
    continued access to these vital pest-control tools?
        Mr. Regan. Well, thank you for that question. And I can
    tell you we are working with USDA and others. This is in its
    proposal stage, so we have received a ton of comments. I think
    we saw an uptick in poisoning to children, domestic pets, and
    endangered species in a combination, so I think we proposed
    classifying 11 from a restricted-use standpoint. But we have
    met with USDA and other agencies because we want them to be
    practical and not restrict or undermine food production and
    safety. It is in the proposal phase, so I can't comment more on
    that but just to say we have received a ton of comments, and we
    want to make this as practical as possible.
        Mrs. Chavez-DeRemer. Thank you. Renewable energy: Marion
    County in my home State of Oregon, employs a waste-to-energy
    facility that provides 13 megawatts of renewable energy to
    local homes and businesses while sustainably processing the
    waste remaining after recycling generated in our community. In
    addition, Marion County recovers 7,500 tons of ferrous and
    nonferrous metal in their waste-to-energy facility annually.
    That is the equivalent to 6,000 cars' worth of steel and nine
    million aluminum cans. Each year, this facility diverts more
    than 179,000 tons from landfills, helping Oregon reach its
    climate-related goals. The EPA's proposed rulemaking on the
    Renewable Fuel Standard Program fails to allow waste-to-energy
    to participate, missing a real opportunity to further reduce
    emissions and create new and diverse pathways to repower our
    transportation. Will you revisit the inclusion of waste-to-
    energy methods in the Renewable Fuel Standard Program?
        Mr. Regan. I will take that request back to my team and
    have a discussion on that.
        [The information referred to is located on p. 116.]
        Mrs. Chavez-DeRemer. That is all. I appreciate it. All
    right. I have one final question for you since I have some
    time.
        Many specialty crop growers in my district rely on a
    variety of crop protection tools to protect the fruits and
    vegetables from damaging pests and diseases. The use of many of
    these tools is possible through the work of the IR-4 Project,
    which develops the data needed to add additional uses to labels
    and establish tolerances. Administrator Regan, can you talk
    about the EPA's work with the IR-4 Project to support the
    specialty crop producers?
        Mr. Regan. Well, listen, I think we want to support our
    specialty crop producers, and we are looking at all kinds of
    ways to provide the flexibilities and the labeling that we need
    to keep our specialty crop farmers, our small farmers in a most
    competitive posture. This has been something that has been
    raised a number of times today, and it is something that I have
    pledged to take back to my staff and take a closer look at.
        Mrs. Chavez-DeRemer. Great. Well, thank you for your time.
        And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back.
        I am now pleased to recognize the gentlelady from Hawaii,
    Congresswoman Tokuda, for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Tokuda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
    Administrator Regan, for being here.
        We have heard a reference to China and security issues. I
    do view our overall defense posture, especially in my home
    State of Hawaii, as needing to be a whole-of-government
    approach, including agriculture, including our ability to feed
    ourselves, protect our natural resources, live up to our trust
    responsibilities. And for that reason, I just have a few
    questions that I don't think have really been touched upon
    today.
        Cesspool conversion is a very big issue in many of our
    communities across our country, and I would say especially in
    rural America. There are approximately 88,000 cesspools in
    Hawaii, most of which are small-capacity cesspools on our
    neighboring islands, part of my district. Last August, USDA and
    EPA launched the Closing America's Wastewater Access Gap
    Community Initiative to provide technical assistance resources
    to help historically underserved communities identify and
    pursue Federal funding opportunities, as you know. The
    initiative started with pilots in 11 communities across the
    country. Specifically, how were they identified and
    prioritized? I am particularly concerned about representation
    from our AANHPI (Asian American and Native Hawaiian/Pacific
    Islander) communities, geographically isolated communities like
    many that we find in Hawaii that are struggling with both cost
    and access to infrastructure. More specifically, when we look
    at technical assistance, are we also being mindful, and how are
    you taking into account language and other access barriers
    people may face?
        Mr. Regan. Thank you for that question. And we are
    definitely taking into account all of our cultural differences
    when we think about how we best reach our communities. We are
    providing more than $150 million in technical assistance grants
    over the next 5 years, and we selected the Hawaii Community
    Foundation as one of our Environmental Finance Centers, as well
    as the Rural Community Assistance Program, to directly assist
    communities like the ones you are speaking of. We want to be
    sure that whether it is our TCTAC program or our Closing the
    Wastewater Gap for this $150 million in technical assistance,
    that we are blanketing the country and not leaving any
    communities behind. And so our Office of Environmental Justice
    and External Civil Rights is really taking a close look to
    ensure that the money that flows through EPA, especially from
    IRA and BIL, create an opportunity where everyone has an
    opportunity for their fair share of these resources.
        Ms. Tokuda. Thank you. Again, I know we will work closely
    with our local counterparts as well, but definitely making sure
    that is provided in language that is understandable to many of
    our communities across our country and understanding that even
    technological broadband access barriers exist, making sure that
    it is in an accessible format is critical so we make sure, as
    you said, the money flows to where it is most needed right now.
        When we are specifically looking at addressing cesspool
    conversion, property owners often must comply with all Federal
    and state requirements for cesspools. This can cost, as you
    know, tens of thousands of dollars. It is a major expense for
    many in Hawaii who are already struggling with the high cost of
    living and inflation.
        Could you speak to any barriers EPA programs like the Clean
    Water State Revolving Fund Program, what have they been doing
    to really help people with this cesspool conversion issue? Do
    you think there are any gaps in the programs? And specifically,
    especially given a geographically isolated community like mine,
    are we looking at any innovative ways to be able to create a
    green workforce to actually be able to help with cesspool
    conversions, perhaps funding incentives for local
    manufacturing, innovation, R&D so as we are all looking to
    convert, we can do so in a way that is both economically
    prosperous, as well as taking care of our natural environment
    as well? So if you could speak to that?
        Mr. Regan. I will. I will say that when we think about the
    bipartisan infrastructure law, that $50 billion is focused on
    water infrastructure, $43 billion of that goes through those
    state revolving loan funds, which we have seen as highly
    successful in the past. Of that $43 billion, just over 50
    percent must go to disadvantaged communities, communities that
    have faced these uphill battles for a long period of time.
    Under the Justice40 initiative, 40 percent of the benefits of
    those investments must stay within those communities, and that
    is where you begin to touch on job creation, economic
    development. And the community benefit speaks to that.
        So I would say that the state revolving loan fund is a
    great opportunity to create all of the dynamics you just laid
    out, and that is in addition to choosing Hawaii Community
    Foundation as one of our Environmental Finance Centers for that
    $150 million for technical assistance. So I believe we have a
    really strong program with a lot of history in terms of the
    state revolving loan fund. We have the technical assistance,
    and we have that environmental justice and equity overlay to
    ensure all participation.
        Ms. Tokuda. Thank you, Administrator. I know I am out of
    time, but I would just add, it won't be a question, but I do
    know that you have been doing meaningful engagement with our
    native communities, in particular, our Native American Tribes,
    and I would also put a plug in there than in terms of native
    Hawaiian consultation and coordination for our trust
    responsibilities, this is a primary area of concern, and we
    would like to work with you on this further.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        The Chairman. The gentlelady's time has expired.
        I am now pleased to recognize the gentlelady from Florida
    who will be hosting this Committee's farm bill listening
    session on this coming Monday, Congresswoman Cammack, for 5
    minutes.
        Mrs. Cammack. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward
    to hosting everyone in the Gator Nation. Go Gators, of course.
    And thank you, Administrator Regan, for being here today. You
    state in your testimony that you have a strong desire to work
    with the farming and ranching communities across this country
    and that our farmers are great stewards of the land and are
    tremendous conservationists. I share that sentiment.
        You also indicated that you yourself were raised in rural
    North Carolina and are familiar with the hard work that our
    producers do to put food on all of our tables. While I am glad
    to hear that, coming from a rural district and an agricultural
    background, warm and fuzzy and friendly aren't exactly words
    associated with the EPA when discussing matters with my
    producers and ranchers. In fact, I think the word hostile is
    the one most commonly used. So I hope that we can change that
    dynamic.
        So I will just jump right into it. Administrator Regan, can
    you describe what vegetative filter strips do?
        Mr. Regan. Can I describe----
        Mrs. Cammack. Vegetative filter strips?
        Mr. Regan. I am unfamiliar with that term.
        Mrs. Cammack. Okay. What about the process of contour
    terracing?
        Mr. Regan. I am unfamiliar with that one as well from an
    expert level. I could opine, but I prefer to not give----
        Mrs. Cammack. Well, in the recent Endangered Species Act
    workplan, the EPA, your agency, proposed numerous mitigation
    measures that growers would be required to implement when using
    pesticides to protect listed species, including conservation
    practices such as cover cropping, field buffers, vegetative
    filter strips, and contour terracing. However, these practices
    are very costly. In fact, in the State of Florida, of which I
    represent, this would impact producers from my home state more
    than any other state in the union. For example, it would cost
    $1.2 million annually just to install vegetative filter strips
    on 5,000 acres. There are hundreds of thousands of acres under
    production in my home state, so you can imagine the burden that
    our farmers and ranchers would bear in trying to comply with
    this particular workplan. How do you expect our growers to
    comply with these burdensome regulations while facing
    incredible input cost increases and not go broke in the
    process?
        Mr. Regan. Well, I am glad we are having this conversation,
    and I am glad it is not a regulation but we are talking about a
    workplan. I think what we need to do is ensure that, as a
    workplan is being developed so that we can all get on the same
    page, that we have the right people at the table so that we are
    conversing and using the same language and have an
    understanding of how costly this is going to be. So what I
    would like to suggest is that I revisit this with my staff to
    be sure that we have the right stakeholders at the table as we
    continue to talk through this workplan.
        Mrs. Cammack. Absolutely. And I would open up an invitation
    for you to come down to Florida to my district, visit with my
    producers, and they will actually show you what it all takes in
    order to be compliant with these regulations. I know that they
    would welcome that opportunity because this is quite a burden
    that they have to bear.
        And I just want to piggyback off of my colleague from
    Minnesota who had a line of questioning earlier talking about
    the 2014 Farm Bill in which Congress directed the EPA to
    establish a standing Agricultural Science Committee that would
    provide the scientific and technical assistance. And to date--
    it is now 2023--they have met zero times, and there have been
    hundreds of proposed and finalized rules, major regulations to
    the tune of over $100+ million each that are impacting our
    agricultural industry. And these have not been covered with
    this advisory committee because they have, again, met zero
    times.
        So when we have a regulation like WOTUS, the Waters of the
    U.S. rule, that will actually put many of our producers across
    the country out of business and this organization has met zero
    times, is it the position of the EPA that it will not have an
    impact, an adverse, negative impact on producers across this
    country?
        Mr. Regan. Well, let me tell you, I have pledged to follow
    the science and follow the law. And if Congress has indeed
    instructed EPA to do something, I will get to the bottom of
    whether or not we have.
        Mrs. Cammack. But that is not the question. The question is
    do you think that WOTUS will have a negative or positive impact
    on our agricultural producers?
        Mr. Regan. I believe the WOTUS that we have constructed
    will provide certainty and durability, right, and I think it
    will give a better opportunity for our farmers to have more
    security. And I also believe that the USDA is positioned to
    help us with the implementation and understanding of what is
    being asked for in WOTUS.
        Listen, WOTUS is designed based on the Clean Water Act. I
    have to follow the law. And there has been no Administrator
    prior to me successful----
        Mrs. Cammack. Well, and my time is expiring, so I am going
    to have to wrap it up here, but I am sure my producers will be
    happy to share with you the impacts that they will be facing
    under the implementation of WOTUS when you come and visit us in
    the district.
        But I appreciate you being here today. Thank you,
    Administrator Regan. I yield back.
        Mr. Regan. Thank you for the invitation.
        The Chairman. The gentlelady's time has expired.
        I am now pleased to recognize the gentleman from New York,
    who, this past Friday, hosted a farm bill listening session in
    his Congressional district really at the home of Farm Bureau in
    Binghamton, New York. Mr. Molinaro is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Molinaro. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for
    joining us last week.
        And, Administrator Regan, I am going to tell you that I am
    going to ask a question regarding the Hudson River, but I will
    ask that question second and invite you to visit the Hudson
    River Valley. The Hudson River cleanup remains a major concern
    for us.
        I want to return, though, first to--and I appreciate your
    time today--to the proposed tailpipe rule. And I know that you
    had some back-and-forth with one of my colleagues. I absolutely
    support transitioning to use of electric vehicles. I find
    obviously confronting climate change an important priority for
    this country and for Congress. I do. I call the Hudson River
    Valley home. I have dealt with conservation issues for a long
    time.
        However, it is absolutely legitimate to argue that scaling
    this up under the current timeline that the rule and that the
    President has put in place is just insurmountable. You
    suggested that this was a proposed rule, and therefore, we have
    time until 2027 to get there, but I really would ask you how
    exactly do we think we can make that transition in that period
    of time, knowing full well that we just don't have either the
    supply chain, and we are reliant on, in this case, almost
    overwhelmingly China for this purpose?
        Mr. Regan. Well, thank you for the question. And listen, we
    are following the market. We have had over $120 billion
    invested by the private-sector just in electric vehicles and
    batteries. When I say proposal, this is a proposal which has a
    range of numbers that we are going to be discussing over the
    next year so that we can finalize this rule.
        Mr. Molinaro. Well, Mr.----
        Mr. Regan. The final rule----
        Mr. Molinaro. I am sorry to interrupt.
        Mr. Regan.--would kick in, in 2027.
        Mr. Molinaro. But the President has said not only to meet
    the rule for 2027 but that this Administration thinks that we
    can achieve the goal to increase that to 50 percent by 2030.
    What could we point to that would make a legitimate argument
    that we could make the transition? I have often said the
    analogy is a sort of like we are standing on one side of the
    river looking at the other, and the Administration says, here,
    we are not going to build a bridge, we just want you to cross
    the river. How do we get there from here?
        Mr. Regan. I think on the 50 percent by 2030, the President
    had all of the big three autos and others standing with him
    making that commitment. That is the private-sector making the
    commitment of 50 percent by 2030.
        Mr. Molinaro. I can get them to stand with me as well, but
    the technology doesn't exist.
        Mr. Regan. Well, they say that it does, and quite frankly,
    some of them have some very ambitious goals that are, quite
    frankly, more ambitious than some of the numbers that are
    proposed in the rule that we have. And so what I can say is
    that we are looking at the markets. We are looking at
    technology. And I would agree with you that we have to have
    some things fall into place, which is why the President has
    mobilized domestic manufacturing with the CHIPS and Science
    Act. We have tax credits in the Inflation Reduction Act that
    will spur more purchases of electric vehicles. There is a
    convergence of things that are occurring, but I want to remind
    people what we have done is proposed a range of numbers that we
    will be discussing with labor and the automobile industry over
    the next year or so.
        Mr. Molinaro. I appreciate that. I think that the over-
    reliance on China at this point is a threat and, quite frankly,
    needs to be confronted.
        Since I wanted to get to this question, under the current
    Superfund agreement related to the Hudson River, we have a
    once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to finally restore the Hudson to
    a healthy status. I will tell you that there has been
    increasing concern that the EPA is not going to hold the
    polluters to complete the cleanup. And I will say, too, as a
    person who has spent 30 years in elected office in the Hudson
    River Valley, the regional administrator and the staff there
    has not, in my opinion, sufficiently met the need to be
    aggressive in meeting that Superfund agreement. We are asking
    the Governor and the Attorney General of the State of New York
    to hold firm. What can you do to ensure the people of the
    Hudson River Valley that the EPA is going to not miss this
    once-in-a-lifetime opportunity? We will do an enormous
    disservice to future generations and to the Hudson River Valley
    if the EPA waffles. And I do observe the EPA waffling.
        Mr. Regan. I don't believe--let me rephrase that. We will
    not waffle. But what I think we need to do is make sure that
    all of the elected officials and my regional administrator are
    conversing on a regular basis so that we can understand what
    everyone is doing to meet this deadline and meet this goal.
        Mr. Molinaro. Can you assure us the EPA is going to hold
    firm on meeting the stated language of the agreement?
        Mr. Regan. I can assure you that we are going to hold firm
    on holding the polluter accountable and cleaning up the mess.
        Mr. Molinaro. I will say to you, it is clear that the EPA
    over time has allowed cleanup not to meet the expected
    standard. I worry that the EPA is not going to hold them
    accountable.
        And, Mr. Chairman, with that, I conclude. Thank you.
        The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
        And seeing no other Members--and we didn't miss many
    obviously. We had outstanding attendance here today. And as is
    customary, I will close with some closing comments before I
    adjourn our meeting.
        First of all, thank you, Administrator, for your time, over
    4 hours, much appreciated. Thank you to all of our Members. We
    had outstanding participation. The impact that your agency has
    on our number one industry in this country, and that is the
    number one industry when it comes to the economy, when it comes
    to the jobs, quite frankly, when it comes to the environment
    and to the climate for what they accomplished today already,
    the fact that American agriculture is science, technology, and
    innovation. You can see the importance of that was reflected in
    the attendance and reflected in maybe the emotion as well on
    occasion.
        And thank you to our staff because we couldn't do this
    without our staff, the personal staffs and the Committee staff
    that are present.
        American agriculture concerns are significant when it comes
    to the EPA. I have traveled to over 40 states and am going to
    hit a couple more. We are going to be in Raleigh, North
    Carolina, on Friday and then in Florida on Monday before we are
    back here on Tuesday to go back into session with farm bill
    listening sessions. And it is pretty consistent. There is a lot
    of concern with the EPA. I just share that with you candidly.
    And I heard that long before you stepped into this office in
    this role, but concerns about things that are going on with the
    Biden Administration. Again, we are not looking in the rearview
    mirror. We are looking out the windshield. And so we are trying
    to get the EPA to where it needs to be to support the number
    one industry.
        And some of those things, obviously, that is a concern to
    be heard, and it is unacceptable, as pointed out, the advisory
    committee has not been operated. I know you talked a lot about
    workforce, but at the same time, I don't think there was any
    acknowledgment that some of your scientists--and I would think
    a significant number are funded by the industries that are key
    stakeholders because they want you to have--I don't think we
    got around to asking how many of EPA employees were still
    working virtually. It is time to go back to work in all the
    Federal agencies.
        Their concerns are they want decisions based on real
    science and not political science. They want an EPA that is
    collaborative and not punitive. And I am not saying you
    disagree with these things. I am just telling you what I am
    hearing as I travel the country. They want policies that are
    voluntary and locally-led, not dictated or mandated. They want
    policies that provide real solutions. When changes are made
    like with the crop protection tools, it was pretty much
    unacceptable that there were not real alternative solutions
    provided before they were stripped of working solutions. I
    mean, having ideas and a vision of what will replace them is
    unacceptable if those are not currently available, and taking
    away tools that can't be replaced is absolutely unacceptable.
    These are things I am hearing.
        The EPA's mission is to protect human health and the
    environment. I don't need to tell you that. I know you are
    dedicated to that. Quite frankly, a robust American agriculture
    industry is fundamental to human health and the environment.
    And a weakened American agriculture industry threatens human
    health and the environment. Eliminating crop protection tools
    while predicting future tools that are yet to be created is not
    helpful. A tax on private property rights, as well as state
    sovereignty when it comes to non-navigable waters. I think
    there is nobody in this room on this Committee that doesn't
    support the Clean Water Act. And, quite frankly, it has worked.
    I mean, as pointed out, that was created under a Republican
    President, proud of that fact. But, the WOTUS rule, the way it
    has been done is an attack on the intent of Congress with the
    Clean Water Act.
        You have allowed activists to begin to dictate through the
    courts, and that means we have certainly some members of the
    Judicial Branch that are trying to legislate from the bench.
        There are attacks on our rural economy targeting fossil
    fuel production and the ethanol industry. And, quite frankly,
    the marriage of that liquid fuels industry is what has helped
    to bring down our emissions dramatically. Our emissions are so
    much better than anywhere else in the world because of that.
    And to do that in favor of a political science-based electric
    vehicles push that is not a climate solution because where the
    baseload energy comes from--if you crush the ethanol industry,
    which is a significant part of agriculture, if you crush the
    petroleum industry, you will crush the rural economy, and that
    is not good for any American.
        And if the Biden Administration is serious about climate,
    there are no better climate heroes in the world than the
    American farmer, rancher, and forester. We know today that the
    data shows 6.1 gigatons of carbon are sequestered annually,
    10.1 percent more than what we emit on those natural lands
    solutions. That is crops, livestock, and trees.
        And I would encourage EPA's unapologetic support for
    America's hardworking agriculture families because they are the
    best climate heroes anywhere in the world, given their
    productivity, given their application of science, technology,
    and innovation. And, yes, and we certainly agree that it is not
    an industry that is static. It is dynamic.
        So, Administrator Regan, thank you again for taking time to
    be here. I hope this opens the door to further productive
    interactions between your agency and the entire Committee. I
    heard a lot of conversation today about the importance of
    following sound science, and I appreciate your commitment to do
    so. Unfortunately, some of the actions you have taken stand in
    stark contrast to this commitment. In turn, farmers have lost
    access to necessary crop protection and production tools. I
    urge you to use these resources to expand grower access to the
    tools that they need, not to restrict already available tools
    and not to demonize tools before we have working solutions.
    Crops are vulnerable to a lot of diseases. Government
    bureaucracy is probably the most harmful one.
        It is clear to me there are a number of regulatory actions
    pursued by your agency that negatively impact American farmers
    and ranchers, and I would be interested to know if your agency
    has conducted a comprehensive study to measure the economic
    impact your actions have on rural America and the people who
    live and work there, especially the new car and truck
    standards.
        And yes, the Biden Administration is lining up behind big
    business, and they are doing that because that is what--
    President Biden, is climate, climate, climate, which we are all
    in favor of. We are in agriculture. We have the climate
    solution, so we love tackling the climate issue. But electric
    vehicles, I have no doubts that the industries have been bailed
    out in the past by government are going to try to follow
    whatever the current President, the current Administration's
    priorities are, whether they are workable solutions or based on
    political science or real science. But we need you to stand
    with the people that provide the food, the fiber, the building
    materials, and the energy resources in this country, and that
    is the American farmer.
        And so I would be interested to know if your agency has
    conducted a comprehensive study to measure the economic impact
    your actions have on rural America and the people who live and
    work there, especially those standards, pesticide decisions,
    natural resource regulations. And if this assessment has not
    taken place, I request that this study be done by the EPA and
    sent to the Committee no later than this summer.
        And with that note, under the Rules of the Committee, the
    record of today's hearing will remain open for 10 calendar days
    to receive additional material and supplemental written
    response from the witness to any question posed by a Member.
        This hearing of the Committee on Agriculture is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 2:29 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
        [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
     Submitted Letter by Hon. Mike Bost, a Representative in Congress from
                                    Illinois
    April 11, 2023

      Hon. Michael Regan,
      Administrator,
      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
      Washington, D.C.

        Dear Administrator Regan,

        We write to you concerning the U.S. Environmental Protection
    Agency's (EPA) recently proposed Renewable Volume Obligations (RVOs)
    for 2023 through 2025, announced as part of the ``set'' rule in
    December 2022.
        The Renewable Fuel Standard is an important tool used to support
    the production and use of sustainable homegrown energy sources, and
    EPA's proposed RVOs represent an opportunity to facilitate further
    growth in this critical sector. We are concerned that the proposed RVOs
    for advanced biofuels, particularly biomass-based diesel, represent a
    step in the wrong direction and threaten to derail the significant
    progress made by the industry in recent years.
        Biodiesel and renewable diesel utilize a variety of biomass
    feedstocks to produce a sustainable fuel that supports thousands of
    jobs and contributes billions of dollars annually to the American
    economy, particularly in rural communities. The American market for
    biodiesel and renewable diesel has experienced significant growth, with
    U.S. consumption reaching 3.1 billion gallons in 2022. Further,
    projections from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) anticipate
    renewable diesel capacity doubling to 5.9 billion gallons by the end of
    2025.\1\ EPA's proposed blending targets for biomass-based diesel
    account for less than ten percent of the volume increases estimated by
    EIA, reaching only 2.95 billion gallons in the final year.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ ``Domestic Renewable Diesel Capacity Could More than Double
    through 2025'' U.S. Energy Information Administration. February 2,
    2023, available at: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/
    detail.php?id=55399.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        This draft rule fails to account for the existing capabilities of
    the industry, let alone for its continued growth. It also fails to take
    into account expanded feedstock availability, including new soybean
    crushing capacity, enhanced distillers corn oil capture, and the
    recently finalized canola oil pathway for renewable diesel.
    Specifically, EPA fails to properly acknowledge the expanding crush
    capacity in the United States. Expansion and investments throughout the
    biomass-based diesel value chain have been vast over the past several
    years, in large part because of support from the Federal Government.
    The previous final RVO rule for 2020-2022, increased investments in the
    Higher Blends Infrastructure Incentive Program, and the Sustainable
    Aviation Fuel Grand Challenge are just a few instances where the
    Federal Government recently indicated support for the growing biomass-
    based diesel sector. As a result of this support, the biomass-based
    diesel industry has announced increased capacity through 2025, with 4.2
    billion gallons of biodiesel, renewable diesel, and other biofuels
    already online as of October 2022. Additionally, more than $4.5 billion
    of new oilseed cash expansions have been announced, which translates to
    nearly \1/3\ more capacity over the next 3 years. This means that the
    private market is already responding to previous signals of support for
    growth in the biomass-based diesel sector. The proposed RVOs do not
    acknowledge these investments on the ground, undercutting these
    expansions and unnecessarily putting them at risk--a potential blow to
    rural economies across the country.
        Biomass-based diesel is a valuable component of an energy strategy
    that provides drivers with lower carbon alternatives at the pump.
    Blending biomass-based diesel into heating oil also provides a cleaner
    energy alternative, especially in the Northeast where oilheat remains a
    common home heating option. An analysis from the U.S. Department of
    Energy's Argonne National Laboratory found that biodiesel and renewable
    diesel can reduce greenhouse gas emissions by approximately 74 percent
    when compared to petroleum diesel. Additionally, biomass-based diesel
    substantially reduces particulate matter emitted from the
    transportation and heating sector--helping to improve air quality,
    particularly in urban areas. A 2022 study also found that availability
    of biodiesel and renewable diesel can reduce fuel prices by four
    percent, equaling nearly 20 per gallon in savings with current market
    prices. Further growth in this sector will continue to provide a
    sustainable, affordable, and American-produced energy source. Simply
    put, biomass-based diesel serves as an important tool for energy
    security and as a transition fuel that can lower emissions today.
        The biomass-based diesel industry supports over 75 thousand jobs
    and contributes over $23 billion to the American economy annually. If
    finalized, the proposed RVOs for biomass-based diesel would not only
    represent a missed opportunity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but
    it would also result in a negative economic impact for many farmers and
    rural communities.
        We urge you to increase blending targets for biomass-based diesel
    to levels that account for industry growth and will continue to
    encourage the production and use of these fuels, and importantly, that
    the overall renewable fuel totals are increased so the additional
    volume does not come at the expense of conventional biofuels.
                Sincerely,

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Hon. Ashley Hinson,                  Hon. Angie Craig,
    Member of Congress                   Member of Congress

    Hon. Mariannette Miller-Meeks,       Hon. Mike Bost,
    Member of Congress                   Member of Congress

    Hon. Brad Finstad,                   Hon. Dusty Johnson,
    Member of Congress                   Member of Congress

    Hon. Adrian Smith,                   Hon. Mark Pocan,
    Member of Congress                   Member of Congress

    Hon. Mark Alford,                    Hon. Nikki Budzinski,
    Member of Congress                   Member of Congress

    Hon. Tracey Mann,                    Hon. James A. Himes,
    Member of Congress                   Member of Congress

    Hon. Blaine Luetkemeyer,             Hon. David Kustoff,
    Member of Congress                   Member of Congress

    Hon. Robin L. Kelly,                 Hon. Mike Flood,
    Member of Congress                   Member of Congress

    Hon. Randy Feenstra,                 Hon. Zachary Nunn,
    Member of Congress                   Member of Congress

    Hon. James Comer,                    Hon. Jason Smith,
    Member of Congress                   Member of Congress

    Hon. Emanuel Cleaver,                Hon. Donald G. Davis,
    Member of Congress                   Member of Congress

    Hon. Don Bacon,                      Hon. Jake LaTurner,
    Member of Congress                   Member of Congress

    Hon. Michelle Fischbach,             Hon. Darin LaHood,
    Member of Congress                   Member of Congress

    Hon. Ann Wagner,                     Hon. Jahana Hayes,
    Member of Congress                   Member of Congress

    Hon. Sam Graves,                     Hon. Eric Sorensen,
    Member of Congress                   Member of Congress

    Hon. Rosa L. DeLauro,                Hon. Michael Lawler,
    Member of Congress                   Member of Congress

    Hon. Joe Courtney,                   Hon. John B. Larson,
    Member of Congress                   Member of Congress

    Hon. David Scott,                    Hon. Dean Phillips,
    Member of Congress                   Member of Congress

    Hon. James R. Baird,
    Member of Congress

                                     ______

     Submitted Letter by Hon. Dusty Johnson, a Representative in Congress
                               from South Dakota
    April 19, 2023

      Hon. Michael Regan,
      Administrator,
      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
      Washington, D.C.

        Dear Administrator Regan,

        We write to express concern with the Environmental Protection
    Agency's (EPA) proposal on automobile pollution limits. We are
    concerned that in furthering the Administration's goal of lowering
    emissions in the transportation sector, the EPA is forgoing existing
    technologies and methods for decarbonization in favor of pushing an
    ``all-electric'' future.
        Just 2 years ago, the Administration set a target of 50% electric
    vehicle sales by 2030. While even that goal would be considered lofty,
    the proposed rule's emissions reduction target is estimated to require
    up to \2/3\ of new vehicles sold in the U.S. to be electric by 2032--
    this is almost a tenfold increase over current electric vehicle sales.
    This proposal, paired with efforts to subsidize the purchase of
    electric vehicles, is unfairly choosing winners and losers in a sector
    that is actively working to decarbonize.
        Liquid fuels have been and will continue to be a necessary
    component as the U.S. looks toward a lower carbon future. According to
    a poll by the Associated Press, nearly half of U.S. adults say that it
    is ``unlikely'' they would purchase an electric vehicle. Respondents
    listed several factors for not owning an electric vehicle, including
    costs being too high, too few charging stations, and concerns that
    battery technology is not ready.
        Instead of engaging in divisive policy making, we encourage you to
    focus on present efforts that bolster the domestic supply of liquid
    fuels, such as the year-round availability of higher-blend biofuels,
    and ensuring proposed volumes under the Renewable Fuel Standard
    accurately reflect the industry's capacity for growth.
        It is our hope that you will listen carefully and thoughtfully to
    industry stakeholder feedback, especially from those who help move the
    transportation industry forward.
                Sincerely,

    Hon. Dusty Johnson,                  Hon. Adrian Smith,
    Member of Congress                   Member of Congress

    Hon. Angie Craig,                    Hon. Glenn Thompson,
    Member of Congress                   Member of Congress

    Hon. Michelle Fischbach,             Hon. Mike Bost,
    Member of Congress                   Member of Congress

    Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford,      Hon. Randy Feenstra,
    Member of Congress                   Member of Congress

    Hon. Ashley Hinson,                  Hon. Jake LaTurner,
    Member of Congress                   Member of Congress

    Hon. Mark Alford,                    Hon. Tracey Mann,
    Member of Congress                   Member of Congress

    Hon. Brad Finstad,                   Hon. Mike Flood,
    Member of Congress                   Member of Congress

    Hon. Zachary Nunn,                   Hon. Mary E. Miller,
    Member of Congress                   Member of Congress

    Hon. Max L. Miller,
    Member of Congress

                                     ______

    Submitted Article by Hon. Mary E. Miller, a Representative in Congress
                                 from Illinois

    [https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2022-07-14/california-rooftop-
    solar-pv-panels-recycling-danger]
    California went big on rooftop solar. Now that's a problem for
            landfills

              Solar panels purchased for home use under incentive programs
            many years ago are nearing the end of their life cycle. Many
            are already winding up in landfills.
              (Jim Cooke/Los Angeles Times).

    By Rachel Kisela

    Published July 14, 2022 Updated July 15, 2022 7:13 p.m. P.T.

        California has been a pioneer in pushing for rooftop solar power,
    building up the largest \1\ solar market in the U.S. More than 20 years
    and 1.3 million rooftops later,\2\ the bill is coming due.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ https://www.seia.org/research-resources/solar-market-insight-
    report-2021-year-review.
        \2\ https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/industries-and-topics/electrical-
    energy/demand-side-management/net-energy-metering/nem-revisit/net-
    billing-tariff-fact-sheet.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Beginning in 2006, the state, focused on how to incentivize people
    to take up solar power, showered subsidies on homeowners who installed
    photovoltaic panels but had no comprehensive plan to dispose of them.
    Now, panels purchased under those programs are nearing the end of their
    typical 25 to 30 year life cycle.

              For the record:

            7:13 p.m. July 15, 2022
              An earlier version of this article mischaracterized the
            environmental risk posed by heavy metals in consumer
            photovoltaic arrays. This story has been edited to clarify that
            panels containing toxic materials are routed for disposal to
            landfills with extra safeguards against leakage, and to note
            that panels that contain cadmium and selenium are primarily
            used in utility-grade applications.
              An earlier version of this article also misattributed a
            statement by Evelyn Butler, Vice President of Technical
            Services at the Solar Energy Industries Assn., to Jen Bristol,
            the group's Senior Director of Communications. It also
            misidentified the group as the Solar Energy Industry Assn.
              An earlier version of this article also failed to properly
            attribute quotes by Jigar Shah, Director of the Department of
            Energy's Loan Programs Office, to their source, a 2020
            interview with PV Magazine. The article has also been updated
            to reflect Shah's current professional affiliation as well as
            that of Sam Vanderhoof.
              An earlier version of this article also stated that 25 years
            was the life cycle of photovoltaic panels; the text has been
            updated to reflect that 25 to 30 years is the typical service
            life but not a fixed limit. Additionally, in a discussion of
            transporting photovoltaic panels to recycling or hazardous
            waste disposal facilities, the word ``cells'' has been changed
            to ``panels'' for accuracy.

        Many are already winding up in landfills, where in some cases, they
    could potentially contaminate groundwater with toxic heavy metals such
    as lead, selenium and cadmium.
        Sam Vanderhoof, a solar industry expert and chief executive of
    Recycle PV Solar, says that only one in ten panels are actually
    recycled, according to estimates drawn from International Renewable
    Energy Agency data on decommissioned panels and from industry leaders.
        The looming challenge over how to handle truckloads of waste, some
    of it contaminated, illustrates how cutting-edge environmental policy
    can create unforeseen problems down the road.
        ``The industry is supposed to be green,'' Vanderhoof said. ``But in
    reality, it's all about the money.''
        California came early to solar power. Small governmental rebates
    did little to bring down the price of solar panels or to encourage
    their adoption until 2006,\3\ when the California Public Utilities
    Commission formed the California Solar Initiative. That granted $3.3
    billion in subsidies for installing solar panels on rooftops.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ https://www.kpbs.org/news/local/2022/01/20/big-decision-
    rooftop-solar-california-off-table-for-now.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The measure exceeded its goals, bringing down the price of solar
    panels and boosting the share of the state's electricity produced by
    the sun. Because of that and other measures, such as requirements that
    utilities buy a portion of their electricity from renewable sources,
    solar power now accounts \4\ for 15% of the state's power.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/almanac/renewables_data/solar/
    index_cms.php.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        But as California barreled ahead on its renewable-energy program,
    focusing on rebates and--more recently--a proposed solar tax, questions
    about how to handle the waste that would accrue years later were never
    fully addressed. Now, both regulators and panel manufacturers are
    realizing that they don't have the capacity to handle what comes next.
        ``This trash is probably going to arrive sooner than we expected
    and it is going to be a huge amount of waste,'' said Serasu Duran, an
    assistant professor at the University of Calgary's Haskayne School of
    Business in Canada. ``But while all the focus has been on building this
    renewable capacity, not much consideration has been put on the end of
    life of these technologies.''
        Duran co-wrote a recent article in the Harvard Business Review that
    noted the industry's ``capacity is woefully unprepared for the deluge
    of waste that is likely to come.''
        It's not just a problem in California but also nationwide. A new
    solar project was installed every 60 seconds in 2021, according to a
    fact sheet published by the Solar Energy Industries Assn., and the
    solar industry is expected to quadruple \5\ in size between 2020 and
    2030.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ https://www.seia.org/news/solar-industry-sets-records-2020-
    track-quadruple-2030.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Although 80% \6\ of a typical photovoltaic panel is made of
    recyclable materials, disassembling them and recovering the glass,
    silver and silicon is extremely difficult.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-
    per-cent/2018/jun/04/the-latest-weak-attacks-on-evs-and-solar-panels.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        ``There's no doubt that there will be an increase in the solar
    panels entering the waste stream in the next decade or so,'' said AJ
    Orben, vice president of We Recycle Solar,\7\ a Phoenix-based company
    that breaks down panels and extracts the valuable metals while
    disposing of toxic elements. ``That's never been a question.''
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ https://werecyclesolar.com/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The vast majority of We Recycle Solar's business comes from
    California, but the company has no facilities in the state. Instead,
    the panels are trucked to a site in Yuma, Ariz. That's because
    California's rigorous permitting system for toxic materials makes it
    exceedingly difficult to set up shop, Orben said.
        Recycling solar panels isn't a simple process. Highly specialized
    equipment and workers are needed to separate the aluminum frame and
    junction box from the panel without shattering it into glass shards.
    Specialized furnaces \8\ are used to heat panels to recover silicon. In
    most states, panels are classified as hazardous materials, which
    require expensive \9\ restrictions on packaging, transport and storage.
    (The vast majority of residential solar arrays in the U.S. are
    crystalline silicon panels, which can contain lead, although it's less
    prevalent in newer panels. Thin-film solar panels, which contain
    cadmium and selenium, are primarily used in utility-grade
    applications.)
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
    S2211467X19301245.
        \9\ https://hbr.org/2021/06/the-dark-side-of-solar-power.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Orben said the economics of the process don't make a compelling
    case for recycling.
        Only about $2 to $4 worth of materials are recovered from each
    panel. The majority of processing costs are tied to labor, and Orben
    said even recycling panels at scale would not \10\ be more economical.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ https://resource-recycling.com/e-scrap/2021/05/13/solar-
    panels-are-the-new-crt-but-sector-is-preparing/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Most research on photovoltaic panels is focused on recovering
    solar-grade silicon to make recycling economically viable.
        That skews the economic incentives against recycling. The National
    Renewable Energy Laboratory estimated that it costs roughly $20 to $30
    to recycle a panel versus $1 to $2 to send it to a landfill.
        Most experts assume that is where the majority of panels are ending
    up right now. But it's anyone's guess. Natalie Click, a doctoral
    candidate in materials science at the University of Arizona, said there
    is no uniform system ``for tracking where all of these decommissioned
    panels are going.''
        The California Department of Toxic Substances collected its first
    data on panels recycled by universal waste handlers in 2021. For
    handlers that accepted more than 200 pounds or generated more than
    10,000 pounds of panels, the DTSC counted 335 panels accepted for
    recycling, said Sanford Nax, a spokesman for the agency.
        The department expects the number of installed solar panels in the
    next decade to exceed hundreds of millions in California alone, and
    that recycling will become even more crucial as cheaper panels with
    shorter life spans become more popular.
        A lack of consumer awareness about the toxicity of materials in
    some panels and how to dispose of them is part of the problem, experts
    said.
        ``There's an informational gap, there's a technological gap, and
    there's a financial gap that we're working on,'' said Amanda Bybee, co-
    founder of SolarRecycle.org, a website aimed at helping people
    understand how to recycle solar panels and how the process works.
        Last year, new DTSC regulation came into effect that reclassified
    the panels, changing \11\ the way they can be collected and
    transported. Previously, all panels were required to be treated as
    hazardous waste upon removal, which restricted transportation and
    storage.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \11\ https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/74124.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Both business and residential consumers, or generators as they are
    called in the recycling industry, were supposed to transport the panels
    themselves to certified recycling or hazardous waste disposal
    facilities. With little tracking, it's unclear how frequently that
    occurred.

              Solar panels are now classified as universal waste and can be
            collected at more than 400 universal waste handlers in
            California, where they are then assessed and transported to
            disposal, reuse or recycle facilities. Above, solar panels are
            installed on a roof.
              (Irfan Khan/Los Angeles Times).

        Now, panels are classified as universal waste and can be collected
    at more than 400 universal waste handlers in California, where they are
    then assessed and transported to disposal, reuse or recycle facilities.
    (In cases where panels containing toxic materials are relegated to
    landfills, they are sent to facilities with extra safeguards against
    leakage.) The new regulations were intended to make it easier for
    people to turn in their panels, but it does not directly address the
    next step--recycling.
        ``What that [rule] does is really just changes how that material is
    handled, managed, stored, and transported,'' said Orben of We Recycle
    Solar. ``It doesn't change how that material is actually processed.''
        In 2016, the Solar Energy Industries Assn., a nonprofit trade
    association for the U.S. solar industry, started a recycling program
    for panels. Robert Nicholson, the manager of PV Recycling at the
    association, said it aims to help the industry group's recycling
    partners--five so far--``develop compliant, cost-effective recycling
    services for end-of-life modules.''
        ``The majority of recyclers are already existing recyclers; they're
    primarily doing e-waste or they're doing glass,'' said Evelyn Butler,
    the association's vice president of technical services. ``So we have
    had to work with them to kind of take that leap, to say: `We believe
    that the processes you're using can accommodate the technology.' '' The
    association also works with regulators to draft legislation that
    decreases the number of panels heading to landfills.
        Government subsidies are one way to make solar panel recycling
    economically viable for the waste generators, who now bear much of the
    cost of recycling.
        In Europe, a recently enacted regulation called the European Union
    Waste of Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive places
    responsibility on producers for supporting their products through
    responsible end-of-life disposal. It requires all producers that
    manufacture panels for countries in the EU to finance end-of-life
    collection and recycling.
        Similar legislation has been attempted in several U.S. states,
    including Washington, where the Photovoltaic Module Stewardship and
    Takeback Program will require solar panel manufacturers to finance end-
    of-life recycling. The initiative was passed in 2017 and will begin
    implementation in 2025. It's the only \12\ producer-responsibility law
    in the United States.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \12\ https://frontiergroup.org/blogs/blog/fg/solar-panel-recycling-
    circular-economy-renewable-energy.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        It's part of a larger strategy in the recycling industry called
    \13\ extended producer responsibility, in which the cost of recycling
    is built into the cost of a product at its initial purchase. Business
    entities in the product chain--rather than the general public--become
    responsible for end-of-life costs, including recycling costs.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \13\ https://calrecycle.ca.gov/epr/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In a 2020 interview with PV Magazine,\14\ Jigar Shah, co-founder of
    Generate Capital, a fund that invests in sustainable infrastructure,
    said the problem can be addressed at the very start of the product
    chain--by manufacturers. Shah, who is now director of the Department of
    Energy's Loan Programs Office, said that policymakers need to require
    manufacturers to come up with a standard design that makes panels
    easier and cheaper to recycle.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \14\ https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2020/12/03/solar-panel-recycling-
    in-the-us-a-looming-issue-that-could-harm-growth-and-reputation/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        ``It's far more cost-effective for manufacturers to be forced to
    work together . . . where they try to greatly reduce the cost of all
    that collectively. That happens through policy,'' he said. ``It doesn't
    happen through people opting in.''

              Although 80% of a typical photovoltaic panel is made of
            recyclable materials, disassembling a panel and recovering the
            glass, silver and silicon is extremely difficult.
              (Jim Cooke/Los Angeles Times).

        In April 2022, Santa Monica concluded a solar panel recycling pilot
    program \15\ in partnership with the California Product Stewardship
    Council, a public-private partnership. The stewardship council surveyed
    local residential solar owners and found that many, at a loss for what
    to do with end-of-life panels, called up installers for help.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \15\ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uodHTg_vi1s.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        ``We did find that the solar installers were the best contact for
    us to learn about how many decommissioned panels were in our region,''
    said Drew Johnstone, a sustainability analyst for Santa Monica. ``Some
    contractors did end up just having to pile them in their warehouses,
    because there's no good solution for where to bring them.''
        Johnstone says the universal waste reclassification has made a big
    difference, cutting down on cost and paperwork needed for handling
    modules, and more handlers can accept the panels from generators.
        ``It's going to be a really large issue in a number of years,''
    Johnstone said. ``So it would behoove local governments, county, state,
    and it can go Federal too, to have a plan in place for all these panels
    that will reach their end of life in 10 to 15 years.''

              Kisela is a special correspondent.
                                     ______

     Submitted Tweet by Hon. Mary E. Miller, a Representative in Congress
                                 from Illinois

              https://twitter.com/EPAMichaelRegan/status/
            1634296090777223169
                                     ______

    Submitted Website Snapshot by Hon. Mary E. Miller, a Representative in
                             Congress from Illinois

    [https://www.epa.gov/hw/end-life-solar-panels-regulations-and-
    management]
    Hazardous Waste Home
    End-of-Life Solar Panels: Regulations and Management
        Solar is a fast-growing energy source that is vital to the U.S.
    effort to reduce fossil fuel use. When solar panels, which typically
    have a lifespan of more than 25 years, reach the end of their lives and
    become a waste stream, they must be managed safely. Find information
    here about different types of solar panels and how they are regulated
    at end of life. If you are disposing of solar panels that are hazardous
    waste, then regulations under the Resource Conservation and Recovery
    Act (RCRA) must be followed to make sure the panels are safely recycled
    or disposed of.

    Background
        Solar panels provide clean, renewable energy from the sun, and
    their prevalence as an energy source has been growing. In 2020, solar
    panels provided about 40 percent of new U.S. electric generation
    capacity, compared to just four percent in 2010. Overall, 3.3 percent
    of electricity in the United States was produced using solar
    technologies in 2020. For more information on these statistics and
    additional solar energy generation information, visit the U.S. Energy
    Information Administration Monthly Energy Review \1\ and the U.S.
    Department of Energy's Quarterly Solar Industry Update page.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/mer.pdf.
        \2\ https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/quarterly-solar-industry-
    update.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        While in use, solar panels safely generate electricity without
    creating any air emissions. However, like any source of energy, there
    are associated wastes that need to be properly recycled or disposed of
    when solar panels reach their end of life. As the solar photovoltaic
    (PV) market grows, so will the volume of end-of-life panels. By 2030,
    the United States is expected to have as much as one million total tons
    of solar panel waste. For comparison, the total generation of U.S.
    municipal solid waste (MSW) in 2018 was 292.4 million tons.\3\ By 2050,
    the United States is expected to have the second largest number of end-
    of-life panels in the world, with as many as an estimated 10 million
    total tons of panels. For more information on these and other solar
    panel waste projections, visit the International Renewable Energy
    Agency (IRENA) report on end-of-life solar panel management.\4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ https://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-materials-waste-
    and-recycling/national-overview-facts-and-figures-materials#Generation.
        \4\ https://www.irena.org/publications/2016/Jun/End-of-life-
    management-Solar-Photovoltaic-Panels.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Types of Solar Panels
        The two most common types of solar panels are crystalline-silicon
    and thin film solar panels.
    Silicon Solar (mono- and poly-crystalline)
        Crystalline-silicon solar PV represents over 95 percent of solar
    panels sold today. This type of panel contains solar cells made from a
    crystal silicon structure. These solar panels typically contain small
    amounts of valuable metals embedded within the panel, including silver
    and copper. Crystalline-silicon solar panels are efficient, low cost,
    and have long lifetimes, with modules expected to last for 25 years or
    longer.
    Thin-Film Solar
        Thin-film solar cells contain thin layers of semiconductor
    material, such as cadmium telluride (CdTe) or copper indium gallium
    diselenide (CIGS), layered on a supporting material such as glass,
    plastic, or metal. CdTe is the second-most common PV material after
    silicon, and cells can be made using low-cost manufacturing processes,
    but their efficiencies aren't as high as silicon solar PV.
        For more about this information and types of solar panels, visit
    the U.S. Department of Energy Solar Photovoltaic Cell Basics Web
    Page.\5\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/solar-photovoltaic-cell-
    basics.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Are Solar Panels Hazardous Waste?
        Hazardous waste testing on solar panels in the marketplace has
    indicated that different varieties of solar panels have different
    metals present in the semiconductor and solder. Some of these metals,
    like lead and cadmium, are harmful to human health and the environment
    at high levels. If these metals are present in high enough quantities
    in the solar panels, solar panel waste could be a hazardous waste \6\
    under RCRA.\7\ Some solar panels are considered hazardous waste, and
    some are not, even within the same model and manufacturer. Homeowners
    with solar panels on their houses should contact their state/local
    recycling agencies for more information on disposal/recycling.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ https://www.epa.gov/hw/learn-basics-hazardous-waste.
        \7\ https://www.epa.gov/rcra.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Overview of Hazardous Waste Regulations
        Federal solid and hazardous waste regulations (i.e., the RCRA
    requirements) \8\ apply to solar panels when they are discarded. When a
    solar panel reaches the end of its usable life or is otherwise
    discarded, it becomes solid waste. Solid waste is regulated federally
    under RCRA Subtitle D \9\ and through state and local government
    programs.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ https://www.epa.gov/rcra/identification-non-hazardous-
    secondary-materials-are-solid-waste.
        \9\ https://www.epa.gov/rcra/resource-conservation-and-recovery-
    act-rcra-overview#subtitleD.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The discarded solar panel, which is now considered solid waste, may
    then also be regulated under RCRA Subtitle C \10\ as hazardous waste if
    it is determined to be hazardous. The most common reason that solar
    panels would be determined to be hazardous waste would be by meeting
    the characteristic of toxicity.\11\ Heavy metals like lead and cadmium
    may be leachable at such concentrations that waste panels would fail
    the toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP),\12\ a test
    required under RCRA to determine if materials are hazardous waste. If
    the generator of the solar panels knows from previous experience that
    the material would fail the TCLP test, they can determine that the
    waste is hazardous without the need for testing.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ https://www.epa.gov/rcra/resource-conservation-and-recovery-
    act-rcra-overview.
        \11\ https://www.epa.gov/hw/defining-hazardous-waste-listed-
    characteristic-and-mixed-radiological-wastes#toxic.
        \12\ https://www.epa.gov/hw-sw846/sw-846-test-method-1311-toxicity-
    characteristic-leaching-procedure.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        While heavy metals are present in most solar panels, there are a
    variety of manufacturers and models, with different materials used as
    semiconductors. Because of the variation in design and components,
    testing has shown that some solar panels may pass the TCLP while others
    fail.
        Hazardous waste solar panels that are recycled \13\ may be able to
    use regulatory exclusions available under RCRA, including the transfer-
    based exclusion (Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations section
    261.4(a)(24)) in states that have adopted the 2015 or 2018 Definition
    of Solid Waste Rule.\14\ The transfer-based exclusion is a regulatory
    exclusion for hazardous secondary material that is recycled,\15\ as
    long as certain criteria laid out in the regulations are followed. This
    conditional exclusion is designed to encourage recycling of materials
    by third parties while still providing a regulatory framework that
    prevents mismanagement.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \13\ https://www.epa.gov/hw/solar-panel-recycling.
        \14\ https://www.epa.gov/hw/final-rule-2018-definition-solid-waste-
    dsw-response-court-vacatur.
        \15\ https://www.epa.gov/hw/hazardous-waste-recycling#whatis.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    State Solar Panel End-of-Life Policies
        Some states have enacted laws, regulations, and policies impacting
    solar panel waste, including:

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
               States                        Corresponding Policy
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    California                    State Universal Waste for PV Modules \16\
    \16\ https://dtsc.ca.gov/
     photovoltaic-modules-pv-
     modules-universal-waste-
     management-regulations/
     #easy-faq-351191.
    Hawaii                        State Universal Waste Regulations for
                                   Solar Panels \17\
    \17\ https://
     health.hawaii.gov/shwb/
     files/2021/06/11-273.1-June-
     7-2021-guidebook-with-track-
     changes.pdf.
    New Jersey                    Solar Panel Recycling Commission \18\
    \18\ https://www.state.nj.us/
     dep/dshw/solar-panel-
     recycling/.
    North Carolina                Department of Environmental Quality and
                                   Environmental Management Commission
                                   report on the Regulatory Program for the
                                   Management and Decommissioning of
                                   Renewable Energy Equipment \19\
    \19\ https://files.nc.gov/
     ncdeq/Environmental
     Management Commission/EMC
     Meetings/2021/jan2021/
     attachments/AttachA-21-05-
     H329---FINAL-REPORT-Ellen--
     1-.pdf.
    Washington                    Photovoltaic Module Stewardship and
                                   Takeback Program \20\
    \20\ https://ecology.wa.gov/
     Waste-Toxics/Reducing-
     recycling-waste/Solar-
     panels.
    \20\ https://www.epa.gov/
     hwgenerators/links-
     hazardous-waste-programs-
     and-us-state-environmental-
     agencies.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Note: The list above is not comprehensive.
    For more information on solar panel regulatory activity at the state
      level, please visit your state's environmental agency website.\21\

    Additional Resources
        For more information on environmental impacts and benefits of solar
    panels, please visit the following resources:

       Frequent questions on solar panel waste.\22\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \22\ https://www.epa.gov/hw/solar-panel-frequent-questions.

       EPA solar panel recycling web page.\23\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \23\ https://www.epa.gov/hw/solar-panel-recycling.

       Solar Panel Recycling and Disposal \24\ guidance from North
            Carolina Department of Environmental Quality.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \24\ https://www.epa.gov/hw/solar-panel-recycling.

       Solar Panel Fact Sheet \25\ from South Carolina Department
            of Health and Environmental Control.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \25\ https://scdhec.gov/sites/default/files/Library/OR-1695.pdf.

       Re-powering America's Land program for siting renewable
            energy on contaminated sites, landfills and more.\26\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \26\ https://www.epa.gov/re-powering.

       EPA's Green Power Partnership Program.\27\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \27\ https://www.epa.gov/greenpower.

       EPA information about State Renewable Energy Policies.\28\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \28\ https://www.epa.gov/statelocalenergy/state-renewable-energy-
    policies.

              Last Updated on August 28, 2022.
                                     ______

     Submitted Letter by Hon. Nicholas A. Langworthy, a Representative in
                             Congress from New York
    February 16, 2023

      Hon. Kathy Hochul,
      Governor,
      New York State,
      Albany, NY

        Dear Governor Hochul:

        We write to you today, in support of New York State's farmers and
    agricultural industry, to share our concerns regarding the Climate
    Action Council's most recent advancement of its Scoping Plan.
        Farmers across the State of New York have worked tirelessly to
    develop new practices on their farms to address environmental concerns.
    They play a leading role in helping to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG)
    emissions and have been engaged on many renewable energy projects.
    While we understand the need to reduce GHG emissions, the Scoping
    Plan's transportation goals--specifically, the transition to electric
    vehicles (EVs)--would have a devastating impact on the survival of our
    state's agricultural producers.
        Farmers rely on a variety of different vehicles at both the farm
    and distribution levels to transport their goods. A lack of charging
    infrastructure on roads less traveled, higher purchasing and operating
    costs, and reliability issues of EVs when hauling perishable
    agricultural commodities across far distances remain unresolved
    concerns. Even if the state was successful in building out EV
    infrastructure, serious challenges would remain. As you know, charging
    a medium- or heavy-duty EV takes time, and it is imperative that
    livestock are moved in a timely manner. Reliance on EVs with long
    charging times could put unwanted stress on livestock and could put the
    animals in unsafe conditions.
        Furthermore, affordable technology that would allow for the entire
    transition to electric farm equipment simply does not exist. While
    there are some small farm electric tractors that are currently
    available on the market, there is no EV equivalent that could replace
    existing diesel-powered large farm equipment such as tractors,
    sprayers, combines, and choppers. The Scoping Plan amounts to forcing
    our producers off of reliable, efficient machinery they have relied on
    for years with no real alternative equipment available. What's more,
    requiring our farmers to rely more heavily on electric charging
    vehicles ignores the operational realities of farming and the
    inconvenience of having to park equipment for hours on end to recharge.
    Without an adequate electric grid as the state transitions away from
    natural gas and other reliable, affordable fossil fuels, the Scoping
    Plan provides no answers as to how such a transition to electrification
    can be accommodated on an already strained grid. These concerns and
    many more remain unresolved.
        Finally, the implementation of the Scoping Plan risks shutting out
    the stakeholders--our state's farmers--who will be subject to any new
    regulations. The New York State Department of Environmental
    Conservation (DEC) has significant authority in drafting and
    promulgating these regulations to achieve the goals set forth in this
    plan. It is concerning that this process bypasses the legislative and
    regulatory rulemaking process, ultimately providing agencies with
    significant authority to create rules without receiving the necessary
    outside input.
        We appreciate your consideration of the agriculture industries'
    concerns that the impacts of the Scoping Plan will have on farmers, and
    we encourage DEC to keep the agriculture industry in mind when
    implementing this plan in the coming year.
                Respectfully,

    Hon. Nicholas A. Langworthy,         Hon. Marcus J. Molinaro,
    Member of Congress                   Member of Congress

    Hon. Elise M. Stefanik,              Hon. Claudia Tenney,
    Member of Congress                   Member of Congress

    Hon. Michael Lawler,                 Hon. Brandon Williams,
    Member of Congress                   Member of Congress

    Hon. Nick LaLota,                    Hon. Anthony D'Esposito,
    Member of Congress                   Member of Congress

                                     ______

    Submitted Letter by Hon. David Scott, a Representative in Congress from
                                    Georgia
    March 28, 2023

      Hon. Michael Regan,
      Administrator,
      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
      Washington, D.C.

        Dear Administrator Regan:

        We write to strongly express our support for strengthening the
    Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) draft proposal on the National
    Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for fine particulate matter
    pollution (PM2.5), also known as soot. We were pleased that
    EPA reconsidered the inadequate 2020 standards, and we urge you to
    finalize standards no higher than 8 mg/m\3\ for the annual standard and
    25 mg/m3 for the 24 hour standard, which are in line with the
    recommendations of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
    (CASAC).\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ U.S. EPA. CASAC Review of the EPA's Policy Assessment for the
    Reconsideration of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for
    Particulate Matter (External Review Draft--October 2021), March 2022.
    EPA-CASAC-22-002.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Exposure to fine particle pollution causes a range of health
    issues, such as increased infant mortality, cardiovascular and
    respiratory disease, asthma attacks, diabetes, and premature death. The
    public health benefits that could be realized under an annual standard
    of 8 m/m\3\ were estimated to total $44,000-$93,000 million
    annually.\2\ Adopting the most stringent annual standard proposed by
    EPA--9 mg/m\3\--saves 4,200 lives, but adopting the standard
    recommended by CASAC--8 mg/m\3\--saves more than twice that number in
    the year 2032.\3\ These health impacts disproportionately affect
    communities of color, fenceline communities, and lower-income
    communities who are already overburdened by pollution. People of color
    also face worse outcomes from exposure to air pollution and stand the
    benefit the most from stronger standards. EPA's own analysis shows that
    every other race compared to Whites would see greater mortality
    reductions with tighter standards. For Black Americans, mortality
    reductions are over double for a standard of 8 mg/m\3\ compared to
    9.\4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ U.S. EPA. Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Proposed
    Reconsideration of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for
    Particulate Matter, December 2022. EPA-452/P-22-001.
        \3\ Ibid.
        \4\ Ibid.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        According to the American Lung Association, over 63 million
    Americans experience unhealthy particle pollution spikes and 20 million
    live with dangerous levels of particle pollution year-round. Further,
    recent research shows air pollution and its harmful impact on human
    health and the environment are increasing. The American Lung
    Association's 2022 ``State of the Air Report'' found 9 million more
    people were impacted by particulate matter from 2018-2020 than in the
    previous report.
        It is critical that EPA strengthen both the annual and 24 hour
    standards. Both standards are necessary for adequately protecting
    public health. The 24 hour standard is the basis for the Air Quality
    Index, which millions of Americans rely on to know the quality of the
    air they breathe each day. An inadequate 24 hour standard, like the
    current 35 mg/m\3\, can mask short-term pollution spikes that are
    dangerous to millions of people such as children, the elderly, and
    people with cardiovascular and respiratory problems and pregnant
    people. Strengthening only the annual standard is not enough to protect
    communities from dangerous short-term pollution spikes.
        Strengthening particle pollution standards will improve air quality
    from coast to coast and will start to address historic inequities and
    injustices in communities suffering from cumulative exposure to
    multiple pollutants. People and their families have waited far too long
    to breathe healthy air. The science is clear and we urge you to move
    swiftly to finalize these standards so that we can finally begin to
    achieve the promise of clean air for everyone.
                Sincerely,

    Hon. Edward J. Markey,   Hon. Lisa Blunt          Hon. Nanette Diaz
                              Rochester,               Barragan,
    United States Senator    Member of Congress       Member of Congress

    Hon. Adam Smith,                     Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton,
    Member of Congress                   Member of Congress

    Hon. Rashida Tlaib,                  Hon. Raul M. Grijalva,
    Member of Congress                   Member of Congress

    Hon. Yvette D. Clarke,               Hon. Barbara Lee,
    Member of Congress                   Member of Congress

    Hon. Julia Brownley,                 Hon. Doris O. Matsui,
    Member of Congress                   Member of Congress

    Hon. Robert Garcia,                  Hon. Mary Gay Scanlon,
    Member of Congress                   Member of Congress

    Hon. Brittany Pettersen,             Hon. Mark DeSaulnier,
    Member of Congress                   Member of Congress

    Hon. Steve Cohen,                    Hon. Greg Casar,
    Member of Congress                   Member of Congress

    Hon. Jasmine Crockett,               Hon. Adriano Espaillat,
    Member of Congress                   Member of Congress

    Hon. Jerrold Nadler,                 Hon. Chris Van Hollen,
    Member of Congress                   United States Senator

    Hon. Dina Titus,                     Hon. Paul Tonko,
    Member of Congress                   Member of Congress

    Hon. Shri Thanedar,                  Hon. Troy A. Carter,
    Member of Congress                   Member of Congress

    Hon. Janice D. Schakowsky,           Hon. Jared Huffman,
    Member of Congress                   Member of Congress

    Hon. Mikie Sherrill,                 Hon. Maxine Waters,
    Member of Congress                   Member of Congress

    Hon. Frederica S. Wilson,            Hon. Betty McCollum,
    Member of Congress                   Member of Congress

    Hon. Suzanne Bonamici,               Hon. Dwight Evans,
    Member of Congress                   Member of Congress

    Hon. Sydney Kamlager-Dove,           Hon. Nydia M. Velazquez,
    Member of Congress                   Member of Congress

    Hon. Alex Padilla,                   Hon. James P. McGovern,
    United States Senator                Member of Congress

    Hon. Linda T. Sanchez,               Hon. Ro Khanna,
    Member of Congress                   Member of Congress

    Hon. Glenn Ivey,                     Hon. Donald S. Beyer, Jr.,
    Member of Congress                   Member of Congress

    Hon. Bernard Sanders,                Hon. Jamaal Bowman,
    United States Senator                Member of Congress

    Hon. Andre Carson,                   Hon. Grace Meng,
    Member of Congress                   Member of Congress

    Hon. Adam B. Schiff,                 Hon. Nikema Williams,
    Member of Congress                   Member of Congress

    Hon. Jimmy Gomez,                    Hon. Darren Soto,
    Member of Congress                   Member of Congress

    Hon. Salud O. Carbajal,              Hon. Mike Levin,
    Member of Congress                   Member of Congress

    Hon. Cory A. Booker,                 Hon. Ritchie Torres,
    United States Senator                Member of Congress

    Hon. Diana DeGette,                  Hon. Sara Jacobs,
    Member of Congress                   Member of Congress

    Hon. Rosa L. DeLauro,                Hon. Jamie Raskin,
    Member of Congress                   Member of Congress

    Hon. Deborah K. Ross,                Hon. Tony Cardenas,
    Member of Congress                   Member of Congress

    Hon. Elizabeth Warren,               Hon. John P. Sarbanes,
    United States Senator                Member of Congress

    Hon. Kathy Castor,                   Hon. Melanie A. Stansbury,
    Member of Congress                   Member of Congress

    Hon. Danny K. Davis,                 Hon. David J. Trone,
    Member of Congress                   Member of Congress

    Hon. Jahana Hayes,                   Hon. Jill N. Tokuda,
    Member of Congress                   Member of Congress

    Hon. Richard Blumenthal,             Hon. Donald M. Payne, Jr.,
    United States Senator                Member of Congress

    Hon. Bonnie Watson Coleman,          Hon. Jake Auchincloss,
    Member of Congress                   Member of Congress

    Hon. Jennifer L. McClellan,          Hon. Stephen F. Lynch,
    Member of Congress                   Member of Congress

    Hon. David Scott,                    Hon. Lloyd Doggett,
    Member of Congress                   Member of Congress

    Hon. Veronica Escobar,               Hon. Benjamin L. Cardin,
    Member of Congress                   United States Senator

    Hon. Matt Cartwright,                Hon. Robert Menendez,
    Member of Congress                   United States Senator

    Hon. Kevin Mullin,                   Hon. Katie Porter,
    Member of Congress                   Member of Congress

    Hon. Kirsten E. Gillibrand,          Hon. Sylvia R. Garcia,
    United States Senator                Member of Congress

    Hon. Sheila Jackson Lee,             Hon. Andrea Salinas,
    Member of Congress                   Member of Congress

    Hon. Gerald E. Connolly,             Hon. Bradley Scott Schneider,
    Member of Congress                   Member of Congress

    Hon. Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott,
    Member of Congress

                                     ______

     Submitted Letter by Hon. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, a Representative in
                            Congress from Washington
    April 18, 2023

    Hon. Michael Regan,                  Hon. Pete Buttigieg,
    Administrator,                       Secretary,
    U.S. Environmental Protection        U.S. Department of Transportation,
     Agency,
    Washington, D.C.;                    Washington, D.C.;

    Hon. Jennifer Granholm,
    Secretary,
    U.S. Department of Energy,
    Washington, D.C.

        Dear Administrator Regan, Secretary Buttigieg, and Secretary
    Granholm,

        We are writing to express our concerns about the impacts the
    Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) new proposed rules, Multi-
    Pollutant Emissions Standards for Model Years 2027 and Later Light-Duty
    and Medium-Duty Vehicles and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for
    Heavy-Duty Vehicles--Phase 3 may have on rural communities.
        Like you, we believe climate change is a threat to communities
    across the country, and the Federal Government plays a critical role in
    developing a clean energy apparatus and helping our communities improve
    air quality. However, in making that transition, we cannot leave rural
    communities or working families behind. The Administration's Executive
    Order 14037 and subsequent National Blueprint for Transportation
    Decarbonization set an ambitious goal for 50 percent of new passenger
    cars to be electric vehicles (EVs) by 2030. Last year's Inflation
    Reduction Act included many concrete policies promoting EV production
    that will drive costs down and improve affordability. We are concerned
    the EPA, along with the Department of Transportation (DOT) and the
    Department of Energy (DOE), have not done enough work to ensure rural
    communities will have the necessary charging infrastructure in place to
    make widespread EV adoption possible. The imposition of additional
    regulations in the auto market without key infrastructure investments
    will reduce consumer choice, which is a recipe for disaster in rural
    America.
        Rural communities, like ours, have more unique transportation and
    service options compared to cities or suburbs. Like many people who
    live in rural America, we spend a fair amount of time traveling,
    whether on or off the road system to get where we need to go. When your
    job, your pharmacy, or your child's daycare is over an hour away, you
    need to know that your car, snow machine, or ATV, will get you there
    and back. The ability to refuel a gas-powered vehicle quickly is
    valuable given the daily realities of rural life. That option is
    available because our country has a robust network of gas stations, and
    the requisite gas infrastructure, to support communities of all kinds.
    An equally robust infrastructure for EV charging must exist before this
    transition takes place to ensure working people and rural communities
    have consumer choices similar to cities and suburbs. And that
    infrastructure, especially fast-charging options, is not being built
    fast enough in many rural areas. EV charging programs included in the
    Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act will help, but Federal agencies
    remain focused on travel corridors along interstate highways, leaving
    many rural communities behind.
        Washington's third Congressional district has fewer than 100 level
    2 and DC fast chargers available to the public, and they are largely
    concentrated in just two cities. Alaska has only 60 publicly available
    EV charging stations. In Congresswoman Gluesenkamp Perez' home county
    of Skamania, there are only two EV charging stations right now, and
    both are located at resorts. In Congresswoman Peltola's borough of
    Bethel, along with all the other boroughs of Western Alaska, there are
    zero EV charging stations. As DOT has acknowledged, the costs of
    installing EV chargers in rural areas can be higher, especially for
    direct current fast charging stations, because they are more likely to
    require expensive electrical service upgrades. Furthermore, for many
    working families, installing an EV charger at home remains out of
    reach, especially for those who don't own their homes. Bottom line: for
    EVs to be a meaningful and workable emissions reduction solution in
    rural America, we must have a ubiquitous and affordable charging
    infrastructure with access to abundant, cheap electricity. That simply
    does not exist right now.
        We are only 4 years away from model year 2027, and we are concerned
    the EPA's regulations are not paired with a plan to ensure adequate
    charging infrastructure on such a short timeline. Installing hundreds
    of thousands of new EV chargers and upgrading associated electrical
    infrastructure will also require tens of thousands of electricians. We
    are already experiencing a nationwide shortage of qualified
    electricians--anyone who's currently waiting 6 months for a residential
    electrician knows this all too well. Workforce shortages, particularly
    for those in the trades, are even more acute in rural communities. We
    want to ensure the EPA has considered the significant workforce
    development challenges that must be addressed to train electricians for
    a large-scale roll out of EV charging infrastructure.
        We request that the EPA, DOT, and DOE respond to the following
    questions:

      1.  What have the EPA, DOT, and DOE done to ensure rural communities
                are not left behind in the transition to electric vehicles?

      2.  Is there a clear and detailed deployment plan for electric
                vehicle charging infrastructure in rural areas?

      3.  How do the EPA and DOE anticipate potential shortages of trained
                electricians will impact the deployment of charging
                infrastructure? Further, have agencies evaluated the
                disparate impacts these shortages may have in rural
                communities?

      4.  Beyond using limited Inflation Reduction Act funding, how do the
                EPA, DOT, and DOE plan to address existing and future
                shortages of trained electricians?

      5.  Going forward, how do the EPA, DOT, and DOE plan to work together
                to ensure public charging infrastructure is abundant and
                accessible in rural areas?

        We also request that you share how you plan to deploy necessary EV
    charging infrastructure in a timeframe that matches the implementation
    of the proposed rules. Building out this infrastructure will ensure
    that rural communities are not disproportionately impacted and left
    behind in a changing market. While it is critically important that we
    move toward a clean energy future, it must be a future that works for
    all Americans, including those in rural areas.
                Sincerely,

    Hon. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez,        Hon. Mary Sattler Peltola,
    Member of Congress                   Member of Congress

                                     ______

          Supplementary Material Submitted by Hon. Michael S. Regan,
              Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    Insert 1
              Mr. DesJarlais. . . .
              It is incredible that two government agencies are reading
            identical language and coming up with two different
            conclusions. So with that in mind, can you tell me how you
            think the PCC change in use policy is workable for the farmers?
              Mr. Regan. Well, I might be biased, but I would say I am
            right, and I think Secretary Vilsack agrees with me. So I will
            take this back to the Army Corps, to the highest levels, and we
            will see if we can reconcile why we are getting different
            definitions on the ground.

        A farmer may maintain the prior converted cropland designation so
    long as the designated area is available for the production of
    agricultural commodities. An area is available for the production of
    agricultural commodities when, among other things, it is used for any
    crops, used for grazing, used for haying, or when it lies fallow.
    Furthermore, any area that has not reverted to a wetland that is a
    ``water of the United States'' will not be regulated as such. Further
    clarification about the scope of this exclusion is provided in the
    Memorandum to the Field Concerning Issues Related to Implementation of
    Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Food Security Act of
    1985, as Amended (FSA), available at https://www.epa.gov/system/files/
    documents/2022-12/Waters%20of%20the%20United%20
    States_Agricultural%20Memorandum.pdf.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Editor's note: the referenced memorandum has been retained in
    Committee file.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Insert 2
              Mr. Bacon. . . .
              There is another superfund site in my district in Valley,
            Nebraska, that has been added to the national priority list due
            to concentrations of TCE (trichloroethylene) found in the
            groundwater. It is my understanding that EPA has been
            conducting investigations on this site since 2019, so for 4
            years, but I have not been aware of any actions actually being
            taken by EPA to date other than these investigations. Can you
            provide any update on the current status on these
            investigations? And, additionally, is anything being done
            agency-wide at EPA to streamline this investigation process so
            we can get to remediation and get the work done? Thank you.
              Mr. Regan. I appreciate that question, and I'll have to get
            back to you on the specifics of the investigation.

        Funding provided by the bipartisan infrastructure law has enabled
    EPA to accelerate essential work at hundreds of projects. In 2022, EPA
    more than doubled its spending for Superfund pre-construction
    activities like remedial investigations, feasibility studies, remedial
    designs, and community involvement.
        The Old Hwy 275 and N. 288th Street Superfund site in Valley,
    Nebraska is an approximately 3 mile long trichloroethene (TCE)
    groundwater plume. The site was listed on the National Priorities List
    in 2017. The Remedial Investigation fieldwork to characterize the site
    has been completed, and the report is planned to be completed in
    November of 2023. Sampling of indoor air, private wells, ponds, utility
    lines, and monitoring wells do not indicate any completed pathways at
    this site. A majority of residences previously using well water in the
    area have been connected to the public water supply, and whole house
    filtration systems have been installed in properties remaining on well
    water where contamination was present above acceptable levels. No vapor
    mitigation has been needed at this site.
        While quick action was taken to ensure that there were no
    unacceptable exposures, several iterative rounds of characterization
    have been needed to ensure full lateral and vertical characterization
    of the plume, and in attempts to locate the source of contamination.
    Enforcement efforts have occurred in parallel to identify a liable
    potentially responsible party (PRP). The source has not been identified
    at this time, but progress toward a remedy decision is continuing.
        The Feasibility Study Report is planned to be completed in July of
    2024, and the Proposed Plan is planned to be issued for comment in
    November of 2024. The Record of Decision for this site is planned to be
    completed in April of 2025, which will document the cleanup plan for
    the site.
    Insert 3
              Mr. Bost. What will it do to the markets? Because we deal off
            of markets, so we do our production based on--I am cutting it
            short, but I will get that to you and see if we can get an
            answer for it.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Editor's note: the letter inferred in the verbal request for
    information is located on p. 91.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Mr. Regan. I would love to follow up with you on that.

        EPA recognizes the importance of the RFS standards to the biofuels
    markets, and in particular the importance of the Set Rule, which EPA
    issued on June 21, 2023, and establishes applicable volumes for 3 years
    (2023-2025). That rule establishes volume requirements for all
    categories of renewable fuel in the RFS program, including advanced
    biofuel and biomass-based diesel. The documents issued with the rule,
    including the accompanying Regulatory Impact Analysis, provide detail
    concerning how we developed the volume requirements, including
    information regarding EPA's assessment of both biofuel production and
    feedstock growth trajectories over the next 3 years.
    Insert 4
              Mr. Johnson. And I have heard during interpretations of this,
            but for those eight states, making E15 available doesn't do
            anything to keep E10 from being available. Is that right? I
            mean, people would have the option to have either fuel sold?
              Mr. Regan. I would have to circle back with that. I think our
            focus for that rulemaking is for E15.
              Mr. Johnson. Yes, it is my understanding and my hope that
            giving them the same Reid Vapor Pressure waiver that E10 has
            would mean that both products would be available. If that is
            not the case, please follow up because----
              Mr. Regan. And we are talking about the 1 psi, correct?
              Mr. Johnson. Yes, right.
              Mr. Regan. Yes.
              Mr. Johnson. There have been some people who have been
            concerned that at some point giving E15 this additional
            flexibility at some point takes it away from E10. That is not
            my understanding, but I just want to make sure I am reading
            these documents right.
              Mr. Regan. We will get back with you on that.

        On March 6, 2023, EPA proposed the ``Request From States for
    Removal of Gasoline Volatility Waiver,'' \3\ 88 Fed. Reg. 13758
    (Proposed Rule) in response to requests from eight state governors to
    remove the 1-psi RVP waiver for gasoline-ethanol blends containing ten
    percent ethanol (E10). EPA proposed to remove the 1-psi RVP waiver for
    E10 in the following states: Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri,
    Nebraska, Ohio, South Dakota and Wisconsin, resulting in a lower
    volatility standard in the summer months. The governors, in their
    requests, noted the action's ability to facilitate year-round E15
    sales.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Editor's note: the Federal Register proposed rule is retained
    in Committee file; and the docket is available at https://
    www.regulations.gov/docket/EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0513.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The rule, if finalized, should not impact the availability of E10
    of these states, but will instead make it possible for both E10 and E15
    to have the same RVP (9 psi) during the summer months, potentially
    facilitating the sale of both fuels year round.
    Insert 5
              Mr. Mann. . . .
              In regards to that, does EPA's announcement allowing for
            permanent E15 sales in the eight Midwestern states or will
            EPA's final rule around summer sales include a provision
            allowing EPA to approve a Governor's request for summer sales
            in the future? In other words, if you are from a state that is
            not a part of those original eight, will there be a process and
            a mechanism for other Governors and other states to join in?
            Because, best-case scenario, eight would turn into 50, and we
            would all just move on.
              Mr. Regan. I do know that there is a process that is
            available to all, and eight have chosen to do so.

        Yes. The Clean Air Act provision used by the eight petitioning
    governors remains available to other governors, should they wish to
    submit a similar petition to remove the 1-psi waiver for the sale of
    E10 during the summer months in their states.
    Insert 6
              Mr. Rose. So personally, I have to tell you I am not sure
            whether EPA or at this point the Securities and Exchange
            Commission is the main climate regulator for the Federal
            Government due to the recently proposed rule entitled, Enhanced
            Standardization of Climate-Related Disclosures for Investors
            that the SEC is putting forward. Administrator Regan, was EPA
            consulted on the question of how expensive it will be for farms
            to comply with the proposed rulemaking from the SEC?
              Mr. Regan. We do our own cost-benefit analysis when we pursue
            these regulations. Obviously, we have our formula, but we
            consult with multiple agencies across the Federal Government.
            So I am not quite certain what that level of consultation was,
            but I can tell you we did not do the rule in a vacuum.
              Mr. Rose. I hope you will get back with me off the record
            about whether you were consulted and the degree to which you
            were.

        As Administrator Regan stated, when EPA is developing a rulemaking,
    the Agency utilizes our Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses,\4\
    which provide a sound scientific framework for performing economic
    analyses of environmental regulations and policies.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ Editor's note: the referenced document is retained in Committee
    file, and is available at: https://www.epa.gov/environmental-economics/
    guidelines-preparing-economic-analyses-2016.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        At times, the Agency reviews rulemakings in development by other
    agencies or departments. With respect to the U.S. Securities and
    Exchange Commission's proposed rule ``Enhanced Standardization of
    Climate-Related Disclosures for Investors,'' the Agency reviewed the
    Commission's proposed rule.
    Insert 7
              Mr. Alford. . . .
              . . . The proposed revision to the September 2020 interim
            decision, ID, for atrazine seeks to lower the concentrated
            equivalent level of concern. Can you commit to having the SAP
            consider other studies made available to you and the EPA that
            were not reviewed in the previous SAPs to make sure that the
            best available scientific data is used, sir?
              Mr. Regan. Let me circle back with my staff to see what has
            and has not been considered, and we will follow up with you on
            specifically those studies.

        The concentration equivalent level of concern (CELOC) is based on
    larger scale studies (i.e., cosm studies). EPA has considered all
    microcosm and mesocosm (cosm) studies made available to EPA, including
    those submitted after the 2012 FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP)
    meeting. Atrazine has been the subject of numerous SAPs, and EPA has
    considered a robust body of literature that has been the subject of
    multiple SAPs, ensuring a scientifically rigorous process. The August
    2023 SAP considers EPA's reevaluation of the eleven cosm studies
    identified by the 2012 SAP as warranting further review.
    Insert 8
              Mr. Baird. . . . While this proposal is currently open for
            public comment, many stakeholders need more time to fully
            analyze the impacts of this proposal and have requested an
            extension.
              So, Administrator Regan, I would appreciate your comments
            about justification for this jurisdictional change. And then
            following that, if you would consider extending the comment
            period?
              Mr. Regan. Well, thank you for that question, and that exact
            action has not reached my desk, so let me go back and do some
            due diligence on that. And for those who are governing that
            process, I will inquire with them about the extension.

        Currently, EPA and FDA determine regulatory oversight of pesticides
    and new animal drugs based on the rationale described in a Memorandum
    of Understanding (MOU) between the agencies signed in 1971 and revised
    in 1973. A few years later, in response to industry's continued concern
    about potential dual regulation of these products, Congress changed
    FIFRA's definition of pesticide to exclude articles that are new animal
    drugs. Since that time, pesticide and animal drug technologies--and
    both agencies' understanding of these technologies--have evolved.
        For example, parasite treatment products applied topically to
    animals (including pets) are generally regulated by EPA if they remain
    on the skin to control only external parasites (e.g., collars or sprays
    to control fleas, ticks) but by FDA if they are ingested and absorbed
    systemically into the bloodstream. The agencies now understand that
    many of the topically administered products currently regulated by EPA
    do not remain on the skin and are absorbed into the bloodstream,
    highlighting challenges with the current approach and raising different
    safety concerns than originally anticipated.
        Today, in keeping with the statutory change made by Congress in the
    1970s, we ensure only one agency regulates a particular product.
    However, we are still using the outdated 50 year old approach in the
    MOU to determine whether a product is regulated as a pesticide or a new
    animal drug and now find ourselves in need of an update to that
    approach to account for new types of products and our improved
    understanding of the science, including how some of the older products
    work.
        The current approach has limited our ability to align product
    regulation with the agency better equipped to regulate the product and
    to anticipate new technologies, and therefore is outdated and is
    hampering the agencies' attempts to provide transparency and clarity to
    industry.
        EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs manages approximately 18,000
    pesticide registrations, with only several hundred of these products to
    control external parasites on pets and other animals, like spot-on
    treatments and collars. EPA only has two veterinarians in our
    pesticides office to help with oversight on these products, compared to
    FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) which has many veterinary
    medical officers and other staff with the expertise to more
    comprehensively assess these products. FDA's animal safety evaluation
    process is better equipped to evaluate and monitor products topically
    administered to animals, as FDA has more extensive expertise in animal
    safety, more robust animal safety data and adverse incident reporting
    requirements, and more established pre-market evaluation and post-
    market monitoring infrastructure than EPA.
        EPA and FDA are striving for good government that is efficient and
    transparent. It would be a poor use of government resources for EPA to
    build its own ``CVM.'' We've also found that the current approach
    confuses industry and consumers, as some companies are unsure during
    product development which agency they should be working with, and
    consumers are unsure of where to report and receive help with
    incidents.
        The agencies are working collaboratively to underscore the problems
    with the status quo and highlight the importance of solutions that
    provide clarity and certainty for the future. A modernized approach
    will help to provide industry, animal owners, and other stakeholders
    with clarity on each agency's regulatory roles, better protect animal
    health, and more efficiently use government resources, resulting in
    long-term efficiency for industry, consumers, and the Federal budget.
    Additional details can be found in the whitepaper.\5\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OPP-2023-0103-0002.
         Editor's note: the document, Whitepaper: A Modern Approach to EPA
    and FDA Product Oversight, is retained in Committee file.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The 60 day comment period closed on April 24, 2023. It was
    important to have a scheduled close of the comment period for the
    agencies to have timely review, consideration, and understanding of
    stakeholder feedback so that it can inform our next steps. There may be
    future opportunities for stakeholder engagement. In addition to the 60
    day comment period, the agencies held a public listening session on
    March 22, 2023, to provide an additional opportunity for public
    comment. Therefore, an extension of the comment period was not
    necessary, and the agencies did not grant requests for extension.
    Insert 9
              Mrs. Chavez-DeRemer. . . . Renewable energy: Marion County in
            my home State of Oregon, employs a waste-to-energy facility
            that provides 13 megawatts of renewable energy to local homes
            and businesses while sustainably processing the waste remaining
            after recycling generated in our community. In addition, Marion
            County recovers 7,500 tons of ferrous and nonferrous metal in
            their waste-to-energy facility annually. That is the equivalent
            to 6,000 cars' worth of steel and nine million aluminum cans.
            Each year, this facility diverts more than 179,000 tons from
            landfills, helping Oregon reach its climate-related goals. The
            EPA's proposed rulemaking on the Renewable Fuel Standard
            Program fails to allow waste-to-energy to participate, missing
            a real opportunity to further reduce emissions and create new
            and diverse pathways to repower our transportation. Will you
            revisit the inclusion of waste-to-energy methods in the
            Renewable Fuel Standard Program?
              Mr. Regan. I will take that request back to my team and have
            a discussion on that.

        On June 21, 2023, EPA issued the final rule establishing required
    volumes under the Renewable Fuel Standard program for years 2023-2025
    (the ``Set Rule'').\6\ The final Set Rule does not include previously-
    proposed provisions related to the generation of ``eRINs''--Renewable
    Identification Numbers associated with electricity from renewable
    biogas and used as a transportation fuel. Following our proposal of a
    potential eRIN structure, EPA received a substantial amount of comment
    on the proposed program. Given the volume and complexity of comments,
    as well as the need to issue the final Set Rule on a date determined by
    a consent decree, EPA chose not to finalize eRIN provisions as part of
    the final rule. EPA will continue to evaluate potential paths forward
    for the eRIN program, while assessing the comments received on the
    proposal and seeking additional input from stakeholders to inform
    potential next steps on the eRIN program. As part of that process, we
    anticipate continuing to engage with stakeholders seeking to qualify
    waste-to-energy under any future potential eRIN program.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ Editor's note: the final rule Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS)
    Program: Standards for 2023-2025 and Other Changes, was published in
    the Federal Register on July 12, 2023, and is available at https://
    www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2023-07-12/pdf/2023-13462.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     ______

                              Submitted Questions
    Response from Hon. Michael S. Regan, Administrator, U.S. Environmental
            Protection Agency
    Questions Submitted by Hon. Glenn Thompson, a Representative in
            Congress from Pennsylvania
    Pesticides
        Question 1. The Endangered Species Act requires agencies to use
    ``the best scientific and commercial data available'' in their analysis
    on listed species; however, EPA frequently does not consider all the
    data they have available. While USDA and commercial sources provide
    pesticide usage data, EPA assumes growers apply the maximum rate on the
    label, which can be eight or ten times what growers actually use.
    Failing to use this data can lead to new restrictions and mitigation
    measures that may be unnecessary if EPA used the best available data.
    Administrator Regan, how do you justify not using the best data
    available, as required by law?
        Answer. When conducting its endangered species assessments, EPA
    uses the best scientific and commercially available data that describes
    a pesticide's toxicity, environmental fate, and application
    instructions for EPA-approved use sites. Under the Endangered Species
    Act (ESA) section 7(a)(2), Federal agencies must ensure that their
    actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of
    federally threatened or endangered (listed) species or destroy or
    adversely modify designated critical habitat. EPA's action with respect
    to pesticides is generally the approval of a pesticide registration,
    which includes approval of accompanying labels. EPA-approved pesticide
    labels include directions for use, which specify the parameters under
    which users may apply the pesticide, including maximums for how much
    and how often a pesticide may be applied. In other words, the label is
    the law, and EPA conducts its ESA determinations based on the approved
    pesticide labeling and the best scientific and commercially available
    data (including usage data, where appropriate). Practically, EPA is
    aware that once a pesticide is registered users may or may not apply a
    pesticide using the maximum application scenarios. EPA is always
    willing to engage in label amendment discussions with registrants to
    change the labels to lower use rates or frequencies if the maximum
    rates and frequencies do not reflect grower practices.
        Data that describes how pesticide users are actually applying a
    pesticide is called usage data. Usage data may describe the extent to
    which a pesticide is applied to a particular crop/commodity over a
    defined area, such as a U.S. state, or it may describe typical
    practices used by pesticide applicators such as application rates,
    number of applications made per year, and application method or
    equipment. EPA routinely incorporates this type of usage data from USDA
    and commercially available sources (through a contract) into its
    evaluations. When that information is available, robust, and reliable,
    EPA and the Services may also incorporate it into the consultation as
    appropriate. Although usage data is most useful for pesticides that
    have an established market and an established history of application
    practices, EPA continues to explore and to work towards incorporating
    such information into its new active ingredient evaluations as well.

        Question 2. Administrator Regan, why is EPA implementing up-front
    mitigations before a pesticide has even gone through the ESA
    consultation process? I am concerned that many of these measures might
    be found unnecessary to prevent species jeopardy or adverse
    modification of habitat once the Services have completed their
    Biological Opinions (BiOps). Will restrictions and mitigations be
    removed if the Services find them unnecessary to prevent jeopardy or
    adverse modification?
        Answer. As noted above, under ESA section 7(a)(2), Federal agencies
    must ensure that their actions are not likely to jeopardize the
    continued existence of listed species or destroy or adversely modify
    designated critical habitat. For pesticide actions, if EPA determines
    that a pesticide may affect a single individual of a listed species,
    then EPA would determine that the action ``may affect'' that listed
    species. If EPA makes a ``may affect'' determination, then the ESA
    requires EPA to enter into consultation with Fish and Wildlife Service,
    National Marine Fisheries Service, or both Services. Many of EPA's ESA
    evaluations for pesticides trigger consultation because:

      1.  pesticide registration actions are often geographically broad in
                scale, resulting in possible co-location with at least some
                listed species;

      2.  pesticides are designed to have some type of environmental effect
                (i.e., control pest species) and, therefore, there is often
                a potential for some type of effect to one or more listed
                species or designated critical habitat when pesticide use
                may occur on or near a species' habitat; and

      3.  the threshold to enter consultation with the Service(s) is low
                (effects to a single individual).

        EPA is working to identify where up-front mitigations may be
    appropriate prior to completing the consultation process in a variety
    of contexts, including during review of products containing new active
    ingredients and registration review of existing chemicals. Because the
    consultation process for large pesticide actions currently can take
    years (often much longer than FIFRA/PRIA timelines), up-front
    mitigations are a tool that EPA can use to streamline consultation,
    limit delays in pesticide actions, where appropriate, and limit
    potential effects to listed species from already registered pesticides
    while consultation is ongoing.
        Over the last several years, EPA's pesticide actions have faced
    over 20 lawsuits covering over 1,000 pesticide products for alleged
    failure to meet ESA obligations. Ongoing litigation and settlement
    discussions will likely drive much of the Agency's FIFRA-ESA workload
    for years to come. In addition to being costly for the Agency, this
    litigation creates significant uncertainty for farmers, other pesticide
    users, and pesticide registrants. For example, if a court vacates a
    pesticide registration, users will lose access to that pesticide until
    EPA can meet its ESA obligations and issue a new registration--likely
    several years. And without certain pesticide products, farmers could
    have trouble growing crops that feed Americans and public health
    agencies could lack the tools needed to combat insect-borne diseases.
        When EPA identifies mitigations intended to avoid jeopardy or
    adverse modification or minimize incidental take earlier in the
    registration and registration review processes, it may also allow EPA
    to move forward with certain registration and registration review
    decisions more expeditiously. If EPA predicts that there is a potential
    likelihood of a jeopardy or adverse modification when developing its
    effects determinations, identifying mitigations is important for
    meeting ESA obligations. And when the applicant agrees to incorporate
    such mitigations into their action, EPA may be able to predict that
    there is no longer a potential likelihood for jeopardy or adverse
    modification and create efficiencies in any consultation process with
    the Services. The Services include in their final biological opinion an
    evaluation of jeopardy and adverse modification.
        Where the Services ultimately determine that a registration or
    registration review action included up-front mitigations that were more
    restrictive than was needed to avoid jeopardy or adverse modification
    and minimize the impact of incidental take on the species, EPA can work
    with the registrant to relax these restrictions by amending their
    registration and accompanying pesticide product labeling. Conversely,
    if the consultation process identifies different or additional measures
    that are needed to protect listed species, then EPA will work with the
    registrant to ensure the registration and pesticide product labeling
    are amended to include any necessary additional measures.
        In short, including up-front mitigations is essential for EPA to
    meet its ESA obligations. For more about the rationale behind up-front
    mitigations, please see EPA's ESA Workplan \1\ * from April 2022,
    particularly the Background Section and Strategy 2.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-04/balancing-
    wildlife-protection-and-responsible-pesticide-use_final.pdf.
        * Editor's note: references annotated with  are retained in
    Committee file.

        Question 3. On January 11, 2022, the EPA announced a new policy for
    evaluating and registering new active ingredients (AIs) in conventional
    pesticides. Registrants are already facing significant delays in EPA's
    ability to meet registration deadlines set in PRIA, and, in a recent
    letter, your Agency estimated this new policy will add an additional 6-
    12 months to the registration process. I can appreciate your goal of
    reducing litigation of crop protection tools; however, I am concerned
    about additional delays in registering new tools, especially since your
    Agency continues to restrict existing tools. Administrator Regan, since
    announcing this new policy 15 months ago, has the EPA registered any
    new active ingredients for conventional pesticides? How many new
    registrations are expected this year?
        Answer. Since January 2022, EPA has registered products containing
    two conventional new active ingredients (AIs) and 22 biopesticide new
    AIs. EPA expects to finish considering applications to register
    products containing three additional conventional new AIs by the end of
    FY 2023. EPA has also received applications to register products
    containing an additional 18 new conventional active ingredients with
    PRIA completion dates ranging out into FY 2025.
        As EPA works to meet its obligations under both FIFRA and ESA, the
    Agency recognizes its ESA obligations regarding threatened and
    endangered species and critical habitat while also sharing the goal of
    having adequate pesticide tools remain available for growers. The
    Agency understands the concerns with delays in review of new active
    ingredients. EPA appreciates Congress' recognition of these challenges
    and the importance of ESA compliance, as evidenced by provisions in the
    Pesticide Registration Improvement Act of 2022 (PRIA 5), which increase
    statutory decision timeframes for conventional new active ingredient
    categories with outdoor uses as well as the ability to extend by up to
    50% decision timeframes for certain PRIA categories when EPA determines
    that ESA-related analysis will be required.

        Question 4. Enlist One and Enlist Duo are important herbicides that
    many farmers in my district rely on to protect their crops from
    damaging weeds. In January 2022, the EPA announced the reregistration
    of these tools; however, the announcement also included restrictions
    impacting over 200 counties. This action came right before the start of
    the 2022 growing season and caused significant uncertainty for
    producers. While I appreciate the EPA's quick action to lift some of
    these restrictions, there are still over 70 counties where the use of
    Enlist products is prohibited. Administrator Regan, is your Agency
    taking additional steps to lift the remaining restrictions on Enlist
    products?
        Answer. EPA is currently in ESA consultation with the Fish and
    Wildlife Service (FWS) for Enlist One and Enlist Duo. FWS's draft
    Biological Opinion was posted May 24, 2023, and remained open for
    public comment until July 24, 2023. EPA provided a summary of the
    public comments received and is continuing to engage with the
    registrant and FWS on this ongoing consultation. As the consultation
    progresses, EPA will be considering whether there are any necessary
    changes to use in the 34 states for which the registration was issued.
    Based on the draft biological opinion, which at this time is not a
    final decision, FWS proposed to conclude that county restrictions could
    be lifted because general mitigations added to the product label to
    reduce spray drift and runoff exposure adequately protected listed
    species within most counties. Any remaining risk to especially
    vulnerable or high risk species could be addressed with a limited
    number of sub-county restrictions.

        Question 5. During your tenure at the EPA, you have stated the
    Agency needs to work hand-in-hand with farmers and ranchers; however,
    rules like the recently proposed updates to the Worker Protection
    Standard Application Exclusion Zone add unnecessary restrictions to
    operations that result in duplicative regulation. As written, this rule
    allows for the AEZ to extend beyond the boundaries of an operation,
    meaning an individual could stand on property outside the farming
    operation to halt the application of pesticides? How, if at all, were
    the needs of farmers and ranchers considered when making this decision?
        Answer. The AEZ requirements have had a long history of public
    comment and stakeholder feedback, and the concerns of farmers and
    ranchers have been considered in several ways leading up to the 2023
    AEZ proposed rule.
        The 2015 Worker Protection Standard rule first introduced the AEZ
    and the provisions that make it applicable beyond the boundaries of an
    agricultural establishment. Issues related to the revised Worker
    Protection Standard rule were presented through several public forums
    and public comment for the proposal. EPA considered the needs of
    farmers and ranchers throughout the regulatory process for the 2015
    Worker Protection Standard rule as conveyed by commenters, including
    Farm Bureaus, grower associations, and the Small Business Association
    Office of Advocacy.
        After promulgating the 2015 Worker Protection Standard rule, and in
    response to comments from stakeholders, including agricultural
    stakeholders, EPA issued guidance in 2018 further explaining how to
    implement and comply with the AEZ requirements.
        The Agency then completed another public process that led to the
    2020 AEZ Rule. The 2020 AEZ Rule, however, is under litigation
    challenging certain provisions in the rule (consolidated under case
    number 1:20-cv-10642). Specifically, the litigation called into
    question the changes intended to limit the AEZ to within the
    establishment's boundaries and to simplify the criteria for ground-
    based sprays that in part reduced AEZ distances for fine-spray
    applications. The Court has stayed the 2020 AEZ Rule's effective date,
    so these changes never went into effect. The original 2015 requirements
    remain the regulatory language farmers must operate under when using
    pesticides labeled for Worker Protection Standard-related uses. Farmers
    and applicators have been and continue to be required to implement the
    AEZ in areas both on and off the establishment using the applicable AEZ
    distances as written in 2015 while the Agency addresses the challenged
    provisions through rulemaking. It is important to note that regardless
    of any outcomes associated with the litigation and rulemaking, the
    Worker Protection Standard prohibits applying pesticides in any way
    that results in sprays contacting people, whether directly or through
    drift, regardless of location or distance from the application
    equipment.
        After reevaluating the 2020 AEZ Rule in response to the litigation
    and as directed by Executive Order 13990, the Agency determined that
    some of the 2020 changes do not effectively balance the potential
    social and economic costs associated with limiting the AEZ requirements
    to areas under the owner's control and simplifying the distance
    criteria for ground-based spray applications, and therefore proposed to
    reinstate the 2015 regulatory language around these specific provisions
    of the AEZ.
        EPA's proposal does, however, consider the impacts on farmers and
    ranchers in a few ways. For example, EPA's analyses have determined
    that there will be no new impacts from the portions of the 2023 AEZ
    Proposed Rule seeking to reinstate the 2015 Worker Protection Standard
    provisions that make the AEZ applicable beyond the boundaries of an
    agricultural establishment. This is because the AEZ requirements in the
    2015 Worker Protection Standard have been the operative regulatory
    language for the AEZ requirements during the current rule stay and any
    future extensions of the stay pending the outcome of the litigation and
    rulemaking efforts.
        Additionally, in assessing the changes put forth in the stayed 2020
    AEZ Rule, the Agency has proposed to retain two provisions in response
    to agricultural stakeholder input. For example, the 2023 proposal
    retains a clarification that handlers may resume a suspended
    application provided that no workers or other persons remain in the
    AEZ. The Agency also proposed to retain an immediate family exemption
    that will provide flexibilities for family farms, permitting owners and
    their immediate family members to remain in their homes that are within
    an AEZ if the doors and windows remain closed. This is expected to
    address family farms while ensuring protections for farmworkers remain
    in place. This flexibility is a direct result of feedback received from
    agricultural stakeholders and is consistent with exemptions that are
    applicable to other portions of the Worker Protection Standard.
        The comment period for this proposal closed on May 12, 2023. EPA
    received comments from 25 different commenters, including Farm Bureaus
    and others in agricultural industry. EPA is currently assessing these
    comments to determine the path forward and will take any concerns
    raised by farmers and ranchers into consideration before finalizing
    these changes.
    Fertilizer
        Question 6. As made evident these last few years, the U.S. needs to
    bolster domestic fertilizer production, specifically the supply of
    phosphate, to minimize reliance on Russia and China, the two leading
    fertilizer producers. As you know, the process of making phosphate for
    fertilizer creates a byproduct called phosphogypsum, or PG, which is
    commonly reused in Canada, Europe, India, and South America. In the
    U.S., the Trump Administration approved the beneficial reuse of PG for
    road-base construction, but one of your initial policy decisions was to
    withdraw that approval. As I understand it, the withdrawal was not
    based on concerns related to scientific risk, safety, or environmental
    concerns; rather, it was an issue over the timing of providing non-
    critical information. What has the EPA done to remove these barriers
    and approve the petition for the beneficial reuse of PG?
        Answer. Clean Air Act regulations at 40 CFR Part 61 allow EPA to
    approve a request for a specific use of phosphogypsum if it is
    determined that the proposed use is at least as protective of human
    health as placement in a stack. EPA will review and, when applications
    meet all regulatory requirements, approve proposed projects on an
    individual, case-by-case basis. Any proposed approval will be made
    available to the public for comment. Since October 2022, EPA has
    received only one application for specific use of phosphogypsum. The
    Agency is currently in the process of evaluating it.
        The information required in the application, including the quantity
    of phosphogypsum to be used, its radioactivity and characteristics, and
    where it will be physically handled, are relevant to assessing the risk
    of any requested use.
    Renewable Fuels
        Question 7. I often hear from farmers wishing to find markets for
    biomass unfit for human or animal consumption on their operations. Is
    the EPA working with USDA to identify and address gaps in the supply
    chain connecting feedstocks to biofuels producers?
        Answer. EPA, in coordination with other Federal agencies as
    appropriate, has adopted regulatory requirements for the use of
    biointermediates (partially processed biomass feedstocks) to produce
    renewable fuels. These biointermediate provisions will provide new
    opportunities for parties to address gaps in the supply chain for
    certain feedstocks that require significant pre-processing prior to use
    to produce renewable fuels under the RFS program. In the final Set Rule
    signed on June 21, 2023, EPA also finalized additional flexibilities
    for the recordkeeping requirements for the use of separated food waste
    to produce renewable fuels, which may also help address gaps in the
    supply chain of supplying separated food waste to produce renewable
    fuels under the RFS program.

        Question 8. As you know, your agency published a set rule in
    December 2022, which included several policy changes that will alter
    how the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program operates now and in the
    future. Among the changes, the set rule added renewable electricity
    derived from biogas and used to charge electric vehicles to the RFS
    Program. Starting in 2024 and 2025 auto manufactures, not those who
    produce the electricity, will be able to generate and sell compliance
    credits known as electric-renewable identification numbers or eRINs.
        Administrator Regan, did your agency coordinate with USDA when
    developing the eRIN program? Has your agency thought about how this
    addition to the RFS program may affect the existing volume and volume
    projections for conventional and advanced biofuels? Given this rule is
    still being implemented, can you provide us a short summary of how the
    eRIN program will work?
        Answer. On June 21, 2023, EPA issued the final rule establishing
    required volumes under the Renewable Fuel Standard program for years
    2023-2025 (the ``Set Rule''). The final Set Rule does not include
    previously-proposed provisions related to the generation of ``eRINs''--
    Renewable Identification Numbers associated with electricity from
    renewable biogas and used as a transportation fuel. Following our
    proposal of a potential eRIN structure, EPA received a substantial
    amount of comment on the proposed program. Given the volume and
    complexity of comments, as well as the need to issue the final Set Rule
    on a date determined by a consent decree, EPA chose not to finalize
    eRIN provisions as part of the final rule. The EPA will continue to
    evaluate potential paths forward for the eRIN program, while assessing
    the comments received on the proposal and seeking additional input from
    stakeholders to inform potential next steps on the eRIN program.
    WOTUS
        Question 9. Farmers and ranchers in my state continue to be
    extremely concerned that the new ``waters of the U.S.'' rule (WOTUS)
    greatly expands the Federal Government's jurisdictional reach far
    beyond the limit that Congress intended under the Clean Water Act. I've
    also heard that the exemptions, particularly the Prior Converted
    Cropland (PCC) exclusion, are incredibly confusing and difficult to
    apply. The agencies have said that the changes they made are to keep
    the understanding of PCC consistent with how it is used under the
    Swampbuster program.
        EPA has adopted USDA's ``change in use'' policy and unfortunately,
    it has come to my attention that when stakeholders ask EPA and the
    Corps to clarify its meaning, they were provided conflicting answers.
    EPA stated that a farmer could change the use of their land and keep
    their PCC status, as long as wetland characteristics had not returned.
    However, the Army Corps asserted that a farmer will lose their PCC
    status if they change the use of the land out of agricultural
    production, regardless of returning wetland characteristics.
        It is incredible that two government agencies are reading identical
    language and coming to two different conclusions. With that in mind,
    can you tell me how you think the PCC ``change in use'' policy is
    workable for farmers?
        Additionally, how is a farmer supposed to use this exemption when
    the government agencies have conflicting interpretations of how it
    works?
        Answer. A farmer may maintain the prior converted cropland
    designation so long as the designated area is available for the
    production of agricultural commodities. An area is available for the
    production of agricultural commodities when, among other things, it is
    used for any crops, used for grazing, used for haying, or when it lies
    fallow. Furthermore, any area that has not reverted to a wetland that
    is a ``water of the United States'' will not be regulated as such.
    Further clarification about the scope of this exclusion is provided in
    the Memorandum to the Field Concerning Issues Related to Implementation
    of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Food Security Act
    of 1985, as Amended (FSA), available at https://www.epa.gov/system/
    files/documents/2022-12/Waters%20of%20the%20United%20
    States_Agricultural%20Memorandum.pdf.

        Question 10. The new EPA and Corps of Engineers' ``Waters of the
    U.S.'' rule (WOTUS) scales back the 2020 Navigable Waters Rule's
    exclusion for ``prior converted croplands'' (PCC). Was USDA consulted
    on this change? How might this change impact landowners when PCC
    determinations are being made?
        Answer. A farmer may maintain the prior converted cropland
    designation so long as the designated area is available for the
    production of agricultural commodities. An area is available for the
    production of agricultural commodities when, among other things, it is
    used for any crops, used for grazing, used for haying, or when it lies
    fallow. Furthermore, any area that has not reverted to a wetland that
    is a ``water of the United States'' will not be regulated as such.
    Pursuant to Executive Order 12866, USDA and other Federal agencies had
    the opportunity to engage with the Agencies' definition of ``waters of
    the United States.'' The Agencies worked closely with USDA on the scope
    of the prior converted cropland exclusion, which was followed by
    publication of a joint Memorandum to the Field Concerning Issues
    Related to Implementation of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and the
    Food Security Act of 1985, as Amended, available at https://
    www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-12/
    Waters%20of%20the%20United%20States_Agricultural%20Memorandum.
    pdf.
    EVs
        Question 11. Administrator Regan, last week your Agency published
    the: ``strongest-ever pollution standards for cars and trucks.'' These
    new standards are overwhelmingly technology prescriptive and further
    fuel the fire of excessive Federal mandates and spending on EV
    infrastructure. I remain skeptical that such top-down planning from
    Washington D.C. will meet the needs of Americans, including those in
    rural communities, majority of which do not drive electric vehicles or
    have access to EVs.
        Administrator Regan, does your Agency have estimates on the
    compliance cost individuals and businesses, including the trucking
    industry, will have to meet to follow these new proposed standards? Has
    your Agency assessed the impact this will have on other consumer goods,
    such as fuel, food, and fiber prices?
        Answer. The proposed car and truck standards are performance-based
    emissions standards and are technology neutral, meaning that
    manufacturers can choose the mix of technologies that they believe
    would be best suited for their fleet to meet the standards and to meet
    the needs of American drivers.
        As a matter of course in Agency rulemakings and per relevant
    Federal Executive Orders and guidance, EPA prepares a regulatory impact
    analysis (RIA) to quantify the likely benefits and costs of certain
    regulatory options. Describing the effects of EPA rules is an important
    part of our obligation to be transparent in how we conduct our
    analyses. Each RIA is prepared in accordance with Executive Orders and
    OMB guidance, and the Agency's guidelines for economic analyses.
        As one example of the effects we describe in our analyses, for the
    proposed heavy-duty truck standards we estimated both compliance costs
    for truck manufacturers and purchase costs for truck purchasers. We
    found that the per-vehicle compliance costs are similar to compliance
    costs from our previous greenhouse gas standards for trucks and that
    initial increased costs to purchasers would be recovered through
    operational savings from reduced fuel and maintenance costs, with truck
    owners eventually seeing lower costs to own and operate their vehicles.
    Because these technologies pay back over time, we expect no adverse
    impacts on the costs of other consumer goods.

        Question 12. Phase 3 of the recently proposed vehicles emissions
    regulations included Green House Gas Emissions Standards for Heavy-Duty
    Vehicles including tractors, and it specifically states day cabs and
    sleeper cabs on tractor-trailer trucks. Does this rulemaking apply to
    on-farm equipment like tractors that pull harvesters, wagons, or
    combines?
        Answer. This rulemaking applies to on-road heavy-duty vehicles.

        Question 13. According to a AAA (`triple A') study,\2\ 78% of EV
    owners also own a gas-powered car. Administrator Regan, your agency has
    provided regulatory support for the Biden Administration's top-down
    approach to EV adoption in the U.S. To what extent will Americans who
    do not drive or have access to EVs become responsible for the cost
    associated with this rapid transition to EVs? What do you suggest I
    tell my constituents when they ask me why their taxpayer dollars are
    funding an urban resident's secondary vehicle?
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Editor's note: the Fact Sheet entitled, Electric Vehicle
    Ownership: Cost, Attitudes and Behaviors, dated January 2020 is
    retained in Committee file; and is available at: https://
    newsroom.aaa.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/True-Cost-of-EV-Ownership-
    and-EV-Owner-Sentiment-Fact-Sheet-Jan-2020.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Answer. EPA's proposed standards for cars and light-trucks align
    with commitments already made by automakers as they plan to accelerate
    clean vehicle technologies in the on-road vehicle fleet over the next 5
    to 10 years. The proposed standards are consistent with EPA's
    traditional approach to establishing vehicle emission standards under
    the Clean Air Act, and if finalized they would deliver dramatic
    improvements in public health. The proposed standards would also
    deliver significant economic benefits, including lower fuel and
    maintenance costs for families, and would save the average consumer
    $12,000 over the lifetime of a light-duty vehicle, as compared to a
    vehicle that was not subject to the new standards.

        Question 14. The Chair of the National Transportation Safety Board
    recently raised concern over the weight of EVs--for which the batteries
    alone are thousands of pounds--in comparison to traditional gas-powered
    vehicles. Administrator Regan, how would a large increase in EV
    adoption compound the current strains on our roads, bridges, and
    highways? Additionally, does the U.S.'s aging electric grid have the
    capacity, reliability, and resilience to take on such near-term and
    widespread EV adoption?
        Answer. Today's electric vehicle powertrains, when including the
    weight of the batteries, are often heavier than the engine and
    powertrain components they replace. However, electric vehicle weight
    depends on the size of the vehicle, the driving range, and the degree
    to which manufacturers take opportunities to save on battery cost and
    weight by improving efficiency and reducing weight in other parts of
    the vehicle. These opportunities are often cost effective and when the
    vehicle design is optimized in this way, electric vehicles need not be
    significantly heavier than gasoline or diesel-powered vehicles. Also,
    axle weight limits that are designed to reduce wear on our
    infrastructure will still apply to electric vehicles. For most
    vehicles, any additional weight attributed to electrification will be
    very small compared to these existing weight limits.
        EPA develops our rules to make sure there is no conflict between
    grid reliability and environmental compliance, including by working
    with outside expert agencies at the state, regional, and Federal
    levels. EPA considered how electric vehicles will impact the grid in
    both the Heavy-Duty Vehicle and Light- and Medium-Duty proposed rules,
    and expected that neither proposal would have an adverse effect on grid
    reliability. The Department of Energy is investing over $10 billion in
    grid resiliency programs, funded through the bipartisan infrastructure
    law, that will prevent outages and strengthen the resiliency of the
    electric grid. EPA and DOE are working together under a Joint
    Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on Interagency Communication and
    Consultation on Electric Reliability to guide new clean energy
    opportunities that will support access to reliable, affordable
    electricity.
    EPCRA
        Question 15. I am concerned about the Agency's recently released
    proposed rule on EPCRA reporting requirements would effectively rescind
    the 2019 final rule that exempts reporting of animal waste air
    emissions at farms. As you know, the 2019 rule was finalized after
    Congress enacted a similar CERLCA exemption in 2018, and the rule
    garnered widespread support from the agricultural industry, as well as
    first responders. Why is EPA proposing to reverse course here,
    especially since community specific protocols are in place across the
    country and are determined between local responders and animal
    producers well in advance of emergencies?
        Answer. The 2019 final rule that exempted farms from reporting
    animal waste air emissions under EPCRA was challenged in court, and in
    2022 the rule was remanded by the court to EPA for reconsideration. EPA
    sent a draft proposed rule for interagency review pursuant to Executive
    Order 12866 earlier this year.
    Question Submitted by Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford, a Representative
            in Congress from Arkansas
        Question. Regarding the Ozone Transport Rule, does the EPA believe
    the industry can comply with such a massive overhaul of coal plants
    during a supply chain crisis? Will the EPA mandate enforcement during
    any judicial appeal of the rule?
        Answer. EPA received comments on this issue and observed in the
    final Good Neighbor Plan that supply-chain disruption in 2021-2022
    already appeared to be easing. Nevertheless, EPA made several changes
    to the final rule to address commenters' concerns, including accounting
    for economic factors that could affect power plants' ability to comply
    with the rule.
        For other industrial sources, the final rule includes several
    flexibilities for affected units that meet certain criteria, including
    compliance extensions, case-by-case emissions limits, and facility-wide
    averaging plans.
        Since the Administrator signed the Good Neighbor Plan, certain
    United States Courts of Appeals issued orders partially staying EPA's
    SIP disapproval action as to certain states. In response to the Court
    orders, the Agency issued two interim final rules to ensure that
    sources in the states for which there are judicial stay orders will not
    be subject to the Good Neighbor Plan's requirements while the judicial
    stays for these states are in effect. More information can be found
    here: https://www.epa.gov/csapr/epa-response-judicial-stay-orders.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Editor's note: a website snapshot of the referenced page, along
    with the listed additional material, is retained in Committee file.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Question Submitted by Hon. Trent Kelly, a Representative in Congress
            from Mississippi
        Question. With less than 2% of the U.S. population directly
    involved in agriculture, there are likely many EPA staff tasked with
    regulating important crop protection products who aren't familiar with
    the agriculture industry. Recently, a group of stakeholders in
    Mississippi hosted staff from the EPA to help them understand why
    growers need access to crop protection products. Additionally,
    Mississippi State University was able to provide a great deal of data
    needed by the EPA. Administrator Regan, how can stakeholders, like
    state farm bureaus and land-grant universities, better work with your
    Agency to ensure your staff actually understand the industry they are
    regulating?
        Answer. EPA appreciates the recent hosting of staff in Mississippi
    to learn more about grower practices. EPA annually participates in
    educational field tours, also known as crop tours, generously organized
    and hosted by numerous organizations. Agency staff use these
    opportunities to learn more about actual field production operations,
    approaches, and problems of growers, directly from growers who are
    affected by the decisions made and regulations administered by EPA.
        EPA uses pesticide use-related information submitted by
    stakeholders in support of both registration of new pesticides and
    registration review of existing chemistries. Information about how much
    and the way pesticides are actually used helps EPA evaluate potential
    exposures, the need for various pesticides, and the potential economic
    impacts of regulatory options. During public comment periods and other
    meetings with stakeholders, including the crop tours, EPA often
    solicits and receives specific information that could inform regulatory
    actions.
        Agency staff, in turn, have opportunities to educate growers and
    other stakeholders about Agency polices and interpretations, increasing
    understanding of the Agency's regulatory actions. Field tours also
    provide opportunities for Agency staff to interact with growers and
    other stakeholders on the ground and help those involved to build
    appreciation for each other's roles and efforts, leading to mutual
    understanding and trust. EPA values these interactions with
    stakeholders and fosters continued partnerships to encourage the
    exchange of information.
        Hosts of past and recent tours include:

       IR-4 Project Specialty Crops Tour

       California Citrus Regulatory Tour

       California Specialty Crops Council

       Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association Crop Tour

       Weed Science Society of America (WSSA) Maryland Farm Tour

       Mississippi Farm Bureau Crop Tour

       National Cotton Council

       National Potato Council

       Association of Pest Control Officials

       North Dakota Grain Growers Tour

       Agricultural Retailers Association Delaware Tour

       Association of Equipment Manufactures--Agriculture

       Michigan Integrated Pest Management Tour

       MS Farm Bureau Federation Tour

       Lee County Mosquito Control District Tour

       National Association of Landscape Professionals

       USA Rice Federation

        EPA also works collaboratively with land-grant universities. For
    example, EPA works with North Carolina State University and Louisiana
    State University, which operate the Center of Excellence for Regulatory
    Science in Agriculture (CERSA). EPA collaborates with CERSA in
    developing workshops aimed at topics both of interest to the Agency as
    well as agricultural stakeholders.
        EPA also regularly works with the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
    (USDA) Office of Pest Management Policy, and various other sub-
    agencies, to seek input from a grower's perspective on numerous topics,
    including individual pesticide registration or registration review
    decisions, commodity-specific input, feasibility and practicality of
    pesticide exposure mitigation practices, and other topics of importance
    to agriculture.
        EPA recognizes the importance of effective collaboration with our
    Federal and state, co-regulators, partners and stakeholders in
    achieving our mission of protecting public health and the environment.
    We value our strong partnerships, not only for implementing and
    enforcing regulatory decisions, but also for the collaboration and
    input as we work through challenging issues. EPA actively collaborates
    with a variety of stakeholders for advice, opinions and ideas to help
    us with science issues and policy development. These groups include:

       FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel

       Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee

       EPA's Farm, Ranch & Rural Communities Federal Advisory
            Committee

       Pesticide industry

       Environmental advocacy organizations

       Government agencies--at all levels

       International organizations and foreign partners

       Issue-specific technical experts

        EPA also hosts quarterly information exchange meetings with the
    various stakeholder groups above. Some of the groups from the
    agriculture community include:

       American Farm Bureau

       American Soybean Association

       National Association of Wheat Growers

       American Sugarbeet Growers Association

       Minor Crop Farmer Alliance

       National Association of Wheat Growers

       National Cotton Council

       National Corn Growers Association

       National Potato Council

       Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association
    Questions Submitted by Hon. Randy Feenstra, a Representative in
            Congress from Iowa
        Question 1. Administrator Regan, I'm aware that EPA has three
    ongoing risk assessments for formaldehyde, and it seems the EPA is on a
    path to set unscientifically supported and extremely low exposure
    limits that will in effect ban it's use in the U.S. Many of my
    constituents are concerned about losing this important product for
    agricultural applications. Formaldehyde and formaldehyde-based products
    provide critical applications for crop production, veterinary medicine,
    animal agriculture and aquaculture, from protecting against Salmonella
    in hatching eggs or feed, to a disinfectant on-farm, fungal control in
    aquaculture or to help increase crop yields. Research has also shown it
    could be our most effective risk mitigation tool against African swine
    fever if it ever came to the United States. What are you doing to
    ensure agriculture's voice is heard and considered in this debate so my
    constituents don't lose this important tool that can be and has been
    used safely in agricultural applications for decades?
        Answer. Formaldehyde is a known carcinogen, and exposure to
    formaldehyde may cause adverse health effects. EPA is currently
    evaluating formaldehyde under three different programs to meet
    different needs. EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution
    Prevention (OCSPP) is currently evaluating formaldehyde under the Toxic
    Substances Control Act (TSCA) and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
    and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). EPA's Office of Research and Development
    (ORD) is evaluating formaldehyde through the Integrated Risk
    Information System (IRIS) program. OCSPP and ORD work together and
    coordinate on chemical assessment activities of mutual interest, such
    as formaldehyde, leveraging resources and expertise to ensure the best
    available science is used to inform decision-making.
        The current draft of the IRIS formaldehyde assessment is a
    scientific document that incorporates hundreds of studies and presents
    the current state-of-the-science on formaldehyde toxicity. The draft
    IRIS formaldehyde assessment is presented in a structured, transparent
    manner based on systematic review methods, and it adheres to the
    Agency's scientific integrity policy. The assessment also includes
    feedback from other agencies (see the IRIS Process \5\ for the steps at
    which interagency stakeholders provide feedback on IRIS assessments).
    In April 2022, EPA released the draft assessment for public comment and
    subsequent peer review. Peer review is a critical aspect of the IRIS
    process, and the peer reviews for IRIS assessments are conducted
    according to EPA's Peer Review Handbook.\6\ During the public comment
    period and the peer review the public and industry, including those in
    the agriculture industry, are able to provide comments and feedback.
    Comments received during the public comment period are available
    publicly at https://www.regulations.gov/docket/EPA-HQ-ORD-2010-0396/
    comments.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ https://www.epa.gov/iris/basic-information-about-integrated-
    risk-information-system#proc
    ess.
        \6\ https://www.epa.gov/osa/peer-review-handbook-4th-edition-2015.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        NASEM published the final peer review report on August 9, 2023. EPA
    is reviewing the recommendations contained within the external peer
    review report and will update the assessment as appropriate prior to
    finalization.
        Please note that IRIS assessments are not risk assessments or
    regulations. They are scientific assessments that provide information
    that is used to inform risk assessments and risk management decisions
    by EPA's program and regional offices. During EPA's rulemaking and risk
    assessment processes, EPA offices and regions combine the scientific
    conclusions regarding hazard identification and dose-response analysis
    from IRIS assessments with other scientific information, including
    information on human exposure, to characterize risk and inform
    decisions. Such decisions incorporate risk management policy
    considerations and undergo separate development and rule-making review
    processes outside the IRIS program. There are further opportunities for
    comment by the public, including by those involved with agriculture, as
    part of rulemaking processes.

        Question 2. Administrator Regan, Over the last year, $5B in
    investments in rural America to increase crush capacity for soybeans
    have been announced, driven by the EPA's implementation of the
    Renewable Fuel Standard as Congress intended since President Biden took
    office. Additionally, ethanol producers continue to invest in new
    technologies to increase their yields of distillers corn oil, another
    important low-carbon feedstock for biomass-based diesel fuels.
    Unfortunately, the EPA has diverted from its strong record in the last
    several years with its ``Set'' proposal for advanced biofuels and
    biomass-based diesel--by proposing volumes lower than current blending
    levels and lower than increased capacity coming online in 2023 alone.
    If these numbers stand, the $5B in crush capacity investments will be
    at significant risk. How would an increase of this magnitude in crush
    capacity increase feedstock availability? Do you believe the EPA took
    these announced investments in crush capacity and enhanced corn oil
    recovery into account when putting together its Set proposal? Can you
    speak to what it would mean for rural communities across the country to
    see an influx of this type of investment and conversely, what the
    consequences would be of losing this investment?
        Answer. The RFS program has played a central role over the past
    decade in driving the development and use of cleaner biofuels, and that
    will continue during the Biden Administration. EPA takes our
    responsibility to implement the RFS seriously and we are committed to
    moving the program forward in a transparent way that follows the
    science and the law. EPA announced the final Set Rule on June 21, 2023,
    which includes a comprehensive regulatory impact analysis that examines
    many of the factors considered by EPA in determining the final volumes.
    In the regulatory impact analysis, EPA considered a broad range of
    environmental and economic factors as directed by the statute. As
    discussed in further detail in the rule, the advanced and biomass-based
    diesel volumes were based on our assessment of these statutory factors,
    including the impact of the proposed volumes on the price and supply of
    agricultural commodities such as vegetable oils and animal fats and
    food prices, and the rate of production and consumption of renewable
    fuels such as biodiesel and renewable diesel. The planned increase in
    soybean crush capacity was among the factors which contributed to the
    establishment of the final Set Rule volume requirements which is
    expected to further increase the volume of biomass-based diesel blended
    into petroleum diesel over the years 2023-2025.
        Based on stakeholder feedback and additional data from USDA and
    other sources, the Agency increased the non-cellulosic advanced volumes
    from the proposal to the final rule by 250 million gallons in 2024, and
    650 million gallons in 2025. The Set Rule represents the largest
    volumes ever finalized in the history of the RFS program.

        Question 3. Administrator Regan, your agency has proposed
    restricting the use of rodenticides and will therefore make it
    significantly harder and much more costly for many poultry and
    livestock producers to control rats and mice on their operations. I am
    concerned because rodents and mice on farms are bad for animal health,
    create serious food safety risks, and they cause substantial economic
    losses. I am told that your staff are making these decisions in order
    to protect non-target species from ingesting rodenticide products, but
    that they have no data or studies to determine how and how much
    rodenticides actually might get ingested, and how much actual damage
    rodenticide uses commonly cause these populations of non-target
    species. Do you not agree that your agency should have high quality
    data on these questions about how and how much rodenticides get
    ingested and how much damage they are actually causing to the
    populations of non-target species before they finalize this particular
    rulemaking? What can you do to ensure that such studies are done and
    fully taken into account?
        Answer. On November 29, 2022, EPA published four rodenticide
    Proposed Interim Registration Review Decisions (PIDs) for a 75 day
    comment period, which closed on February 13, 2023. In each PID, there
    is a benefits section that outlines the numerous benefits rodenticides
    provide to producers and the public. The Agency also evaluated the
    benefits of rodenticides in a document entitled Use and Benefits of 11
    Rodenticides and Impacts of Potential Mitigation  (October 27, 2022),
    which is available in the public docket for each of the rodenticides.
    Consistent with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
    (FIFRA), EPA considered this benefit information alongside the
    information on risk and made a risk/benefit determination that proposes
    additional measures to reduce exposure while still retaining
    rodenticides as tool for use by homeowners and professional
    applicators.
        EPA relies on high-quality data for its risk assessments and
    utilizes its authority to call in studies needed to conduct its risk
    assessments. The toxicity of rodenticides is well understood, and EPA
    continues to rely on its peer-reviewed models to assess scenarios that
    reasonably represent the highest exposures among a suite of use
    scenarios. Therefore, no additional data are needed to make a
    regulatory finding for these pesticides in registration review. The
    Agency proposed restrictions to protect human health by reducing the
    availability of rodenticide bait to which humans could be exposed, as
    human health exposure incidents continue to occur. EPA also identified
    the potential for risk for primary consumers of rodenticide bait
    (mammals and birds) and secondary consumers (birds of prey and
    predatory mammals). This was supported by risk estimation analyses and
    incident reports for 11 rodenticides, detailed in five ecological risk
    assessments that were published by EPA in 2020. The ecological risk
    assessments concluded that primary and secondary exposures to non-
    target organisms, including threatened and endangered (listed) species,
    have continued to occur. Based on the 2020 ecological risk assessments,
    the Agency proposed mitigation measures to further reduce non-target
    ecological exposures.
        Rodenticides will continue to be available to certified applicators
    and the proposed modifications aligning with endangered species
    protection does not remove rodent control for agricultural uses. EPA
    acknowledges this will increase costs for producers, but given the
    toxicity, exposure risks, and documented incidents identified in the
    risk assessments, EPA determined that the additional training and
    qualifications associated with certified applicators would help
    mitigate the human health and ecological risks.
        No additional data are needed to complete registration review.
    Currently, the Agency is reviewing the public comments and engaging
    with Federal and state partners, industry, and other stakeholders to
    discuss the comments received on the PIDs. EPA will determine if any
    changes to the proposed mitigation measures are appropriate in light of
    public comments and ongoing stakeholder discussions. The Agency
    anticipates issuing the rodenticide Interim Registration Review
    Decisions (IDs) sometime after the publication of the draft Biological
    Evaluations, which themselves are planned for November 2023.

        Question 4. Administrator Regan, the Biden Administration has
    admitted that four out of five vehicles will still run on liquid fuels
    by 2050, but the EPA just released their new tailpipe rules essentially
    mandating that 54% of new vehicles sold in the United States to be
    electric by 2030 and 67% by 2032. These new rules have completely
    ignored the great benefits that biofuels has provided. Lastly, the EPA
    used the Clean Air Act to justify these rules by regulating emissions
    so tightly that only electric vehicles could possibly meet the
    standards.
        Has the EPA done any analysis on the full lifecycle emissions of
    electric vehicles specifically comparing them to ethanol-fueled
    vehicles?
        How can the Department of Energy say liquid fuels will be relevant
    for years to come and the EPA not only says, but mandates the complete
    opposite?
        What is the limiting principle of the Clean Air Act? What can the
    EPA not restrict with such a broad interpretation of the Clean Air Act?
        Answer. The light- and medium-duty vehicle and heavy-duty proposals
    are focused on improving the GHG emission performance of the vehicles
    and engines themselves, not the fuels they run on.
        In addition, the proposed car and truck standards are performance-
    based emissions standards and are technology neutral, meaning that
    manufacturers can choose the mix of technologies that they believe
    would be best suited for their fleet to meet the standards and to meet
    the needs of American drivers. EPA anticipates that gasoline powered-
    vehicles will be a substantial portion of the on-road fleet for many
    years to come, and the RFS program promotes the use of biofuels,
    including ethanol.

        Question 5. Administrator Regan, Waters of the United States
    (WOTUS) continues to be a top concern for farmers, producers,
    businesses, and communities in my district. According to an analysis,
    97% of Iowa's land would be subject to regulation under EPA's recently
    enacted rule.
        Can you describe what qualifies as a navigable water according to
    the new rule?
        Does an ephemeral stream in a field fall under the rule?
        Answer. The U.S. Supreme Court issued a May 25, 2023, decision in
    the case of Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency.\7\ In light of
    this decision, the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S.
    Department of the Army (agencies) have been interpreting ``waters of
    the United States'' consistent with the Supreme Court's decision in
    Sackett. On August 29, 2023, the agencies finalized a rule amending the
    2023 definition of ``waters of the United States'' to conform with the
    decision in Sackett.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ Editor's note: the Supreme Court decision in the case Sackett
    v. Environmental Protection Agency, is retained in Committee file; and
    is available at: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-
    454_4g15.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Questions Submitted by Hon. Mary E. Miller, a Representative in
            Congress from Illinois
        Question 1. Do solar panels contain materials that are considered
    hazardous by the EPA?
        Answer. All energy production technologies create wastes that need
    to be properly managed at end of life. Just like many of our consumer
    electronics and other everyday items, solar panels can contain lead
    solder and other metals in varying amounts. Some solar panels do not
    incorporate enough of these materials to be considered hazardous under
    Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulations, while others
    may contain enough of them to be considered hazardous.

        Question 2. Has the EPA conducted long-term research into the
    impact solar panels have on agricultural land or farm soil?
        Answer. EPA has not conducted long-term research into the impact
    solar panels have on agricultural land or farm soil. To date, EPA has
    not received any reports of suspected contamination resulting from the
    placement of solar panels on agricultural or other lands. It is also
    important to note that solar panels are designed to operate outside for
    25-30 years and are accordingly weatherproofed and sealed with
    adhesives to protect the internal semiconductors from the elements.
    Because of this, it is very unlikely that solar panels would
    contaminate the land or soil.

        Question 3. Are you aware of extensive public reporting that
    landfills will not accept solar panels because they are classified as
    hazardous materials?
        Answer. EPA's understanding is that most solar panels, when
    discarded, are going to landfills. Many solar panels are not hazardous,
    and, as such, may be disposed at municipal solid waste landfills or
    construction and demolition landfills. Those solar panels that are
    hazardous waste must be directed to hazardous waste landfills when sent
    for disposal. Further, EPA strongly encourages solar panels to be
    recycled rather than disposed wherever possible to establish a circular
    economy and not lose the critical minerals in solar panels. Solar panel
    recyclers are operating in the United States, with more coming into
    operation as the volume of end-of-life solar panels increases.

        Question 4. As a general principle, do you think EPA officials
    should have the right to walk onto a farmer's private property without
    a farmer's knowledge or permission?
        Answer. EPA personnel take care to follow legal requirements around
    access to private property. EPA employs individuals to inspect
    regulated facilities for compliance with environmental laws. Congress
    has provided EPA with statutory authority for civil inspectors to enter
    facilities under certain circumstances, for example to ensure
    compliance with Federal pesticide laws. Those statutory provisions
    often establish pre-requisites for entry--such as, among other things,
    potential requirements to present credentials so that a facility can
    confirm the inspector's authority, and to present information about the
    reason for the visits.

        Question 5. The Biden Administration and the EPA are pushing no-
    till farming as a pro-climate initiative, but the EPA is threatening
    the tools farmers need to make no-till successful. If you restrict crop
    protection tools, then we must go back to tilling. What do you say to
    farmers who say the EPA is the biggest threat to no-till farming right
    now?
        Answer. When I joined the Agency 2 years ago, I made it clear from
    the beginning that I have a strong desire to work closely with the
    farming and ranching community to identify practical, science-based
    policies that protect the environment and ensure a vibrant and
    productive agricultural system. Agricultural and rural communities
    across the nation are very important to me, and I know that farmers and
    ranchers are tremendous conservationists and stewards of the land, in
    part because their livelihood depends upon sustaining natural resources
    from generation to generation. I am proud of the extensive outreach EPA
    has had with a wide range of stakeholders, including farmers, to
    identify opportunities for collaboration with agricultural communities
    across the country, because it is a high priority for me personally and
    for us an agency.
        I am committed to following the science and the law to make the
    best decisions concerning pesticide regulations. I want to assure you
    that we are thinking about the agriculture community and that the
    concerns of farmers and ranchers are being taken into consideration in
    our decision-making. I understand that farmers need numerous tools to
    control pests, delay resistance, and facilitate crop production
    practices like reduced tillage--and our aim is to limit impacts to
    farmers' current production practices. As part of EPA's mandate, we
    consider the benefits of the use of the pesticide in determining
    appropriate regulations and those benefits would include facilitating
    no-till and reduced-till farming practices. Further, EPA has recently
    developed a menu of mitigation measures, including reduced tillage,
    that provides farmers with several mitigation options to choose from
    when making pesticide applications.

        Question 6. You have also promoted windmills--what is the
    reclamation process for a windmill at the end of its life? How do we
    dispose of windmills?
        Answer. Wind turbines are not hazardous waste at end-of-life and
    are mainly composed of steel, which is a highly recyclable material.
    Wind turbine blades have been traditionally more difficult to recycle
    as they are mainly composed of fiberglass and resins. The recycling
    industry for this waste stream is growing, and new wind turbine blade
    recyclers are coming into operation using processes including pyrolysis
    and shredding. These processes can recover glass fibers that will
    reenter the wind turbine blade manufacturing process, and can also
    facilitate recycling wind turbine blades into cement. States are in the
    lead role regulating the disposal and beneficial use of solid wastes
    such as wind turbines.
    Questions Submitted by Hon. Ronny Jackson, a Representative in Congress
            from Texas
    EVs
        Question 1. Administrator Regan, since electric vehicles do not pay
    Federal fuel taxes, yet weigh more than even the largest gas-powered
    trucks and SUVs, what do you suggest I tell my constituents when they
    ask me why more of their tax dollars are being spent to maintain the
    roads, bridges, and highways strained by the increase of urban, EV
    drivers?
        Answer. Today's electric vehicle powertrains, when including the
    weight of the batteries, are often heavier than the engine and
    powertrain components they replace. However, electric vehicle weight
    depends on the size of the vehicle, the driving range, and the degree
    to which manufacturers take opportunities to save on battery cost and
    weight by improving efficiency and reducing weight in other parts of
    the vehicle. These opportunities are often cost effective and when the
    vehicle design is optimized in this way, electric vehicles need not be
    significantly heavier than gasoline or diesel-powered vehicles. Also,
    axle weight limits that are designed to reduce wear on our
    infrastructure will still apply to electric vehicles. For most
    vehicles, any additional weight attributed to electrification will be
    very small compared to these existing weight limits.

        Question 2. Can you explain to me why your proposed rule focuses
    solely on accelerating the transition to Electric Vehicles and why you
    are not pushing car manufacturers to adapt more E85 and High Octane
    Fuel models that will ultimately help bolster rural America from the
    bottom up and middle out like this Administration claims it is doing?
        Answer. The light- and medium-duty vehicle and heavy-duty proposals
    are focused on improving the GHG emission performance of the vehicles
    and engines themselves, not the fuels they run on.
    WOTUS
        Question 3. Administrator Regan, how will the EPA determine whether
    water bodies within the same catchment are or are not ``similarly
    situated''?
        Answer. The U.S. Supreme Court issued a May 25, 2023, decision in
    the case of Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency. In light of
    this decision, the Environmental Protection and the U.S. Department of
    the Army (agencies) have been interpreting ``waters of the United
    States'' consistent with the Supreme Court's decision in Sackett. On
    August 29, 2023, the agencies finalized a rule amending the 2023
    definition of ``waters of the United States'' to conform with the
    decision in Sackett.

        Question 4. Regarding regulatory certainty for landowners, is this
    a test that is easily understandable to the public or does it require
    sophisticated scientific expertise and case-by-case analysis?
        Answer. The U.S. Supreme Court issued a May 25, 2023, decision in
    the case of Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency. In light of
    this decision, the Environmental Protection and the U.S. Department of
    the Army (agencies) have been interpreting ``waters of the United
    States'' consistent with the Supreme Court's decision in Sackett. On
    August 29, 2023, the agencies finalized a rule amending the 2023
    definition of ``waters of the United States'' to conform with the
    decision in Sackett.
    Questions Submitted by Hon. Yadira Caraveo, a Representative in
            Congress from Colorado
        Question 1. Mr. Administrator, you spoke about Section 18, which
    currently authorizes the EPA to allow emergency exceptions for
    unregistered uses of pesticides to address emergency conditions.
    Keeping in mind safety is important--and that our farmers are still
    waiting--are there any new authorities that the EPA needs to address
    emergencies in a more timely manner?
        Answer. The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act
    (FIFRA) provides adequate authorities to address emergencies in a
    timely manner. For full exemption requests, EPA's target is to respond
    in 45 days. Some requests take a longer time because they require the
    involvement of other agencies, additional data, or a more extensive
    review due to novel approaches, such as the recent Wolbachia emergency
    exemption.
        In Fiscal Year 2022, the average turnaround for full exemption
    requests was 56 days, with 19 of 37 total actions (51%) completed in
    less than 45 days. So far in Fiscal Year 2023 (through June 21, 2023),
    the average turnaround for full exemption requests is 48 days, with 12
    of 19 total actions (63%) completed in less than 45 days.
        Under FIFRA, states can use a crisis exemption for unexpected
    situations where there is insufficient time for submission and review
    of a full exemption request (specific, quarantine, or public health).
    For proposed crisis exemptions uses, EPA conducts a safety review (and
    cursory review of whether the emergency criteria are met) within 2-3
    days. Use may then take place under a crisis exemption for 15 days,
    unless a full exemption request is submitted in that time. In that
    case, use can continue until EPA makes a decision on that full request.
    Food uses under crisis exemptions also depend upon EPA's ability to
    establish necessary tolerances within the timeframe expected for
    commodities to reach the market.

        Question 2. Another issue that I wanted to touch on was the
    Pesticide Registration Improvement Act of 2022, which requires EPA to
    develop and implement a vector expedited review voucher program to
    incentivize the development of novel tools and crop-protecting
    pesticides to manage mosquitoes that transmit diseases such as malaria,
    dengue, Zika, and yellow fever. I can tell you when I was studying in
    medical school, we learned about these diseases as something that
    happened in other countries, not things that were going to affect the
    United States. But with mosquitoes becoming resistant to current
    pesticides and the fact that we are seeing these diseases now in areas
    where they have not been seen before, I am very concerned about insect-
    borne diseases from a public health perspective. So what steps is EPA
    taking to ensure that the statutory deadline of December 29th, 2023,
    for developing and implementing this program is being met?
        Answer. EPA is planning to establish the Vector Expedited Review
    Vouchers Program by December 29, 2023, as required by PRIA 5. EPA is
    progressing towards implementation of the program and working to create
    administrative oversight, clarify qualification criteria for new
    mosquito-control products, and design a process to expedite other PRIA
    actions submitted along with vouchers. We've also held meetings with
    FDA to discuss their lessons learned implementing a similar program and
    with the Innovative Vector Control Consortium to discuss implementation
    ideas. EPA agrees with the purpose of PRIA's Vector Expedited Review
    Vouchers Program, and EPA seeks to expedite vouchered PRIA applications
    with minimal impact on scheduling for standard PRIA outputs.