News

E&C Republicans Demand an Extension of EPA’s Comment Period for Proposed PFOA and PFOS CERCLA Designation    Washington D.C. — House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) and Environment, Manufacturing, and Critical Materials Subcommittee Chair Bill Johnson (R-OH) sent a letter to the EPA urging the agency to reopen its comment period on a proposed new rule that designates all Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluorooctanesulfonic Acid (PFOS) as hazardous substances. Given the unprecedented nature of the rule, as well as the concerns raised during EPA’s initial comment period, the members requested the agency reopen the comment period for an additional 60 days. BACKGROUND:  On September 6, 2022, EPA proposed a new rule that would designate PFOA and PFOS as “hazardous substances” under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act ( CERCLA ).   The EPA has never—in the more than 40 years since its enactment—used its CERCLA authority in this way.  Furthermore, the rule was proposed without thoroughly reviewing the indirect costs and economic implications for designating all PFOA and PFOS chemicals as hazardous, which is why the Office of Management and Budget reversed EPA’s view that this proposal was not “economically significant.”  A hazardous substance designation for PFOS and PFOA would have permanent, far-reaching implications for manufacturers, consumers, municipalities, and disposal companies, and could jeopardize products and services that Americans rely on every day—including smartphones and home appliances, to life-saving medical devices, airplanes, and more.  PFOA and PFOS cleanup is urgently needed, but this rule raises legitimate and significant implementation and environmental questions that must be addressed.  KEY EXCERPTS:  “We urge you to give the American public a more robust opportunity to provide meaningful input.”  […]  “The public’s voices should be heard now rather than later in a hearing room or court room. We encourage EPA to reopen the public docket and extend the comment period for, at a minimum, an additional 60 days, to subject this proposal to a complete airing under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness Act, ensure an objective and transparent accounting and weighing of the costs and benefits of this proposal, and to reconsider and eliminate its potential negative public policy outcomes, especially those that are reasonably foreseeable.”  CLICK HERE to read the full letter.  CLICK HERE to read about Republican pushback to extreme PFAS legislation in July 2021.  CLICK HERE to read about past CERCLA proposals targeting PFAS. 

Washington, D.C. — House Energy and Commerce Committee Republicans, led by Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers, wrote to Ford President and CEO James Farley regarding a new partnership with Chinese-owned Contemporary Amperex Technology Co., Limited (CATL) to build lithium iron phosphate batteries in the United States.  CLICK HERE to read FOX News's coverage: BACKGROUND :  Earlier this year, Ford announced it would invest $3.5 billion to construct a lithium iron phosphate battery plant in Marshall, Michigan.  According to Ford, its wholly-owned subsidiary will manufacture the battery cells using Chinese company CATL’s technology and services.  KEY LETTER EXCERPTS :  “While Ford has labeled this project a ‘commitment to American manufacturing’ and asserts it will create 2,500 new American jobs, we are concerned that Ford’s partnership with a Chinese company could aid China’s efforts to expand its control over United States electric vehicle supply chains and jeopardize national security by furthering dependence on China.”  […]  “Additionally, Members learned at this hearing that Chinese companies often supply their own workers to projects in Latin America and Africa, reinforcing fears that CATL will import workers for this facility rather that creating jobs for United States workers.”  […]  “We seek to learn more about whether this partnership, and others like it, will potentially exacerbate our reliance on China. Should China gain control of domestic electric vehicle production, the United States would be exposed to serious national security risks at a time of escalating geopolitical tensions.”  The Members requested information and answers to the following questions by September 18, 2023:  A copy of the complete licensing agreement between Ford and CATL, including any appendices, amendments, or addenda.  All documents and communications exchanged between Ford officers or employees and officials, appointees, employees, contractors, or consultants of the United States government referring or relating to Ford and CATL’s partnership and eligibility for tax credits and federal incentives.  Did Ford consider making a similar investment in a partnership with a non-Chinese company? If so, why did Ford ultimately decide to partner with CATL? If not, why did Ford not consider other partners?  How many CATL employees will CATL supply to the Facility?  What steps did Ford take to prevent or limit CATL’s ability to halt production unilaterally, such as at the direction of the Chinese government?  CLICK HERE to read the letter. 

Washington, D.C. — House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), Energy, Climate, and Grid Security Subcommittee Chair Jeff Duncan (R-SC), and Environment, Manufacturing, and Critical Materials Subcommittee Chair Bill Johnson (R-OH) sent letters to the Department of Energy (DOE), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) regarding their progress implementing National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) reforms included in the Fiscal Responsibility Act (FRA). BACKGROUND:   FRA, which was signed into law by President Biden on June 3, 2023, included a provision directing DOE, EPA, NRC, and FERC to implement changes to NEPA.  In order to boost energy production and lower energy prices for Americans, it is critical that these agencies implement these changes, which lift regulatory burdens for the construction of more energy infrastructure.  The years-long, complicated reviews involved with NEPA and resulting litigation have sidelined many energy infrastructure projects across the U.S.  The provisions in the FRA would streamline NEPA and improve review times and the overall regulatory efficiency. The purpose of the letter is to ensure that these agencies are following the intent of Congress and adhering to the coordination requirements and deadlines set forth by the FRA. KEY EXCERPT FROM THE LETTER TO ENERGY SECRETARY GRANHOLM: "Section 321 of the FRA includes provisions from H.R. 1577, the BUILDER Act, which also passed the House of Representatives as part of H.R. 1, the Lower Energy Costs Act. The section in the FRA streamlines NEPA and improves federal review times by designating one lead agency, limiting evaluation to a single environmental document, setting page limits on environmental impact statements (EIS) and environmental assessments (EA), establishing deadlines of two years for EISs and one year for EAs, allowing for categorical exclusions, and instituting the E-NEPA unified permitting portal, among other provisions. Depending on the project, DOE could be considered a lead agency or a cooperating agency, both of which would have a key role in the implementation of the corresponding NEPA reforms." Members asked Secretary Granholm to respond to the following questions regarding the FRA NEPA changes by September 18, 2023:  What is DOE’s interpretation of Section 321 of the FRA?    How long will it take DOE to implement fully Section 321 of the FRA?   What changes are being made to DOE’s existing NEPA review processes to ensure that the Agency is following the updated law?    Are you confident that DOE will meet the two-year and one-year statutory deadlines for EIS and EA reviews, respectively?    Will you commit to adhering to the page limits for EIS and EA reviews set forth in the Fiscal Responsibility Act?    Will DOE apply the NEPA changes to projects and reviews that are already in process, or does the Agency plan to apply the NEPA changes just prospectively?  CLICK HERE to read the full letter to DOE. CLICK HERE to read the full letter to EPA. CLICK HERE to read the full letter to NRC. CLICK HERE to read the full letter to FERC.

Washington, D.C. — House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) and Environment, Manufacturing, and Critical Materials Subcommittee Chair Bill Johnson (R-OH) sent a letter to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Michael Regan requesting an extension after the agency failed to provide enough time for stakeholders and the public to evaluate and comment on the complex and sweeping effects of proposals that concern the affordable, reliable delivery of power.  BACKGROUND:   Beginning last year, the North American Reliability Corporation—NERC—has been warning that more than half the nation was at an elevated risk of forced blackouts during summer months.  EPA efforts to transform the nation’s electricity system would have damaging and lasting effects on energy reliability for Americans across the country, exacerbate risks of blackouts, and would go well beyond the EPA’s congressionally mandated authority.  In West Virginia v. EPA, the Supreme Court ruled that EPA’s efforts to circumvent Congress and restructure the U.S. power sector through the Clean Air Act were unconstitutional.  Proper rulemaking process requires EPA to be completely transparent with the public about potential impacts and provide adequate time to evaluate and comment upon those proposals.   The EPA is seeking to set strict, costly, and untested standards on both new and existing natural gas generators and remaining coal generators and the agency is doing it on extremely fast compliance timelines.  KEY EXCERPTS:   On June 6, 2023, we wrote you to express concerns that, despite your representations to the Committee, you failed to provide meaningful opportunity for the public to comment on the proposed Greenhouse Gas Standards and Guidelines for Fossil Fuel-Fired Power Plants (“Proposal”). In that Proposal, you offered just 60 days for parties to evaluate fully all information within the proposal and to develop thoughtful responses, despite unprecedented complexity and impacts across a range of states, stakeholders, and communities. We requested that you extend the comment period by at least 60 days, consistent with comment periods provided in other Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Clean Air Act rulemakings that approached – but did not surpass – the complexity of the Proposal.   Your response to our request and to other requests on behalf of thousands of affected parties, including states and electric reliability authorities, was to extend the comment period by a mere 15 days, inclusive of two weekends. Your staff asserted the decision rested on your “discretion” to determine what is appropriate and consistent with your policy considerations. This decision raises serious concerns about your adherence to your Clean Air Act and Administrative Procedure Act responsibilities.   Importantly, when you published your decision on June 16, 2023, to announce this wholly inadequate extension, you knew, or should have known, the information about the Proposal available to the public was incomplete and would soon be supplemented by a set of new analyses and modifications to the initial Proposal. Three weeks after your extension, on July 7, 2023, your staff entered a “Memo to the Docket,” containing new modeling, new factual assertions, and other analyses that change EPA’s original analysis and compliance considerations concerning the Proposal. This adds substantially to the burden on the public to evaluate and develop fulsome comments.   Your actions in this rulemaking to date risk undermining the quality of information and public input necessary to develop appropriate standards. The Clean Power Plan has already been the subject of a Supreme Court decision – West Virginia v. EPA – in which the Court found that EPA failed to adhere to Congressional intent. By contravening Clean Air Act and Administrative Procedure Act requirements here, the EPA appears to be heading down a similar path. To help reduce these risks, we request that you provide an additional extension of at least 60 days to allow adequate time for the public to evaluate and comment on all the information in this complex Proposal.   CLICK HERE to read the full letter.   NOTE : In June, the Committee sent a letter to EPA Administrator Regan demanding the agency extend its comment period for the proposed greenhouse gas and power plant rules. CLICK HERE to read EPA’s response to the Committee’s letter.   WATCH Administrator Regan's recent testimony at the Environment, Manufacturing, and Critical Materials Subcommittee hearing on the EPA’s efforts to eliminate baseload power sources. 

Washington, D.C. — House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA); Subcommittee on Energy, Climate, and Grid Security Chair Jeff Duncan (R-SC); Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chair Morgan Griffith (R-VA); and Subcommittee on Environment, Manufacturing, and Critical Materials Chair Bill Johnson (R-OH), on behalf of the Energy, Oversight, and Environment Subcommittees, today sent a letter to Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Michael Regan. The Chairs’ letter raised concerns that loopholes in the so-called “Inflation Reduction Act’s (IRA) electronic vehicle (EV) tax provisions might lead to an increased reliance on China.  KEY EXCERPT:   “We are concerned that EPA potentially overestimates the impact of the IRA’s tax credits in supporting domestic supply chains for critical minerals and electric vehicle batteries. EPA asserts that widespread vehicle electrification ‘will not lead to a critical long-term dependence on foreign imports of minerals or components’ and that increased demand will not threaten national security. However, increased adoption of electric vehicles to meet the demands of this rule could force the United States to rely on foreign adversaries such as China, which dominates much of the electric vehicle supply chain.”  BACKGROUND:   The IRA permits individuals to claim a federal income tax credit for purchasing a qualifying new clean vehicle.  The IRA placed restrictions on which vehicles are eligible for this credit, including:  Critical Minerals Requirement: A certain percentage of the vehicle’s battery be extracted or processed in the United States or any country with which the United States has a free trade agreement, or recycled in North America, starting with 40 percent for vehicles placed in service on or after April 18, 2023, and before January 1, 2024, and escalating to 80 percent for vehicles placed in service after December 31, 2026;  Battery Components Requirement: A certain percentage of the value of the vehicle’s battery components must be manufactured or assembled in North America (battery components requirement), starting with 50 percent for vehicles placed in service on or after April 18, 2023, and before January 1, 2024, and escalating to 100 percent for vehicles placed in service after December 31, 2028; and   Final Assembly Requirement: Final assembly of the vehicle must occur in North America.   The IRA also added a credit for qualified commercial clean vehicles, which allows businesses to claim a federal income tax credit for clean vehicles dedicated to commercial use, and not for resale.   Note: This credit, the Commercial Clean Vehicle Credit, does not include tax credit eligibility limitations—such as the critical minerals requirement, the battery components requirement, or the final assembly requirement.  As Members discussed at a recent hearing on the Committee’s Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, car manufacturers may exploit the absence of the critical minerals requirement, the battery components requirement, and the final assembly requirement in the Commercial Clean Vehicle Credit.  Reportedly this “loophole” is “quickly changing the behavior of foreign automakers.”  For example, Hyundai is “direct[ing] many more of its [electric vehicle] customers to leases.”  The Chairs requested that Administrator Regan respond to the following questions by July 10, 2023:  Prior to issuing this final rule, does the EPA plan to analyze the extent to which vehicle manufacturers and retailers may focus on increasing leases of electric vehicles, as compared to those purchased?  If so, how does the EPA plan to do so?  If not, why not?  Has the EPA communicated, or does it plan to communicate, with any other relevant entities or agencies, such as the Department of Treasury, regarding the extent to which stricter requirements for vehicles eligible for the Clean Vehicle Credit than the Commercial Clean Vehicle Credit may lead to an increase in the number of leased electric vehicles, as compared to those purchased?  CLICK HERE to read the full letter. 

Washington, D.C. — House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), Committee Ranking Member Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ), Environment, Manufacturing, & Critical Materials Subcommittee Chair Bill Johnson (R-OH), Subcommittee Ranking Member Paul Tonko (D-NY), and Congressman August Pfluger (R-TX) today sent a letter to Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) Director Jen Easterly regarding the status and renewal of the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) program.   This letter comes ahead of CFATS' statutory authority sunset date, which is July 27. CFATS regulates facilities possessing chemicals at or above certain levels determined to present "high levels of security risk" and regularly requires them to assess their vulnerabilities and implement security measures to minimize risks of terrorism.   Excerpts and highlights below:  “On October 4, 2006, the legal authority first creating the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) program first became effective. CFATS requires certain facilities, whose possession or planned possession of chemicals at or above certain levels determined to present ‘high levels of security risk,’ to assess their vulnerabilities and implement security measures to minimize terrorism risks posed by those vulnerabilities. These facilities can fall under numerous types of industries and sectors, including chemical manufacturing, storage and distribution, energy and utilities, agriculture and food, explosives, mining, electronics, plastics, colleges and universities, laboratories, paint and coatings, and healthcare and pharmaceuticals.    “On July 27, 2023, the statutory authority undergirding the entire CFATS program is scheduled to sunset. In anticipation of any congressional efforts to extend the CFATS’s program, we would like to understand better the operation of CFATS.”  Members asked Director Easterly to answer the following questions:   What steps has the Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) taken to improve transparency of and understanding about the high-risk tiering process among regulated stakeholders? If CISA has taken steps to improve transparency, has CISA conducted outreach to stakeholders and others to determine if those steps improved understanding?  What steps, if any, has CISA taken in the last three years to change the way it protects chemical-terrorism vulnerability information (CVI)? Does CISA have plans to change the scope or treatment of CVI? What steps is CISA taking to communicate with other Federal agencies about use of CVI as part of their programs?   There are reports that CISA may soon begin a rulemaking that impacts the CFATS program, including changing the risk methodology, the list of chemicals and their thresholds under Appendix A, and cybersecurity. Please confirm, for each of those three (3) specific areas whether CISA will be proposing a new rule in this area, the need identified and the precise purpose for each of these proposed changes, and the timeline for action on these rules and whether these timelines will be subject to the Administrative Procedures Act or some other legal set of guidelines?  Has CISA remedied all deficiencies identified by passed reports from the Government Accountability Office (GAO)? If not, which ones are still outstanding? Does CISA employ training standards for CFATS inspection and compliance officers, including the use of minimum qualification requirement for inspectors to demonstrate knowledge and understanding of CFATS facilities?  What action(s) does CISA’s main office in Washington, D.C. take to ensure that the regional offices are uniformly implementing CFATS across the country? Is there an accountability process to prevent one region from operating a very different program from another?  The issue of drone activity around CFATS regulated facilities is getting increased attention. What actions has CISA taken and what plans does CISA have to address this matter?  ISA is proposing to reinitiate the statutorily required regulation on the sale of ammonium nitrate (AN). Has CISA taken steps to understand the impact such regulations will have on CFATS-regulated facilities? If so, please detail the efforts CISA has undertaken, including as part of compliance with Executive Orders, to address the burden of these regulations and any overlap that they may engender? How is this effort different than the prior efforts, starting with the first proposed rule in 2011? Has CISA taken steps to understand the impact the absence of such regulation has had on its ability to combat terrorism?  CLICK HERE to read the full letter.  

Washington, D.C. — House Energy and Commerce Committee Republicans, led by Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), Environment, Manufacturing, & Critical Materials Subcommittee Chair Bill Johnson (R-OH), and Rep. Richard Hudson (R-NC), today sent a letter to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Michael Regan pressing the EPA to reconsider proposed regulations to the fuels market that risk disrupting the market and increasing transportation costs for Americans. WHY IT MATTERS: Americans are currently struggling to afford some of the highest energy prices in decades. President Biden’s rush-to-green policies have led to skyrocketing prices across the board—from electricity and oil to natural gas. These policies are hurting middle- and low-income families the most. Now, the EPA wants to continue prioritizing this radical agenda at the expense of Americans with this latest round of regulatory proposals that will ultimately reduce people's access to reliable, affordable transportation fuels. Excerpts and highlights below: EPA’S RUSH-TO-GREEN AGENDA: “We write regarding the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed regulatory provisions creating Renewable Identification Numbers (RINs) generated from renewable electricity (eRINs) that the Agency included in the proposed rule for the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) Program for 2023, 2024, and 2025. “When the RFS was first created by Congress in 2005 and amended two years later in 2007, the program was designed to encourage the use of certain types of domestically produced blends of gasoline for vehicles. The RFS is intended to focus on liquid transportation fuels, and not to be used as a tool to electrify transportation. However, EPA’s proposed rule significantly changes how RINs would be addressed under the RFS program to allow for blended transportation fuel produced from renewable biomass to generate eRINs for electric vehicles (EVs). ” REDUCING FUEL AFFORDABILITY FOR AMERICANS: "EPA has missed the statutory deadline by nearly 14 years, but now it is moving forward with the rulemaking without studying the feasibility or market impacts of establishing an entirely new RIN program that would be contrary to both the RFS’ statutory language and the intent of Congress. “Our goal is to ensure that all Americans have access to affordable, available, reliable, and secure energy. The final design of the eRINs program under the RFS inserts uncertainty into the transportation fuels market. It could create new economic opportunities for parties that service the electricity distribution sector and certain renewable fuels producers, or it could create regulatory barriers that would negatively impact American companies and complicate consumer’s ability to access the fuels they need for the lives they live. ” CLICK HERE to read the full letter.

Washington, D.C. — House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chair Morgan Griffith (R-VA) and Subcommittee on Environment, Manufacturing, and Critical Materials Chair Bill Johnson (R-OH) today sent a letter to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Michael Regan requesting information regarding the agency’s spending plans.   The letter comes ahead of a Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations hearing titled “Follow the Money: Oversight of President Biden's Massive Spending Spree” where EPA Inspector General Sean O’Donnell is slated to testify.  KEY LETTER EXCERPT:   “According to the EPA [Office of Inspector General] OIG, a heightened risk of fraud accompanies the recent influx of funding. Potential concerns include inexperienced program participants, the large increase in funding, and the push to distribute funding quickly.”  […]  “EPA has already emphasized its desire to ensure it spends all of its appropriated funding expeditiously. In an informational video posted on its website, an EPA representative stated, 'we have to spend all three billion dollars of the IRA funding for environment and climate justice by September 30th of 2026, that is less than four years from today, every dollar has got to be out the door from EPA or it disappears, and it goes back to the Treasury.' However, attempts to spend money quickly can exacerbate challenges accompanying the financial awards process. For example, GAO examined lessons learned from grant management of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 funding and noted that President Obama’s push to spend funds quickly created a 'large spike in spending' for some agencies, and that this law required an accelerated rollout of funding. As a result, GAO concluded that some federal agencies encountered oversight challenges.  “Finally, EPA announced in September 2022 that it would establish the new Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights, which will administer this program. The EPA OIG noted in its annual report on upcoming management challenges that increased resources for this new office could produce challenges for workforce planning, execution, and business operations." In order to assist with oversight of EPA’s implementation of its programs and stewardship of taxpayer dollars, the Chairs have requested the following information as well as answers to the following questions no later than April 11, 2023:  1. In the RFA, EPA states, “The EPA provides extensive guidance to pass-through entities in the EPA Subaward Policy and related materials available on the EPA website.”20 Please describe and list all policies, procedures, and guidance documents EPA will provide to Grantmakers, including any specific to this program, and provide a copy of each.  2. Given EPA’s goal of removing barriers to participation in its programming, how will EPA prepare Grantmakers to assist subrecipients who have little or no experience with federal agencies or federal awards?  3. The RFA states that applicants shall submit “participatory governance framework” that, among other things, “describe controls for ensuring that representatives of community-based nonprofit organizations involved in the design and decision-making for the subgrants program do not have relationships with organizations competing for subgrants or receiving noncompetitive funding that create actual or apparent conflicts interest.” Will EPA impose any minimum standards for these controls? If so, please describe them.   Please describe and list all policies, procedures, and guidance documents, that EPA will provide to Grantmakers regarding conflicts of interest policies, and provide a copy of each.   4. EPA provided some very general lists of examples of eligible projects and stated that eligible activities are described in section 138(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act.  Please describe and list all policies, procedures, and guidance documents EPA will utilize or provide to Grantmakers to determine which activities or projects are eligible for funding under this program and provide a copy of each.  How does EPA plan to ensure that none of the funding is utilized for ineligible activities, such as lobbying? Please describe and list all policies, procedures, and guidance documents that EPA will provide to Grantmakers or utilize to monitor compliance with these requirements, and provide a copy of each.  5. Which employees or contractors at EPA will be responsible for administering this program? Please provide their names, job titles, and program office.   CLICK HERE to read the letter. 

Washington, D.C. — House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), Environment, Manufacturing, and Critical Materials Subcommittee Chair Bill Johnson (R-OH), and Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Chair Morgan Griffith (R-VA) sent a letter on March 21 to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Michael Regan requesting an extension of the comment period on a proposal by the EPA to revise national air quality standards to ensure ample time for full public comment. The letter also requested information concerning EPA’s outreach to affected stakeholders, including small businesses, communities, and homeowners. Excerpts and highlights below: “On October 14, 2022, we wrote you to request that you ensure meaningful public engagement and opportunity for public comment concerning any proposal by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to revise existing air quality standards for fine particulate matter, also known as PM2.5. “We requested that you ensure the agency follows its own precedents as well as requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act to accept comment on retaining the existing standards. We also asked that you ensure the public has at least 90 days to submit comments once any proposal is published. “This past January 6, you proposed to revise the PM2.5 standards to significantly lower levels, and specifically asked for comment on a range below the current standard. Indeed, you failed to take comment on keeping the current standards, in that proposal. You also provided for only 60 days for public comment. Given the complexity and scope of regulatory impacts to comply with the potential new standards, it is disappointing that you would not provide for full opportunity for public comment on all aspects of the proposed decision. “We write today to request you extend the comment period by 30 days and confirm to us as soon as practicable that you will accept full public comment, including for retaining the existing standards. “In addition, we request you supply a written response by April 4, 2023, in which you describe in detail: (a) The EPA’s current assessment of the impacts of the proposed standards on small businesses, agriculture, municipalities, individual homeowners, and other small, nonpoint sources, which your data indicate make up some 80% of the sources that will be required to reduce PM2.5 emissions; (b) What outreach you have made to ensure these small businesses, agriculture, municipalities, individual homeowners, and other small, nonpoint sources understand the proposal, given the likelihood of increased controls and costs for these sources; and (c) The significance of the EPA’s inability to identify sufficient emission controls in the Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis to attain the proposed alternative standards.” CLICK HERE to read the full letter to Administrator Regan. NOTE: Energy and Commerce Republican Leaders sent a similar letter to the EPA in September 2022 requesting the agency ensures an appropriate amount of time for public review and comment.