[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.