EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson this week appeared before members of the U. S. House Agriculture Committee to answer some pointed questions. Open the rest of this post to read the opening comments from Committee Chairman Frank Lucas, ranking member Colin Peterson, and EPA Administrator Jackson, and stay tuned for more as this conversation on Capitol Hill heats up…
Opening Statement of Chairman Frank D. Lucas, Committee on Agriculture, Public hearing to review the impact of EPA regulations on agriculture, March 10, 2011…As prepared for delivery:
I would like to thank Administrator Jackson for being here today. I know there are quite a few committees in Congress that have invited you to appear before them and I expect your popularity as a witness will not diminish anytime soon.
There is a reason the top issue for nearly every member of the Agriculture Committee is related to the regulatory agenda of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The reason is simple: many members of this committee believe over the past two years the EPA has pursued an agenda seemingly absent of consideration for the consequences it would have on rural America and production agriculture. The agency is creating regulations and policies that are burdensome, overreaching, and that negatively affect jobs and rural economies.
Just a few examples:
• EPA’s proposed zero tolerance standard for pesticide spray drift;
• Initiating action to stiffen the current regulatory standard on farm dust, which would make tilling a field, operating a feedlot, or driving a farm vehicle nearly impossible; and
• An unprecedented, re-re-evaluation of the popular weed control product atrazine. The EPA in 2006 completed a 12-year review involving 6,000 studies and 80,000 public comments, yet one of the first orders of business of the Obama administration was to start over after an article appeared in The New York Times.
In many instances, the agency is ignoring Congressional intent and looks to be bullying Congress. Instead of simply administering the law, EPA challenges Congress to pass legislation that gives it more authority. And, if Congress doesn’t act, it will regulate anyway.
Farmers, ranchers, and foresters alike take great pride in their stewardship of the land. When a family’s livelihood depends on caring for natural resources, there is an undeniable economic incentive to adopt practices that enhance long term viability. While it may be popular among urbanites and suburbanites to blame farmers and ranchers for environmental concerns, I think that you can acknowledge that nobody cares more for the environment than those who derive their livelihoods from it.
Rural America’s economy is dependant on agriculture. EPA’s regulatory approach has unjustifiably increased the cost of doing business for America’s farmers and ranchers. If EPA continues down this path, the only choice for many farmers and ranchers will be to stop farming altogether.
While there are many government regulations that are seemingly good for the country, those regulations must be developed in a manner that is mindful of science and the economic consequences. There has been some recognition of this phenomenon as President Obama recently issued an executive order insuring that all regulations should have public participation, be based on science, and not prohibit growth, competitiveness and job creation. I look forward to finding out how the many recent EPA actions meet these criteria.
On a more positive note, I would like to take this time to acknowledge that there are recent examples where the EPA and this committee have been able to work cooperatively in an effort to remove unnecessary regulatory burdens. In particular, I would like to commend you for the technical assistance you have provided this committee in our efforts to clarify that the regulatory authority for pesticide applications in or near the waters of the United States falls under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and not the Clean Water Act (CWA).
I would also like to call your attention to our shared concerns regarding the seemingly dysfunctional consultation process for pesticides under the Endangered Species Act. This is an issue of great concern to the committee and we would hope to be able to work cooperatively with the EPA to address it.
I anticipate that nearly every member will wish to engage you in a discussion of specific areas of concern. It is my hope that this hearing will serve to open the door to a more cooperative working relationship with EPA generally and with you specifically.
I would like to end this opening statement with one last perception. Farmers and ranchers believe your agency is attacking them. They believe little credit is given to them for all the voluntary conservation activities that they have been engaged in for years. This committee is going to be an advocate for those farmers and I will tell you the committee will look at every proposed rule from your agency and ask three questions.
• Is the EPA following the law?
• Are you making regulatory decisions based on sound science and data?
• And are you conducting adequate cost-benefit analyses?
I thank you again for being here and look forward to the dialogue that develops today and in the future.
###
Ag Committee Members Challenge EPA Administrator on Agency’s Aggressive Regulatory Agenda
WASHINGTON – This week the House Agriculture Committee held a public hearing to review the impact of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations on agriculture. Members of the committee heard testimony from EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson and questioned her on the aggressive regulatory agenda the agency is pursuing at the expense of the livelihoods of America’s farmers and ranchers. Ranking Member Collin Peterson offered these opening comments at the hearing:
“I appreciate the time and participation of Administrator Jackson in today’s hearing. The EPA has pursued an agenda that is at odds with Congressional intent, defies common sense, and lacks any kind of understanding or consideration for the economic impact it has on the livelihoods of those who feed us. Today’s hearing will be one of many on this issue because farming is hard enough as it is without a government agency piling on additional burdens with irrational, overreaching, and costly regulations,” said Chairman Frank Lucas.
“More and more we are seeing important policy decisions that impact agriculture arise not from the legislative process, but from a litigation process where court decisions or secret lawsuit settlement negotiations result in poor policy decisions. If we don’t work together to find a solution, producers will likely continue being told how to operate by bureaucrats, lawyers and judges who don’t understand agriculture. This is not the way to make agriculture policy.”
###
TESTIMONY OF LISA JACKSON ADMINISTRATOR, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, March 10, 2011:
Good afternoon Chairman Lucas, Ranking Member Peterson, and Members of the
Committee. I am pleased to appear before you today to discuss EPA’s mission to protect human
health and the environment and our interaction with the agriculture community.
In my meetings with leaders in the agriculture community and in my meetings with
Secretary Vilsack, I have indicated my profound respect for the invaluable contribution that
farmers make to our economy by producing food, fiber, and fuel for our country and the world. I
have also noted the critical work that farmers are doing to protect our soil, air, and water
resources. At the same time, I am very much aware that farmers operate under unique and
challenging circumstances – small margins, international competition, and the difficulties of
operating a small business – that complicate the task of making a living on the land.
As a result of our meetings with the agriculture community – with me, our senior
leadership team and our regional staff – we appreciate the extent of EPA’s interaction with
agriculture and the concerns of farmers across the country.
When I became EPA Administrator, I made a commitment to using the best available,
peer reviewed science, transparency, and the rule of law as hallmarks for EPA’s work under my
tenure. In no other area of EPA’s work are those principles more important than in our work
with agriculture.
On issue after issue, we have seen the value of early and substantial engagement with the
agriculture community to ensure that we fully understand the impacts of our actions. We seek
opportunities for communication, as we are doing currently on particulate matter (PM10) and as
we have previously done with public engagement in development of the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Pesticide General Permit. Our commitment to science
has enabled EPA to make strong decisions on issues ranging from the decision on the Renewable
Fuel Standard (RFS 2) to the extensive work with the livestock and poultry industries on the
National Air Emissions Monitoring Study (NAEMS). Finally, carefully following the laws that
Congress has enacted has enabled EPA to ensure public confidence in the nation’s food supply
through implementation of the pesticide laws.
My testimony further illustrates how the Agency has followed these key principles with
specific examples from our pesticides, water, and air programs.
PESTICIDE REGULATION
EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs is charged with regulating pesticides under the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). EPA’s regulatory programs for pesticides under both laws rest on the
same two fundamental principles — basing decisions on best available, peer reviewed science and
making our decisions through a process that is transparent and open to everyone.
Under FIFRA, we must ensure that use of pesticides does not cause “unreasonable
adverse effects on the environment.” When used properly, pesticides provide significant benefits
to society, such as controlling disease causing organisms, protecting the environment from
invasive species, and fostering a safe and abundant food supply. FIFRA’s safety standard
requires EPA to weigh these types of benefits against any potential harm to human health and the
environment that might result from using a pesticide.
FIFRA generally requires that before any pesticide may be sold or distributed in the
United States, EPA must license its sale through a process called “registration.” During
registration, EPA examines every pesticide product that is being lawfully marketed in our
country. In addition, FIFRA also requires EPA to reexamine previously approved pesticides
against current scientific and safety standards through a program called “registration review.”
Any changes to the use of a pesticide identified through registration or registration review as
necessary for safe use appear on product labels.
In addition, under FFDCA, EPA sets “tolerances” (maximum residue limits) for
pesticides used on food or animal feed. EPA may establish a tolerance for a pesticide residue in
food or feed only if EPA finds that there is a “reasonable certainty of no harm” from
consumption of the pesticide treated food and from other nonoccupational sources of exposure.
EPA makes more than 10,000 different regulatory decisions about pesticides every year.
In 2010, EPA registered more than 700 new pesticide products, approved products for 277 new
uses, and registered pesticides containing 24 new active ingredients (more than half were low
risk biopesticides or low risk conventional chemicals). In addition, we approved hundreds of
registration amendments, opened dockets for scores of pesticides in registration review, and
reviewed thousands of notifications of other minor changes.
Over the past 30 years, EPA has developed a highly regarded program for evaluating
pesticide safety and making regulatory decisions. EPA’s reputation rests on our world renowned
expertise in pesticide risk assessment. Our approach to decision making is also widely
considered to be a model for transparency and openness. Using this approach, the Agency
makes decisions consistent with scientific information and protective of human health and the
environment.
Safe pesticide use makes an enormous contribution to our society, particularly in the
production of food and fiber. Innovation in pesticide use has greatly increased agricultural
productivity and contributed to a predictable food supply and stable food prices. EPA estimates
that pesticides used to control various pests such as insects, weeds, and fungus contribute billions
of dollars per year to agricultural production. In addition, maintaining a robust pesticide
regulatory system provides a high level of consumer confidence by effectively policing the
safety of pesticide residues in food.
Pesticides provide direct and indirect benefits for the millions of people who use
pesticides or purchase items on which pesticides have been used. Some of the most dramatic
examples occur under Section 18 of FIFRA, where EPA may issue an “emergency exemption” to
authorize the temporary use of an unregistered pesticide to address an unusual pest outbreak. For
example, among other decisions last year, EPA approved emergency exemptions to control zebra
and quagga mussels in Arizona, California, and Nevada; authorized 20 states to use two
pesticides to control varroa mites in honey beehives, a pest hypothesized to contribute to colony
collapse disorder; and allowed the emergency use of the fungicide, propiconazole, on Florida
avocados to address an emerging disease that kills the tree and severely hurts the industry.
I want to discuss three topics concerning pesticide regulation in greater detail. These
topics – the Pesticide Registration and Improvement Act, atrazine, and international cooperation
– illustrate the breadth of EPA’s pesticide activities and how the Agency takes a leadership role
in working with stakeholders to find science based solutions to contentious issues.
Pesticide Registration Improvement Act
The Pesticide Registration Improvement Renewal Act (PRIA 2) provides an example for
how user fees paid by the private sector can help support vital regulatory activities. EPA’s
pesticide regulatory programs are funded by a combination of appropriations and user fees.
Under PRIA 2, the 2007 reauthorization of PRIA which is in effect from October 1, 2007 to
September 30, 2012, entities seeking EPA approval to sell or distribute pesticide products must,
in most cases, pay a fee before the Agency will process their applications. The amount of the fee depends on the type of application and the type of entity. For example, EPA charges lower fees
for “me too products” than for entirely new pesticides. Small businesses pay reduced fees, and
PRIA 2 exempts government and government-supported organizations like the Interregional
Research Project No. 4 (IR-4), from application fees.
PRIA 2 was developed by a group of representatives from the pesticide industry, their
trade associations, and public interest groups, provides benefits for interested stakeholders. For
the pesticide industry, PRIA 2 requires EPA to make decisions on applications within a
mandated timeframes. Before PRIA, because of limited resources, the Agency could not process
all of the applications it received in a timely fashion. Large backlogs developed, and applicants
could not predict when the Agency would make a decision. Pesticide companies had to establish
priorities for which of their applications EPA would review first. With the additional resources
provided by PRIA, however, the Agency can now process new applications in a timelier manner.
In fact, since the start of the PRIA user fee program, EPA has met the timeframes for more than
99% of PRIA applications. With this kind of consistency in EPA’s review of registrations,
pesticide companies can develop more accurate business plans for marketing their products.
Pesticide users also benefit from the more rapid approval of more new pesticide products.
Since PRIA became law, EPA has seen an increase in the number of new pesticides being
submitted, indicating that PRIA may have encouraged increased research and development.
Under PRIA, the Agency has also seen an increase in the approval of pesticides for “minor uses”
to meet the pest control needs of farmers who grow minor crops – primarily fruits, vegetables,
and nut crops. Further, by law some of the PRIA 2 fees go to support improved safety standards
for agricultural workers and to provide pesticide safety education for farm workers and farm
worker families. Finally, PRIA 2 sets aside a portion of the fees to increase funding for grants
that improve understanding of Integrated Pest Management and develop new tools to reduce
pesticide use.
Society and the environment also benefit from PRIA 2. A number of the new pesticides
receiving approval under PRIA 2 are safer than the previously approved products which they can
replace. In addition, PRIA 2 reauthorized maintenance fees to support EPA’s registration review
program. Under FIFRA, the Agency must reevaluate all previously registered pesticides at least
every 15 years to make sure that products in the marketplace can still be used safely. The
registration review program makes sure that, as the ability to assess risk evolves and as public
policy and pesticide use practices change, all registered pesticides continue to meet the FIFRA
statutory standard of no unreasonable adverse effects.
Atrazine
The current scientific review of the human health and environmental effects of atrazine, a
widely used herbicide, shows EPA’s commitment to basing our regulatory decisions on the best
available scientific information. In 2003, EPA conducted a review of atrazine and determined
that, based on the science available at that time, atrazine was not likely to adversely impact
human health or cause unreasonable impacts on the environment when used consistent with new
labeling restrictions. As a condition for continued registration, the Agency required the
registrants of atrazine to confirm the effectiveness of risk mitigation measures for protecting
drinking water resources and aquatic life. Specifically, we required the registrants to conduct
extensive monitoring of community drinking water systems and vulnerable waterways.
In the nearly eight years since that decision, nearly 150 new scientific studies have been
conducted on the human health effects of atrazine. In addition, monitoring data from a variety of
sources, including the registrants’ studies discussed above, of atrazine in both drinking water
sources and other bodies of water. EPA determined it is appropriate to look closely at this new
research and to ensure that our regulatory decisions about atrazine reflect the best available
science and continue to be protective.
To ensure our assessment continues to be thorough, scientifically based, and fully
transparent, we are consulting the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP), a federal advisory
committee charged with providing independent, expert peer review of scientific issues involving
pesticides. We have held four public SAP meetings over the last year related to our review of
atrazine:
? November 3, 2009 – EPA presented its plan for the atrazine re-evaluation to the SAP;
? February 2-4, 2010 – EPA presented and sought scientific peer review of its proposed
plan for incorporating epidemiology studies into the atrazine risk assessment;
? April 26-29, 2010 – EPA presented and sought scientific peer review of its evaluation of
atrazine’s effects based on experimental laboratory studies, and the sampling design
currently used to monitor drinking water in community water systems; and
? September 14-17, 2010 – EPA presented and sought peer review of its evaluation of
atrazine’s noncancer effects based on experimental laboratory studies and epidemiology
studies. This review included new experimental laboratory data since the April 2010 SAP
meeting.
Our examination of new health effects studies will still need to consider the upcoming
results from the National Cancer Institute’s epidemiological Agricultural Health Study (AHS)
evaluating the potential association between atrazine and cancer risk. We expect to take these
results, along with other epidemiological and laboratory animal studies, to the SAP later this
year. At the conclusion of EPA’s assessment of atrazine’s human health effects, the Agency will
ask the SAP to review atrazine’s potential effects on amphibians and aquatic ecosystems.
EPA’s International Cooperation in Pesticide Regulation
Our international activities show how EPA’s leadership role seeks to efficiently use
resources and contributes to a predictable and protective global regulatory framework that
facilitates trade while improving environmental protection. The ability to work effectively in an
increasingly complex environment is a key to maintaining U.S. competitiveness in agricultural
production, biotechnology, and development of needed means of pest control, as well as in
promoting and enhancing food safety and environmental protection. The field of pesticide
regulation is a striking example. In recent years, we have all experienced the globalization of our food supply due to the expansion of world agricultural trade. Trade in pesticides is also
increasing at a rapid pace.
As a major exporter and importer, the U.S. seeks to promote economic growth through its
work with other countries and international organizations to encourage greater harmonization of
pesticide requirements. These efforts strengthen public health and environmental protection at
home and abroad, promote the wider availability of pest control technologies that U.S.
agricultural producers rely on to maintain high levels of productivity, and help ensure the
availability of a safe, varied, abundant and affordable food supply for U.S. consumers, and its
partners in trade in agricultural and food products.
For example, we will not realize expected benefits from registering new, often safer
pesticides for use in the U.S. unless the necessary clearances are in place in countries that are
important export markets for U.S. growers. Therefore, we work through the Codex Alimentarius
(a joint food standards program of the UN Food and Agriculture Organization and the World
Health Organization) to expedite the establishment and review of internationally recognized
residue limits for pesticides in food. Many countries rely on the Codex maximum residue limits
(MRLs) as their own national standards, and others (including the U.S.) strive to harmonize with
Codex whenever possible.
Harmonized MRLs facilitate compliance, reduce the likelihood that food with illegal
residues will be imported into the U.S., and promote trade in safe agricultural products. We also
work with other U.S. agencies to educate trading partners about the requirements of the U.S. food safety system and to work toward greater harmonization of pesticide regulation in ways that
enhance the scientific basis of regulatory decision-making and improve efficiency, thereby
saving government and private sector resources.
Other areas where international cooperation has been important to our pesticides program
include:
? Working with partners in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
to harmonize test guidelines, data requirements and application formats to conserve
scientific and regulatory resources;
? Harmonization of risk assessment and risk management approaches, e.g., development of
an MRL calculator tool that makes it more likely that countries working from the same
data will reach similar regulatory results; and
? Work sharing and joint reviews. When we work together on pesticide issues, we benefit
from sharing scientific expertise and review burdens with our regulatory counterparts and
decrease the likelihood that pesticide regulations will become trade irritants.
Collectively, these efforts are leading to ever more efficient use of scarce public and
private sector resources to ensure that pesticides are being used safely, while at the same time
providing businesses a more predictable and stable regulatory environment worldwide so they
can expand economic opportunities.
WATER QUALITY
EPA recognizes that collaboration with states, farmers, rural communities and USDA can
be particularly effective in achieving important improvements in water quality. Our work on the
Chesapeake Bay and on the Mississippi and Atchafalaya river basin are two examples of how
those collaborations can work.
Chesapeake Bay
One of EPA’s major efforts on water quality protection in the past 25 years is the
development of a comprehensive, integrated plan for restoring the Chesapeake Bay. We
developed this plan in consultation with the agriculture community, close collaboration with the
Chesapeake Bay jurisdictions (the six Bay states and the District of Columbia), and with
assistance from federal agency partners. With the support of an Executive Order, EPA worked
with other federal agencies, particularly USDA, to develop a federal strategy for protecting and
restoring the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The strategy reinforced EPA’s and USDA’s
recognition that maintaining the viability of agriculture is an essential component to sustaining
ecosystems in the Bay. It also emphasized the agencies’ commitment to strong partnerships and
collaboration with states and local governments, urban, suburban and rural communities, and the
private sector to achieve environmental objectives for the Bay. In this strategy, and in the actions
EPA and USDA are pursuing under the strategy, the agencies acknowledge the enormous
contribution that farmers are making to improve Bay water quality.
Developing the Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) was truly a
collaborative effort. EPA worked closely with the Bay jurisdictions during 2009 and 2010 to
help them develop and improve Watershed Implementation Plans (WIPs) to inform and support
the Chesapeake Bay TMDL. In those plans, the states identified how they can best achieve the
nutrient and sediment reductions called for under the TMDL. In developing the Executive Order
strategy and the WIPs, EPA and its partners held nearly 400 public meetings with the agricultural
community and other interested stakeholders. Using input from those meetings, the state
developed WIPs recognize that suburban and urban communities as well as the agriculture sector
will all need to achieve pollution reductions to restore the Bay and rivers. As a result of the hard
work and commitments of the individual jurisdictions, there are now feasible and credible WIPs
established to implement the nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment reductions necessary to attain
state water quality standards and restore water quality in the Bay.
To help achieve pollutant load reductions, EPA combined resources with USDA to award
more than $5 million in grants this past fall to assist farmers in adopting conservation practices in
the region.
Mississippi and Atchafalaya River Basin
In the Mississippi and Atchafalaya River Basin, EPA and USDA are working together to
demonstrate success in water quality improvement. We are jointly collaborating to provide
monitoring support for USDA’s Mississippi River Basin Initiative (MRBI) as well as broader
efforts to use EPA section 319 funds (and other available funds) in coordination with USDA programs to engage creatively in work with communities and watersheds to achieve
improvements in water quality.
EPA, USDA and USGS are collectively working together to focus on Mississippi River
water quality goals. For example, the agencies are working to identify where NRCS MRBI
projects can be funded and implemented in a way that supports the implementation strategies set
forth in existing section 319 watershed plans, TMDLs, and other state plans. The agencies are
also targeting their monitoring investments to best assess water quality trends and demonstrate
water quality improvements. In these targeted areas, EPA Regions are coordinating with the
state NRCS offices, agencies, and USGS at the local level to ensure meaningful stakeholder
involvement and commitment to full implementation.
AIR QUALITY
National air quality issues are integrally related to agricultural activities. Particular areas
of focus include coarse particulate matter, boiler standards, animal feeding operations, and the
allowable level of ethanol in gasoline. EPA’s actions in these and other areas are described
below.
Coarse Particulate Matter
The Agency recognizes that the review of the air pollution standards for coarse particles –
called PM10 – has prompted a great deal of concern in the agriculture community in recent months. EPA’s national air quality standards, including our PM standards, are not focused on
any particular industry or activity; rather, they set the level of a pollutant allowed in the outdoor
air nationwide. EPA has not issued a proposal on PM10 and has not made any decisions about
what to propose.
EPA has reached out to rural communities to hear their perspectives on PM10 standards.
EPA has held five meetings with stakeholders in several regions of the country. Initial reports
indicate that these have been very well attended and much appreciated – they have increased
understanding about EPA’s work and the farm community has provided useful insights that will
help inform our deliberations. That information, along with EPA’s scientific and technical
assessments and the recommendations of our independent science advisors – the Clean Air
Scientific Advisory Committee – will be considered as EPA begins the process of assessing what
standards to propose to ensure that we provide the public health protection that the law requires.
Boiler MACT rules
On February 21, 2011, EPA issued final standards for boilers and certain incinerators that
will achieve significant public health protections through reductions in toxic air emissions,
including mercury and particulate pollution, while cutting the cost of implementation of these
standards by about 50 percent from the proposed rules issued last year. EPA estimates that for
every dollar spent to cut these pollutants, the public will see between $10 to $24 in health
benefits, including avoiding between 2,600 and 6,600 premature deaths, preventing 4,100 heart
attacks and averting 42,000 asthma attacks per year once they are fully implemented.
The Agency’s handling of this rule is a compelling example of how public comment and
new information are used and can be especially valuable in crafting a sound regulation. EPA
received more than 4,800 comments from businesses and communities across the country in
response to the proposed rules, including the agricultural community. As a result of this
feedback, EPA revised the draft standards to allow additional flexibility and cost effective
compliance. Among other things, we believe the final standards are sensitive to the needs of
rural America, particularly given the role that biomass plays as fuel in rural areas. Furthermore,
EPA is working with the Departments of Energy and Agriculture to provide facilities affected by
the standards with technical assistance. In particular, together with USDA, we will be reaching
out to facilities that have boilers that burn biomass to make sure that they understand the
regulation, its cost- and energy-saving features, and the benefits that can accrue to boiler owners
as a result.
Animal Feeding Operations Monitoring Study
In 2005, EPA and the animal feeding operations industry signed a voluntary compliance
agreement that resulted in the first nationwide study of its kind for animal feeding operations.
That study, the National Air Emissions Monitoring Study, was funded by industry and conducted
by Purdue University with EPA oversight. The monitoring conducted under the study has been
completed, and the data are available to the public via the web. EPA will use the data to develop
improved methodologies for estimating emissions from animal feeding operations. Twenty four
facilities in nine states made their operations available for monitoring and worked closely with
researchers, industry experts and EPA throughout the study period. EPA will also use
information it has received in response to a “Call for Information” issued in January 2011
seeking data from other monitoring studies of animal feeding operation emissions. We will
make the draft methodologies available for public review and comment on a rolling basis in the
near future.
E15
Another important issue to the agricultural community has been action on the request by
more than 50 ethanol producers and other supportive groups to allow E15 to be sold for use in
gasoline powered vehicles and equipment. Under the Clean Air Act, a fuel that is not
substantially similar to the fuel used to determine compliance with emissions standards must
obtain a waiver before it can be sold. EPA may grant a waiver if there is sufficient information
to show that the fuel will not cause or contribute to failures to meet applicable emission
standards. In acting on the waiver request for E15, we provided an extended period for public
comment and timely access to Department of Energy (DOE) test results on the impact of E15 on
exhaust emissions of model year 2001 and newer cars and light trucks.
After considering all of the available information, we granted partial waivers that allow
E15 to be sold for use in model year (MY) 2001 and newer cars and light trucks. In 2011, there
are more than 150 million MY2001 and newer vehicles that could use E15. These vehicles
represent more than 74 percent of gasoline consumption. By 2014, we project E15 could be used
in more than 187.3 million vehicles, representing 85% of fuel consumption.
We are now in the process of completing a rule that will establish national labeling,
transfer document and survey requirements for E15 as it enters the market. As part of the
rulemaking process, we held a public hearing and provided a 60 day public comment period. We
expect to issue a final rule in the next few months. Under the Clean Air Act, E15 must also be
registered before it can be sold. We recently received emissions and health effects information
to support a registration application. We expect to complete our review of that information in
two to three months.
ADDITIONAL EPA INVOLVEMENT WITH THE AGRICULTURAL COMMUNITY
In addition to the examples highlighting EPA’s pesticide, water, and air programs, there are
many other EPA actions underway substantively addressing agricultural issues, including:
? Conducting outreach to livestock farmers in agricultural areas such as the Shenandoah Valley
to improve their understanding of EPA requirements and programs;
? Planning to issue a final rule amending the Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures
(SPCC) rule to exclude milk and milk product containers from the SPCC regulatory program,
which has been transmitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review;
? Listening to producer concerns and as a result, extending the compliance period to provide
time for educational and outreach efforts to be carried out for farmers who are affected by
SPCC; and
? Providing significant assistance in the development of watershed plans through the 319
program and in the renovation of rural water systems though the State Revolving Fund (SRF)
program.
CONCLUSION
I am fully aware that there are complex and difficult issues that we need to work on with
the agriculture community and this Committee. You have my commitment that we will continue
to rely on science, transparency, and the rule of law as we work together. And you have my
commitment to engage in discussion early and often to increase understanding, improve our
knowledge and create a stronger working relationship in support of a strong farm and rural
economy and a healthy environment – I believe that they can and should go hand in hand.
I appreciate the opportunity to be here today. I look forward to continuing our work with
you and I am pleased to answer any questions you might have.
###