[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 101 (Tuesday, June 23, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H4551-H4560]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
TSCA MODERNIZATION ACT OF 2015
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 2576) to modernize the Toxic Substances Control Act, and for
other purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 2576
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``TSCA
Modernization Act of 2015''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Definitions.
Sec. 3. Testing of chemical substances and mixtures.
Sec. 4. Regulation of hazardous chemical substances and mixtures.
Sec. 5. Relationship to other Federal laws.
Sec. 6. Disclosure of data.
Sec. 7. Effect on State law.
Sec. 8. Administration of the Act.
Sec. 9. Conforming amendments.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
Section 3 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C.
2602) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (7) through (14) as
paragraphs (8) through (10) and (12) through (16),
respectively;
(2) by inserting after paragraph (6) the following:
``(7) The term `intended conditions of use' means the
circumstances under which a chemical substance is intended,
known, or reasonably foreseeable to be manufactured,
processed, distributed in commerce, used, and disposed of.'';
and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (10), as so redesignated,
the following:
``(11) The term `potentially exposed subpopulation' means a
group of individuals within the general population who, due
to either greater susceptibility or greater potential
exposure, are likely to be at greater risk than the general
population of adverse health effects from exposure to a
chemical substance.''.
SEC. 3. TESTING OF CHEMICAL SUBSTANCES AND MIXTURES.
Section 4 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C.
2603) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(1)--
(A) in subparagraph (A)(iii), by striking ``; or'' and
inserting a semicolon;
(B) in subparagraph (B)(iii), by striking ``; and'' and
inserting ``; or''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(C) testing of a chemical substance is necessary to
conduct a risk evaluation under section 6(b); and'';
(2) in the matter following subsection (a)(2), by inserting
``, order, or consent agreement'' after ``by rule''; and
(3) in subsection (b)(5), by striking ``paragraph (1)(A) or
(1)(B)'' and inserting ``paragraph (1)(A), (1)(B), or
(1)(C)''.
SEC. 4. REGULATION OF HAZARDOUS CHEMICAL SUBSTANCES AND
MIXTURES.
(a) Scope of Regulation.--Section 6(a) of the Toxic
Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2605(a)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``finds that there is a reasonable basis to
conclude'' and inserting ``determines under subsection (b)'';
(2) by inserting ``or designates a chemical substance under
subsection (i)(2),'' before ``the Administrator shall by
rule''; and
(3) by striking ``to protect adequately against such risk
using the least burdensome requirements'' and inserting ``so
that the chemical substance or mixture no longer presents or
will present an unreasonable risk, including an identified
unreasonable risk to a potentially exposed subpopulation''.
(b) Risk Evaluations.--Section 6(b) of the Toxic Substances
Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2605(b)) is amended to read as
follows:
``(b) Risk Evaluations.--
``(1) In general.--The Administrator shall conduct risk
evaluations pursuant to this subsection to determine whether
or not a chemical substance presents or will present, in the
absence of requirements under subsection (a), an unreasonable
risk of injury to health or the environment.
``(2) Applying requirements.--The Administrator shall apply
requirements with respect to a chemical substance through a
rule
[[Page H4552]]
under subsection (a) only if the Administrator determines
through a risk evaluation under this subsection, without
consideration of costs or other non-risk factors, that the
chemical substance presents or will present, in the absence
of such requirements, an unreasonable risk of injury to
health or the environment.
``(3) Conducting risk evaluation.--
``(A) Required risk evaluations.--The Administrator shall
conduct and publish the results of a risk evaluation under
this subsection for a chemical substance if--
``(i) the Administrator determines that the chemical
substance may present an unreasonable risk of injury to
health or the environment because of potential hazard and a
potential route of exposure under the intended conditions of
use; or
``(ii) a manufacturer of the chemical substance requests
such a risk evaluation in a form and manner prescribed by the
Administrator.
``(B) TSCA work plan chemicals.--The Administrator may,
without making a determination under subparagraph (A)(i),
conduct and publish the results of a risk evaluation under
this subsection for a chemical substance that, on the date of
enactment of the TSCA Modernization Act of 2015, is listed in
the TSCA Work Plan for Chemical Assessments published by the
Administrator.
``(4) Requirements.--In conducting a risk evaluation under
this subsection, the Administrator shall--
``(A) integrate and assess information on hazards and
exposures for all of the intended conditions of use of the
chemical substance, including information that is relevant to
specific risks of injury to health or the environment and
information on potentially exposed subpopulations;
``(B) not consider information on cost and other factors
not directly related to health or the environment;
``(C) take into account, where relevant, the likely
duration, intensity, frequency, and number of exposures under
the intended conditions of use of the chemical substance;
``(D) describe the weight of the scientific evidence for
identified hazard and exposure;
``(E) consider whether the weight of the scientific
evidence supports the identification of doses of the chemical
substance below which no adverse effects can be expected to
occur; and
``(F) in the case of a risk evaluation requested by a
manufacturer under paragraph (3)(A)(ii), ensure that the
costs to the Environmental Protection Agency, including
contractor costs, of conducting the risk evaluation are paid
for by the manufacturer.
``(5) Deadlines.--
``(A) Risk evaluations.--The Administrator shall conduct
and publish a risk evaluation under this subsection for a
chemical substance as soon as reasonably possible, subject to
the availability of resources, but not later than--
``(i) 3 years after the date on which the Administrator--
``(I) makes a determination under paragraph (3)(A)(i); or
``(II) begins the risk evaluation under paragraph (3)(B);
or
``(ii) in the case of a risk evaluation requested by a
manufacturer under paragraph (3)(A)(ii), 2 years after the
later of the date on which--
``(I) the manufacturer requests the risk evaluation; or
``(II) if applicable, the risk evaluation is initiated
pursuant to subparagraph (B).
``(B) Deadline adjustment.--If the Administrator receives
more requests for risk evaluations under paragraph (3)(A)(ii)
than the Administrator has resources to conduct by the
deadline under subparagraph (A)(ii)(I) (taking into account
the requirement in paragraph (4)(F)), the Administrator
shall--
``(i) initiate risk evaluations that exceed the
Administrator's allotted resources as soon as resources for
such risk evaluations are available; and
``(ii) not collect a fee under section 26 from the
manufacturer for a risk evaluation until the Administrator
initiates the risk evaluation.
``(C) Subsection (a) rules.--If, based on a risk evaluation
conducted under this subsection, the Administrator
determines, without consideration of costs or other non-risk
factors, that a chemical substance presents or will present,
in the absence of a rule under subsection (a), an
unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment, the
Administrator shall--
``(i) propose a rule under subsection (a) for the chemical
substance not later than 1 year after the date on which the
risk evaluation regarding such chemical substance is
published under subparagraph (A); and
``(ii) publish in the Federal Register a final rule not
later than 2 years after the date on which the risk
evaluation regarding such chemical substance is published
under subparagraph (A).
``(D) Extension.--If the Administrator determines that
additional information is necessary to make a risk evaluation
determination under this subsection, the Administrator may
extend the deadline under subparagraph (A) accordingly,
except that the deadline may not be extended to a date that
is later than--
``(i) 90 days after receipt of such additional information;
or
``(ii) 2 years after the deadline being extended under this
subparagraph.
``(6) Determinations of no unreasonable risk.--
``(A) Notice and comment.--Not later than 30 days before
publishing a final determination under this subsection that a
chemical substance does not and will not present an
unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment, the
Administrator shall make a preliminary determination to such
effect and provide public notice of, and an opportunity for
comment regarding, such preliminary determination.
``(B) Potentially exposed subpopulations.--The
Administrator shall not make a determination under this
subsection that a chemical substance will not present an
unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment if
the Administrator determines that the chemical substance,
under the intended conditions of use, presents or will
present an unreasonable risk of injury to 1 or more
potentially exposed subpopulations.
``(C) Final action.--A final determination under this
subsection that a chemical substance will not present an
unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment
shall be considered a final agency action.
``(7) Minimum number.--Subject to the availability of
appropriations, the Administrator shall initiate 10 or more
risk evaluations under paragraphs (3)(A)(i) or (3)(B) in each
fiscal year beginning in the fiscal year of the date of
enactment of the TSCA Modernization Act of 2015.''.
(c) Promulgation of Subsection (a) Rules.--Section 6(c) of
the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2605(c)) is
amended--
(1) by amending paragraph (1) to read as follows:
``(1) Requirements for rule.--In promulgating any rule
under subsection (a) with respect to a chemical substance or
mixture, the Administrator shall--
``(A) consider and publish a statement with respect to--
``(i) the effects of the chemical substance or mixture on
health and the magnitude of the exposure of human beings to
the chemical substance or mixture;
``(ii) the effects of the chemical substance or mixture on
the environment and the magnitude of the exposure of the
environment to the chemical substance or mixture;
``(iii) the benefits of the chemical substance or mixture
for various uses; and
``(iv) the reasonably ascertainable economic consequences
of the rule, including consideration of the likely effect of
the rule on the national economy, small business,
technological innovation, the environment, and public health;
``(B) impose requirements under the rule that the
Administrator determines, consistent with the information
published under subparagraph (A), are cost-effective, except
where the Administrator determines that additional or
different requirements described in subsection (a) are
necessary to protect against the identified risk;
``(C) based on the information published under subparagraph
(A), in deciding whether to prohibit or restrict in a manner
that substantially prevents a specific use of a chemical
substance or mixture and in setting an appropriate transition
period for such action, determine whether technically and
economically feasible alternatives that benefit health or the
environment, compared to the use so proposed to be prohibited
or restricted, will be reasonably available as a substitute
when the proposed prohibition or other restriction takes
effect;
``(D) exempt replacement parts designed prior to the date
of publication in the Federal Register of the rule unless the
Administrator finds such replacement parts contribute
significantly to the identified risk, including identified
risk to identified potentially exposed subpopulations; and
``(E) in selecting among prohibitions and other
restrictions to address an identified risk, apply
prohibitions or other restrictions to articles on the basis
of a chemical substance or mixture contained in the article
only to the extent necessary to protect against the
identified risk.'';
(2) in paragraph (2)--
(A) by inserting ``Procedures.--'' before ``When
prescribing a rule'';
(B) by striking ``provide an opportunity for an informal
hearing in accordance with paragraph (3); (D)'';
(C) by striking ``, and (E)'' and inserting ``; and (D)'';
and
(D) by moving such paragraph 2 ems to the right;
(3) by striking paragraphs (3) and (4) and redesignating
paragraph (5) as paragraph (3); and
(4) in paragraph (3) (as so redesignated)--
(A) by striking ``Paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and (4)'' and
inserting ``Application.--Paragraphs (1) and (2)''; and
(B) by moving such paragraph 2 ems to the right.
(d) Effective Date.--Section 6(d)(2)(B) of the Toxic
Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2605(d)(2)(B)) is amended
by adding at the end the following: ``Any rule promulgated
under subsection (a) shall provide for a reasonable
transition period.''.
(e) Non-risk Factors; Critical Use Exemptions; PBT
Chemicals.--Section 6 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (15
U.S.C. 2605) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(g) Non-risk Factors.--The Administrator shall not
consider costs or other non-risk factors when deciding
whether to initiate a rulemaking under subsection (a).
``(h) Critical Use Exemptions.--
[[Page H4553]]
``(1) Criteria for exemption.--The Administrator may grant
an exemption from a requirement of a subsection (a) rule for
a specific use of a chemical substance or mixture, if--
``(A) the requirement is not cost-effective with respect to
the specific use, as determined by the Administrator pursuant
to subsection (c)(1)(B); and
``(B) the Administrator finds that--
``(i) the specific use is a critical or essential use; or
``(ii) the requirement, as applied with respect to the
specific use, would significantly disrupt the national
economy, national security, or critical infrastructure.
``(2) Procedure.--An exemption granted under paragraph (1)
shall be--
``(A) supported by clear and convincing evidence;
``(B) preceded by public notice of the proposed exemption
and an opportunity for comment; and
``(C) followed by notice of the granted exemption--
``(i) to the public, by the Administrator; and
``(ii) to known commercial purchasers of the chemical
substance or mixture with respect to which the exemption
applies, by the manufacturers and processors of such chemical
substance or mixture.
``(3) Period of exemption.--An exemption granted under
paragraph (1) shall expire after a period not to exceed 5
years, but may be renewed for one or more additional 5-year
periods if the Administrator finds that the requirements of
paragraph (1) continue to be met.
``(4) Conditions.--The Administrator shall impose
conditions on any use for which an exemption is granted under
paragraph (1) to reduce risk from the chemical substance or
mixture to the greatest extent feasible.
``(i) Chemicals That Are Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and
Toxic.--
``(1) Identification.--Not later than 9 months after the
date of enactment of the TSCA Modernization Act of 2015, the
Administrator shall publish a list of those chemical
substances that the Administrator has a reasonable basis to
conclude are persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic, not
including any chemical substance that is a metal, a metal
compound, or subject to subsection (e).
``(2) Confirmation of concern.--Not later than 2 years
after the date of enactment of the TSCA Modernization Act of
2015, the Administrator shall designate as a PBT chemical of
concern each chemical substance on the list published under
paragraph (1)--
``(A) that, with respect to persistence and
bioaccumulation, scores high for one and either high or
moderate for the other, pursuant to the TSCA Work Plan
Chemicals Methods Document published by the Administrator in
February 2012; and
``(B) exposure to which is likely to the general population
or to a potentially exposed subpopulation identified by the
Administrator.
``(3) Expedited action.--Notwithstanding subsection (b)(2),
subject to the availability of appropriations, not later than
2 years after designating a chemical substance under
paragraph (2), the Administrator shall promulgate a rule
under subsection (a) with respect to the chemical substance
to reduce likely exposure to the extent practicable.
``(4) Relationship to subsection (b).--If, at any time
prior to the date that is 90 days after the date on which the
Administrator publishes the list under paragraph (1), the
Administrator makes a finding under subsection (b)(3)(A)(i),
or a manufacturer requests a risk evaluation under subsection
(b)(3)(A)(ii), with respect to a chemical substance, such
chemical substance shall not be subject to this
subsection.''.
SEC. 5. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER FEDERAL LAWS.
Section 9(b) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C.
2608(b)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``The Administrator shall coordinate'' and
inserting ``(1) The Administrator shall coordinate''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) In making a determination under paragraph (1) that it
is in the public interest for the Administrator to take an
action under this title with respect to a chemical substance
or mixture rather than under another law administered in
whole or in part by the Administrator, the Administrator
shall consider the relevant risks, and compare the estimated
costs and efficiencies, of the action to be taken under this
title and an action to be taken under such other law to
protect against such risk.''.
SEC. 6. DISCLOSURE OF DATA.
Section 14 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C.
2613) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (3);
(B) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (4) and
inserting a semicolon; and
(C) by adding after paragraph (4) the following new
paragraphs:
``(5) may be disclosed to a State, local, or tribal
government official upon request of the official for the
purpose of administration or enforcement of a law; and
``(6) shall be disclosed upon request--
``(A) to a health or environmental professional employed by
a Federal or State agency in response to an environmental
release; or
``(B) to a treating physician or other health care
professional to assist in the diagnosis or treatment of 1 or
more individuals.'';
(2) in subsection (b)(1), in the matter following
subparagraph (B)--
(A) by striking ``data which discloses'' and inserting
``data that disclose formulas (including molecular
structures) of a chemical substance or mixture,'';
(B) by striking ``mixture or,'' and inserting ``mixture,
or,''; and
(C) by striking ``the release of data disclosing'';
(3) in subsection (c)--
(A) by striking the subsection heading and inserting
``Designating and Substantiating Confidentiality.--'';
(B) by amending paragraph (1) to read as follows: ``(1)(A)
In submitting information under this Act after date of
enactment of the TSCA Modernization Act of 2015, a
manufacturer, processor, or distributor in commerce shall
designate the information which such person believes is
entitled to protection under this section, and submit such
designated information separately from other information
submitted under this Act. A designation under this
subparagraph shall be made in writing and in such manner as
the Administrator may prescribe, and shall include--
``(i) justification for each designation of
confidentiality;
``(ii) a certification that the information is not
otherwise publicly available; and
``(iii) separate copies of all submitted information, with
1 copy containing and 1 copy excluding the information to
which the request applies.
``(B) Designations made under subparagraph (A) after the
date of enactment of the TSCA Modernization Act of 2015 shall
expire after 10 years, at which time the information shall be
made public unless the manufacturer, processor, or
distributor in commerce has reasserted the claim for
protection, in writing and in such manner as the
Administrator may prescribe, including all of the elements
required for the initial submission.
``(C) Not later than 60 days prior to making information
public under subparagraph (B), the Administrator shall
notify, as appropriate and practicable, the manufacturer,
processor, or distributor in commerce who designated the
information under subparagraph (A) of the date on which such
information will be made public unless a request for renewal
is granted under subparagraph (B).''; and
(C) in paragraph (2)--
(i) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``, for a reason
other than the expiration of such designation pursuant to
paragraph (1)(B),'' before ``proposes to release''; and
(ii) in subparagraph (B)(i), by striking ``or (4)'' and
inserting ``(4), or (6)''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following new subsections:
``(f) Prohibition.--No person who receives information as
permitted under subsection (a) may use such information for
any purpose not specified in such subsection, nor disclose
such information to any person not authorized to receive such
information.
``(g) Savings.--Nothing in this section shall be construed
to affect the applicability of State or Federal rules of
evidence or procedure in any judicial proceeding.''.
SEC. 7. EFFECT ON STATE LAW.
(a) In General.--Section 18(a) of the Toxic Substances
Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2617(a)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2)(A), by striking ``; and'' and
inserting a semicolon;
(2) by striking paragraph (2)(B) and inserting the
following:
``(B) if the Administrator makes a final determination
under section 6(b) that a chemical substance will not present
an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment
under the intended condition of use, no State or political
subdivision may, after the date of publication of such
determination, establish or continue in effect any
requirement that applies to such chemical substance under the
intended conditions of use considered by the Administrator in
the risk evaluation under section 6(b), and is designed to
protect against exposure to such chemical substance under the
intended conditions of use, unless the requirement of the
State or political subdivision--
``(i) is adopted under the authority of a Federal law; or
``(ii) is adopted to protect air or water quality or is
related to waste treatment or waste disposal, except that
this clause does not apply to such a requirement if a
provision of this title, or an action or determination made
by the Administrator under this title, actually conflicts
with the requirement; and
``(C) if the Administrator imposes a requirement, through a
rule or order under section 5 or 6, that applies to a
chemical substance or mixture (other than a requirement
described in section 6(a)(6)) and is designed to protect
against a risk of injury to health or the environment
associated with such chemical substance or mixture, no State
or political subdivision may, after the effective date of
such requirement, establish or continue in effect any
requirement that applies to such chemical substance or
mixture (including a requirement that applies to an article
because the article contains the chemical substance or
mixture) and is designed to protect against exposure to the
chemical substance or mixture either under the intended
conditions of use considered by the Administrator in the risk
evaluation under section 6(b) or from a use identified in a
notice received by the Administrator under
[[Page H4554]]
section 5(a), or, in the case of a requirement imposed
pursuant to section 6(i), is designed to protect against a
risk of injury considered by the Administrator in imposing
such requirement, unless the requirement of the State or
political subdivision--
``(i) is identical to the requirement imposed by the
Administrator;
``(ii) is adopted under the authority of a Federal law; or
``(iii) is adopted to protect air or water quality or is
related to waste treatment or waste disposal, except that
this clause does not apply to such a requirement if a
provision of this title, or an action or determination made
by the Administrator under this title, actually conflicts
with the requirement.''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(3) In the case of an identical requirement described in
paragraph (2)(C)(i)--
``(A) a State may not assess a penalty for a specific
violation for which the Administrator has assessed a penalty
under section 16; and
``(B) if a State has assessed a penalty for a specific
violation, the Administrator may not assess a penalty for
that violation in an amount that would cause the total of the
penalties assessed for the violation by the State and the
Administrator combined to exceed the maximum amount that may
be assessed for that violation by the Administrator under
section 16.''.
(b) Savings.--Section 18 of the Toxic Substances Control
Act (15 U.S.C. 2617) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(c) Savings.--
``(1) Prior state actions.--Nothing in this title, nor any
risk evaluation, rule, order, standard, or requirement
completed or implemented under this title, shall be construed
to preempt or otherwise affect the authority of a State or
political subdivision of a State to continue to enforce any
action taken or requirement that has taken effect--
``(A) before August 1, 2015, under the authority of a State
law that prohibits or otherwise restricts the manufacturing,
processing, distribution in commerce, use, or disposal of a
chemical substance; or
``(B) pursuant to a State law that was in effect on August
31, 2003,
unless an action or determination made by the Administrator
under this title actually conflicts with the action taken or
requirement that has taken effect pursuant to such a State
law.
``(2) Tort and contract law.--Nothing in this title, nor
any risk evaluation, rule, order, standard, or requirement
completed or implemented under this title, shall be construed
to preempt or otherwise affect either Federal or State tort
law or the law governing the interpretation of contracts of
any State, including any remedy for civil relief, whether
under statutory or common law, including a remedy for civil
damages, and any cause of action for personal injury,
wrongful death, property damage, or other injury based on
negligence, strict liability, products liability, failure to
warn, or any other legal theory relating to tort law.
``(3) Intent of congress.--It is not the intent of Congress
that this title, or rules, regulations, or orders issued
pursuant to this title, be interpreted as influencing, in
either a plaintiff's or defendant's favor, the disposition of
any civil action for damages in a State court, or the
authority of any court to make a determination in an
adjudicatory proceeding under applicable State law with
respect to the admissibility of evidence, unless a provision
of this title actually conflicts with the State court action.
``(4) Application.--For purposes of this title, the term
`requirements' does not include civil tort actions for
damages under State law.''.
(c) Effect of Actions by Administrator.--Nothing in this
Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed
as changing the preemptive effect of an action taken by the
Administrator prior to the date of enactment of this Act or
under section 6(e).
SEC. 8. ADMINISTRATION OF THE ACT.
Section 26 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C.
2625) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)(1)--
(A) by striking ``of a reasonable fee'';
(B) by inserting ``of a fee that is sufficient and not more
than reasonably necessary'' after ``section 4 or 5'';
(C) by inserting ``, or who requests a risk evaluation
under section 6(b)(3)(A)(ii),'' before ``to defray the
cost'';
(D) by striking ``this Act'' and inserting ``the provision
of this title for which such fee is collected''; and
(E) by striking ``Such rules shall not provide for any fee
in excess of $2,500 or, in the case of a small business
concern, any fee in excess of $100.'' and inserting ``Such
rules shall provide for lower fees for small business
concerns.'';
(2) by adding at the end of subsection (b) the following:
``(3) Fund.--
``(A) Establishment.--There is established in the Treasury
of the United States a revolving fund, to be known as the
TSCA Service Fee Fund (in this paragraph referred to as the
`Fund'), consisting of such amounts as are deposited in the
Fund under this paragraph.
``(B) Collection and deposit of fees.--The Administrator
shall collect the fees described in paragraph (1) and deposit
those fees in the Fund.
``(C) Crediting and availability of fees.--On request by
the Administrator, the Secretary of the Treasury shall
transfer from the Fund to the Administrator amounts
appropriated to pay or recover the full costs incurred by the
Environmental Protection Agency, including contractor costs,
in carrying out the provisions of this title for which the
fees are collected under paragraph (1).
``(D) Use of funds by administrator.--Fees authorized under
this section shall be collected and available for obligation
only to the extent and in the amount provided in advance in
appropriations Acts, and shall be available without fiscal
year limitation for use only in administering the provisions
of this title for which the fees are collected.
``(E) Accounting and auditing.--
``(i) Accounting.--The Administrator shall biennially
prepare and submit to the Committee on Environment and Public
Works of the Senate and the Committee on Energy and Commerce
of the House of Representatives a report that includes an
accounting of the fees paid to the Administrator under this
paragraph and amounts disbursed from the Fund for the period
covered by the report, as reflected by financial statements
provided in accordance with sections 3515 and 3521 of title
31, United States Code.
``(ii) Auditing.--
``(I) In general.--For the purpose of section 3515(c) of
title 31, United States Code, the Fund shall be considered a
component of a covered executive agency.
``(II) Components of audit.--The annual audit required in
accordance with sections 3515 and 3521 of title 31, United
States Code, of the financial statements of activities
carried out using amounts from the Fund shall include an
analysis of--
``(aa) the fees collected and amounts disbursed under this
subsection;
``(bb) the reasonableness of the fees in place as of the
date of the audit to meet current and projected costs of
administering the provisions of the title for which the fees
are collected; and
``(cc) the number of requests for a risk evaluation made by
manufacturers under section 6(b)(3)(A)(ii).
``(III) Federal responsibility.--The Inspector General of
the Environmental Protection Agency shall conduct the annual
audit described in subclause (II) and submit to the
Administrator a report that describes the findings and any
recommendations of the Inspector General resulting from the
audit.''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(h) Scientific Standards.--In carrying out sections 4, 5,
and 6, to the extent that the Administrator makes a decision
based on science, the Administrator shall consider, as
applicable--
``(1) the extent to which the scientific and technical
procedures, measures, methods, or models employed to generate
the information are reasonable for and consistent with the
use of the information;
``(2) the extent to which the information is relevant for
the Administrator's use in making a decision about a chemical
substance or mixture;
``(3) the degree of clarity and completeness with which the
data, assumptions, methods, quality assurance, and analyses
employed to generate the information are documented;
``(4) the extent to which the variability and uncertainty
in the information, or in the procedures, measures, methods,
or models, are evaluated and characterized; and
``(5) the extent of independent verification or peer review
of the information or of the procedures, measures, methods,
or models.
``(i) Weight of Scientific Evidence.--The Administrator
shall make decisions under sections 4, 5, and 6 based on the
weight of the scientific evidence.
``(j) Availability of Information.--Subject to section 14,
the Administrator shall make available to the public all
notices, determinations, findings, rules, and orders of the
Administrator under this title.
``(k) Policies, Procedures, and Guidance.--
``(1) Development.--Not later than 2 years after the date
of enactment of the TSCA Modernization Act of 2015, the
Administrator shall develop any policies, procedures, and
guidance the Administrator determines are necessary to carry
out the amendments to this Act made by the TSCA Modernization
Act of 2015.
``(2) Review.--Not later than 5 years after the date of
enactment of the TSCA Modernization Act of 2015, and not less
frequently than once every 5 years thereafter, the
Administrator shall--
``(A) review the adequacy of the policies, procedures, and
guidance developed under paragraph (1), including with
respect to animal, nonanimal, and epidemiological test
methods and procedures for assessing and determining risk
under this title; and
``(B) revise such policies, procedures, and guidance as the
Administrator determines necessary to reflect new scientific
developments or understandings.
``(l) Report to Congress.--
``(1) Initial report.--Not later than 6 months after the
date of enactment of the TSCA Modernization Act of 2015, the
Administrator shall submit to the Committees on Energy and
Commerce and Appropriations of the House of Representatives
and the Committees on Environment and Public Works and
Appropriations of the Senate a report containing an
estimation of--
``(A) the capacity of the Environmental Protection Agency
to conduct and publish
[[Page H4555]]
risk evaluations under subparagraphs (A)(i) and (B) of
section 6(b)(3), and the resources necessary to initiate the
minimum number of risk evaluations required under section
6(b)(7);
``(B) the capacity of the Environmental Protection Agency
to conduct and publish risk evaluations under section
6(b)(3)(A)(ii), the likely demand for such risk evaluations,
and the anticipated schedule for accommodating that demand;
``(C) the capacity of the Environmental Protection Agency
to promulgate rules under section 6(a) as required based on
risk evaluations conducted and published under section 6(b);
and
``(D) the actual and anticipated efforts of the
Environmental Protection Agency to increase the Agency's
capacity to conduct and publish risk evaluations under
section 6(b).
``(2) Subsequent reports.--The Administrator shall update
and resubmit the report described in paragraph (1) not less
frequently than once every 5 years.''.
SEC. 9. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.
(a) Section 4.--Section 4 of the Toxic Substances Control
Act (15 U.S.C. 2603) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``rule'' each place it
appears and inserting ``rule, order, or consent agreement'';
(B) in paragraph (2)(B), by striking ``rules'' and
inserting ``rules, orders, and consent agreements'';
(C) in paragraph (3), by striking ``rule'' each place it
appears and inserting ``rule, order, or consent agreement'';
and
(D) in paragraph (4)--
(i) by striking ``rule under subsection (a)'' each place it
appears and inserting ``rule, order, or consent agreement
under subsection (a)'';
(ii) by striking ``repeals the rule'' each place it appears
and inserting ``repeals the rule or order or modifies the
consent agreement to terminate the requirement''; and
(iii) by striking ``repeals the application of the rule''
and inserting ``repeals or modifies the application of the
rule, order, or consent agreement'';
(2) in subsection (c)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``rule'' and inserting
``rule or order'';
(B) in paragraph (2)--
(i) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``a rule under
subsection (a) or for which data is being developed pursuant
to such a rule'' and inserting ``a rule, order, or consent
agreement under subsection (a) or for which data are being
developed pursuant to such a rule, order, or consent
agreement'';
(ii) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``such rule or which
is being developed pursuant to such rule'' and inserting
``such rule, order, or consent agreement or which is being
developed pursuant to such rule, order, or consent
agreement''; and
(iii) in the matter following subparagraph (B), by striking
``the rule'' and inserting ``the rule or order'';
(C) in paragraph (3)(B)(i), by striking ``rule
promulgated'' and inserting ``rule, order, or consent
agreement''; and
(D) in paragraph (4)--
(i) by striking ``rule promulgated'' each place it appears
and inserting ``rule, order, or consent agreement'';
(ii) by striking ``such rule'' each place it appears and
inserting ``such rule, order, or consent agreement''; and
(iii) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``the rule'' and
inserting ``the rule, order, or consent agreement'';
(3) in subsection (d), by striking ``rule'' and inserting
``rule, order, or consent agreement''; and
(4) in subsection (g), by striking ``rule'' and inserting
``rule, order, or consent agreement''.
(b) Section 5.--Section 5 of the Toxic Substances Control
Act (15 U.S.C. 2604) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)--
(A) in paragraph (1)(A)--
(i) by striking ``rule promulgated'' and inserting ``rule,
order, or consent agreement''; and
(ii) by striking ``such rule'' and inserting ``such rule,
order, or consent agreement'';
(B) in paragraph (1)(B)--
(i) by striking ``rule promulgated'' and inserting ``rule
or order''; and
(ii) by striking ``the date of the submission in accordance
with such rule'' and inserting ``the required date of
submission''; and
(C) in paragraph (2)(A)(ii), by striking ``rule
promulgated'' and inserting ``rule, order, or consent
agreement'';
(2) in subsection (d)(2)(C), by striking ``rule'' and
inserting ``rule, order, or consent agreement''; and
(3) in subsection (h)(4), by striking ``paragraphs (2) and
(3) of section 6(c)'' and inserting ``paragraph (2) of
section 6(c)''.
(c) Section 6.--Section 6 of the Toxic Substances Control
Act (15 U.S.C. 2605) is amended--
(1) in subsection (d)(2)(B)--
(A) by striking ``, provide reasonable opportunity, in
accordance with paragraphs (2) and (3) of subsection (c), for
a hearing on such rule,'' and inserting ``in accordance with
paragraph (2) of subsection (c),''; and
(B) by striking ``; and if such a hearing is requested''
and all that follows through ``or revoke it.'' and inserting
a period; and
(2) in subsection (e)(4), by striking ``paragraphs (2),
(3), and (4) of subsection (c)'' and inserting ``paragraph
(2) of subsection (c)''.
(d) Section 7.--Section 7(a)(1) of the Toxic Substances
Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2606(a)(1)) is amended, in the matter
following subparagraph (C), by striking ``a rule under
section 4, 5, 6, or title IV or an order under section 5 or
title IV'' and inserting ``a rule under section 4, 5, or 6 or
title IV, an order under section 4 or 5 or title IV, or a
consent agreement under section 4''.
(e) Section 8.--Section 8(a)(3)(A)(ii)(I) of the Toxic
Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2607(a)(3)(A)(ii)(I)) is
amended by striking ``or an order in effect under section
5(e)'' and inserting ``, an order in effect under section 4
or 5(e), or a consent agreement under section 4''.
(f) Section 9.--Section 9(a) of the Toxic Substances
Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2608(a)) is amended by striking
``section 6'' each place it appears and inserting ``section
6(a)''.
(g) Section 11.--Section 11(b)(2)(E) of the Toxic
Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2610(b)(2)(E)) is amended
by striking ``rule promulgated'' and inserting ``rule
promulgated, order issued, or consent agreement entered
into''.
(h) Section 15.--Section 15(1) of the Toxic Substances
Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2614(1)) is amended by striking ``(A)
any rule'' and all that follows through ``or (D)'' and
inserting ``any requirement of this title or any rule
promulgated, order issued, or consent agreement entered into
under this title, or''.
(i) Section 18.--Section 18(a)(2)(A) of the Toxic
Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2617(a)(2)(A)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``rule promulgated'' and inserting ``rule,
order, or consent agreement''; and
(2) by striking ``such rule'' each place it appears and
inserting ``such rule, order, or consent agreement''.
(j) Section 19.--Section 19 of the Toxic Substances Control
Act (15 U.S.C. 2618) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in paragraph (1)(A)--
(i) by striking ``(A) Not later than 60 days after the date
of the promulgation of a rule'' and inserting ``Not later
than 60 days after the date on which a rule is promulgated'';
(ii) by inserting ``or the date on which an order is issued
under section 4,'' before ``any person'';
(iii) by striking ``such rule'' and inserting ``such rule
or order''; and
(iv) by striking ``such a rule'' and inserting ``such a
rule or order'';
(B) by striking paragraph (1)(B);
(C) in paragraph (2), by striking ``the rule'' and
inserting ``the rule or order''; and
(D) in paragraph (3)--
(i) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``the rule'' and
inserting ``the rule or order'';
(ii) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``a rule under
section 4(a)'' and inserting ``a rule or order under section
4(a)'';
(iii) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``such rule'' and
inserting ``such rule or order'';
(iv) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``such rule'' and
inserting ``such rule or order''; and
(v) in subparagraph (E)--
(I) by striking ``to such rule'' and inserting ``to such
rule or order''; and
(II) by striking ``the date of the promulgation of such
rule'' and inserting ``the date on which such rule is
promulgated or such order is issued'';
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) by striking ``review a rule'' and inserting ``review a
rule, or an order under section 4,'';
(B) by striking ``such rule'' and inserting ``such rule or
order'';
(C) by striking ``the rule'' and inserting ``the rule or
order'';
(D) by striking ``new rule'' each place it appears and
inserting ``new rule or order''; and
(E) by striking ``modified rule'' and inserting ``modified
rule or order''; and
(3) in subsection (c)--
(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) in subparagraph (A)--
(I) by striking ``a rule'' and inserting ``a rule, or an
order under section 4''; and
(II) by striking ``such rule'' and inserting ``such rule or
order''; and
(ii) in subparagraph (B)--
(I) in the matter preceding clause (i), by striking ``a
rule'' and inserting ``a rule or order'';
(II) in clause (i)--
(aa) by inserting ``or an order under section 4,'' before
``the standard for review'';
(bb) by striking ``such rule'' and inserting ``such rule or
order'';
(cc) by striking ``the rule'' and inserting ``the rule or
order''; and
(dd) by striking the semicolon and inserting ``; and''; and
(III) by striking clause (ii) and redesignating clause
(iii) as clause (ii); and
(B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``any rule'' and
inserting ``any rule or order''.
(k) Section 20.--Section 20(a)(1) of the Toxic Substances
Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2619(a)(1)) is amended by striking
``order issued under section 5'' and inserting ``order issued
under section 4 or 5''.
(l) Section 21.--Section 21 of the Toxic Substances Control
Act (15 U.S.C. 2620) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``order under section
5(e) or (6)(b)(2)'' and inserting ``order under section 4 or
5(e)''; and
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``order under section
5(e), 6(b)(1)(A), or 6(b)(1)(B)'' and inserting ``order under
section 4 or 5(e)''; and
(B) in paragraph (4)(B)--
[[Page H4556]]
(i) in the matter preceding clause (i), by striking ``order
under section 5(e) or 6(b)(2)'' and inserting ``order under
section 4 or 5(e)'';
(ii) in clause (i), by striking ``order under section
5(e)'' and inserting ``order under section 4 or 5(e)''; and
(iii) in clause (ii), by striking ``or an order under
section 6(b)(2)''.
(m) Section 24.--Section 24(b)(2)(B) of the Toxic
Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2623(b)(2)(B)) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``and'' at the end of clause (i);
(2) by striking clause (ii); and
(3) by redesignating clause (iii) as clause (ii).
(n) Section 27.--Section 27(a) of the Toxic Substances
Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2626(a)) is amended by striking
``rules promulgated'' and inserting ``rules, orders, or
consent agreements''.
(o) Section 30.--Section 30(2) of the Toxic Substances
Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2629(2)) is amended by striking
``rule'' and inserting ``rule, order, or consent agreement''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
General Leave
Mr. SHIMKUS. I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5
legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert
extraneous materials in the Record on the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Illinois?
There was no objection.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the TSCA Modernization Act has been a long time in
coming. We actually started work on this bill in the last Congress. We
held a total of eight hearings and received testimony from a broad
range of stakeholders, including the administration; but most
importantly, we worked with each other, Member to Member, across the
aisle.
The bill before you, Mr. Speaker, reflects lessons learned over the
course of the last 3 years in which we worked on TSCA reform. First,
the bill is clear and understandable. Despite the highly technical
nature of chemical regulation, Members can pick up this bill, read it
from beginning to end, and understand what it does and how it works.
Second, the bill does not try to be all things for all people. Major
sections of TSCA are not amended at all. For example, we leave the
process for new chemical review in TSCA section 5 unchanged because it
is working pretty well right now, and changes could make it worse.
The heart of the bill is our approach to regulating chemicals already
on the market. Thousands of these chemicals have been in commerce for
many years, and they pose no known risks and really don't need to be
regulated at all. We leave those alone. But we do allow some existing
chemicals to be scientifically evaluated for risk and, if necessary, to
have that risk managed through a rule by the EPA.
Chemicals may be chosen for risk evaluation in one of two ways:
either EPA may select a chemical for risk evaluation based on what EPA
knows may pose an unreasonable risk, or the manufacturer may designate
a chemical for EPA to evaluate for risk.
Now, why would a manufacturer invite EPA scrutiny of its product?
There are several reasons. First, some interest or even a retailer may
be raising concerns about a product, and the manufacturer wants to put
those concerns to rest. Or one or two States may be thinking about
regulating the chemical. The State-by-State approach can spell disaster
for someone trying to capture economies of scale in a national market.
What better way to put these concerns to rest than to have EPA, with
the scientific standards that we require, perform an objective risk
evaluation? Then the EPA decision on that chemical will apply in all
the States, and consumers and the public can have the confidence that
the chemical is safe for its intended uses.
Another area in the legislation that required careful discussion and
negotiation is preemption. Of course, we want to make sure national
markets are just that and not a patchwork of restrictions varying State
to State. At the same time, we did not want to deny anyone a legitimate
cause of action under State tort or contract law. So that is what we
said: as long as the State law does not conflict with the Federal
ruling, the State action may continue.
Mr. Speaker, the bill has strict but attainable deadlines for action.
If EPA initiates a risk evaluation, it must finish in 3 years. If a
manufacturer initiates one and includes information EPA needs to make a
decision, EPA should finish that in 2 years. Once the risk evaluation
is complete, if EPA decides a rule is needed to manage the risk, EPA
must propose the rule within a year.
The risk evaluation itself only asks does the chemical present an
unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. That is a
science question based on a combination of hazard and actual exposure.
If there is an unreasonable risk, the agency's decision on how to
manage it is based on many other factors such as cost effectiveness,
whether restricting an article will actually reduce exposure, whether
replacements are available, and many other concerns.
H.R. 2576 permits EPA to regulate articles in those areas where
regulation of chemical substances and mixtures alone would not be
effective to reduce the identified risk, but requires EPA to be careful
in addressing replacement parts that serve a commercially intended
function or the original product or are needed to maintain the
functionality of the original product.
We think this system sets a new standard for quality regulation. Of
course, we want to be protected from harm, but we do not want needless,
expensive regulations. Consumers want safe choices, not no choice at
all.
Mr. Speaker, we are on the brink of setting up a commonsense approach
to protecting people from unsafe chemical exposure that will become the
standard of the world.
{time} 1515
We want our constituents to be safe, and we want markets to work.
This bill delivers both.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Nearly four decades ago, Congress enacted the Toxic Substances
Control Act to identify and regulate risks from dangerous chemicals.
Unfortunately, the statute has never worked. Improvements to the law
are long overdue, and I am happy to be here today with my Energy and
Commerce colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this landmark
reform legislation.
Mr. Speaker, what brought us together is the failure of the current
statute to keep the American public safe and to provide confidence in
the safety of American products. Toxic chemicals can be found in the
products we use every day and are steadily building up in our bodies
and the environment.
Consumers are worried about chemicals like BPA and triclosan, but
they don't know how to avoid them. It seems like every day there is a
new study about how chemicals are negatively affecting our health, and
something needs to change.
The Energy and Commerce Committee has held many hearings over the
last 6 years to understand why TSCA isn't working. Some critical flaws
were built into the statute, like the grandfathering of over 60,000
chemicals in 1976 without any safety review. Other flaws came to light
only through litigation, like the impossible analytical burden of the
statute's ``least burdensome'' clause.
Even though we have recognized these flaws, forward progress has been
elusive. When Chairman Shimkus and Chairman Upton approached Ranking
Member Tonko and myself about working on a streamlined approach to
address the essential components of reform, I was hopeful.
The result is a bipartisan bill that will remove major obstacles to
EPA action and give the Agency new authority and new resources. It will
offer more protection and more implementation than current law. It is a
strong compromise, and I urge all of my colleagues to support it.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2576 will empower EPA to regulate the universe of
chemicals that were grandfathered in 1976 by removing the requirement
that EPA impose the ``least burdensome'' regulatory option and by
establishing a
[[Page H4557]]
risk-based standard for risk management, instead of a cost-benefit
standard. For the first time, the decision of whether a chemical needs
to be regulated will be based purely on the risk it poses.
H.R. 2576 will improve EPA's access to information about potentially
dangerous chemicals by allowing EPA to require testing through orders
and consent agreements, not just rulemakings, and by authorizing EPA to
seek data when needed for a risk evaluation without first demonstrating
risk.
H.R. 2576 will provide expedited action for the worst chemicals,
those that are persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic. Under this bill,
we can expect quick action to get these chemicals out of our
environment and out of our bodies.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2576 will explicitly and directly protect
vulnerable populations like children, workers, the elderly, and hotspot
communities.
The bill will provide more resources for EPA to carry out this
important program by removing outdated caps on user fees. It would also
ensure that those fees are deposited in a dedicated trust fund for TSCA
implementation.
Under the bill, all future confidential business information claims
by industry would have to be substantiated, preventing abuse and
ensuring greater transparency.
H.R. 2576 would ensure that States maintain their important role as
partners in chemical regulation. Under the bill, preemption of State
laws would be more limited than current law and other proposals. No
State law would be preempted until Federal requirements are in effect.
Many State laws would be protected from preemption, including
existing State laws, new State laws adopted to address air and water
quality or implement other Federal laws, State tort claims, and State
laws regulating uses not evaluated by EPA.
In response to concerns raised by stakeholders and Members, a few
additional important clarifications have been made following committee
markup, and I thank the chairman for working with us to make those
changes.
There is now clear authority for EPA to set a schedule if
manufacturer-requested risk evaluations exceed EPA's capacity, ensuring
that such requests won't overwhelm the program. The grandfathering
provision for existing State laws has also been clarified based on
feedback from State attorneys general.
Mr. Speaker, strong committee report language further clarifies the
limited role of costs in risks management, the preservation of State
monitoring and reporting requirements, and the expansion of EPA's
testing authority.
I know that tomorrow, we will get back to disagreeing on the
importance of environmental protection and the essential role EPA plays
in keeping America safe, but for today, we can all agree on the need
for a strong and protective Federal regulatory program for chemicals.
I want to thank Chairman Shimkus and Chairman Upton for their
leadership and their willingness to work with Democrats and
stakeholders to craft this legislation. I would also like to thank
Jackie Cohen of my staff for her hard work on this legislation, as well
as Dave McCarthy of the majority staff for his efforts. This is a true
testament to what we can achieve when we work together.
I look forward to supporting this bill, and I hope all my colleagues
will join me in supporting this landmark legislation.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Bucshon), my colleague.
Mr. BUCSHON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2576, the
TSCA Modernization Act of 2015, which updates the Toxic Substances
Control Act, TSCA, of 1976. This legislation will benefit the Eighth
District of Indiana and our Nation by improving the regulation of
chemicals in commerce.
Indiana's Eighth District has a strong and diverse manufacturing
sector, including plastics, fertilizer production, automobiles, and
medical devices, which play pivotal roles in the local and State
economy.
H.R. 2576 will improve the EPA's outdated regulatory process for
these industries and manufacturers, fostering conditions for stronger
interstate commerce, and ensure robust protections for public health
and the environment.
I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Tonko), the ranking member of the subcommittee.
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey and our
ranking member on the Energy and Commerce Committee, Representative
Pallone, for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, 40 years ago, Congress passed the Toxic Substances
Control Act, which created a Federal program to manage the risks
associated with our Nation's industrial chemicals.
That law, TSCA, has never met that need. As a result, the public has
lost confidence in this Federal program. The many failings of the
current law have been pointed out in reports, reports issued by the
Government Accountability Office and others.
Well-intentioned attempts over the years to address some of the
problems administratively or through voluntary agreements amongst the
Environmental Protection Agency, the chemical industry, and the
environmental and public health communities have failed. The public has
too little information about the safety of chemicals that they are
exposed to every day in virtually every product that they use.
Even in the face of overwhelming evidence of harm to people's health,
EPA is unable to regulate exposure to toxic chemicals. Congress had to
step in and explicitly legislate to gain public health and
environmental protections from PCBs, for instance, and asbestos.
Because of the regulatory vacuum at the Federal level, some States
have legislated to secure protections for their citizens. In some
cases, large retailers have initiated their own chemical policies to
respond to what are consumers' concerns.
Forty years of ineffective Federal policy is enough. H.R. 2576, the
TSCA Modernization Act, amends TSCA and corrects the fundamental flaws
that exist in our law.
When my colleague Chairman Shimkus began the effort to reform TSCA in
the last Congress, I knew the committee could produce a bill. I
believed we could. I was not convinced, however, that we could pass a
law; but H.R. 2576 is a decisive step, I believe, in that direction.
I thank Chairman Shimkus, Chairman Upton, and Ranking Member Pallone
for their continued cooperation and dedicated effort on behalf of this
legislation. This truly has been a productive partnership, and the
result is a good bill, a bill that I am pleased to support.
H.R. 2576 is the result of much discussion, much work, and compromise
by all parties involved. While no one group gets all that they might
have hoped for in this legislation, every stakeholder group gets
something that they need. Frankly, we all need a functional, fair, and
reliable Federal program of chemical regulation.
Industry gains a fair, predictable Federal program for chemical
regulation, a program that will inspire public confidence in the safety
of their products. In the context of our global economy, that is an
important asset for doing business both here and in other countries.
The public health and environmental communities gain a Federal
program in which EPA evaluates chemicals and, based on those
evaluations, will act to regulate chemicals the Agency determines
present a risk to health or a risk to the environment.
Under current law, in order to regulate a chemical, EPA must
demonstrate that the benefits of regulating outweigh the costs. Under
H.R. 2576, EPA's evaluation and decision on whether to act will be
based solely on risk factors, risk factors alone.
Considerations of cost will be addressed when the Agency selects
among different regulatory options to reduce chemical exposures. That
is a major gain--a major gain--for public health and a major gain for
the environment.
H.R. 2576 is a good bill. It offers significant improvements over our
current law. I know many Members have concerns about states' rights and
State preemption provisions in TSCA. I share those concerns.
There is State preemption in current law, and there is State
preemption in H.R. 2576, but State preemption only
[[Page H4558]]
occurs when EPA takes final--final--action on a chemical, either
finding it safe or regulating its risks.
H.R. 2576 maintains a strong role for the States. With those changes
in TSCA, the States will have a more active and credible partner in
this effort at the Federal level.
Again, I want to thank Chairman Shimkus, Chairman Upton, and Ranking
Member Pallone for their excellent work on this bill. I appreciate the
constructive partnership that we formed in working together on this
legislation. We worked through many difficult issues and found that
common ground.
I look forward to continuing to work together as this bill moves on
to the Senate.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. PALLONE. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. TONKO. I thank the gentleman.
I urge my colleagues to end the ineffective chemical policy that we
have had for four decades and to support H.R. 2576.
I, too, would like to thank some individuals who are very pertinent
to this discussion and final product. I thank David McCarthy from the
subcommittee staff on the majority side and Jerry Couri from the
subcommittee staff, Jackie Cohen from our subcommittee staff on the
Democratic side, and Chris Sarley of Chairman Shimkus' personal office
staff, and Jean Fruci of my personal staff, the legislative director
for my Congressional office.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, could I ask how much time is remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New Jersey has 9\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Gene Green).
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2576,
the TSCA Modernization Act. I am a proud cosponsor of this bipartisan
legislation that will update the Toxic Substances Control Act, our
Nation's primary statute regulating the use and safety of commercial
chemicals for the first time since it was enacted in 1976.
This legislation will directly address many of current TSCA's biggest
flaws, including eliminating the ``least burdensome'' requirement and
explicitly clarifying the law's safety standard excludes any
consideration of costs.
This bill would require EPA to consider the risks to vulnerable
subpopulations, like children, pregnant women, workers, and set
restrictions if necessary to protect them.
The TSCA Modernization Act will go a long way towards ensuring that
all American families--especially for families of chemical facility
workers and fence line communities in our congressional district in
Houston and Harris County, Texas--are protected from potentially
harmful chemicals and bring needed regulatory clarity to this important
sector of our Nation's economy.
I would like to thank both Chairman Shimkus and Ranking Member Tonko
of the Subcommittee on the Environment and the Economy and Chairman
Upton and Ranking Member Pallone of the Committee on Energy and
Commerce and their staffs for the hard work and willingness to work
together to make TSCA reform a reality.
I would also like to personally thank my legislative director, Sergio
Espinosa, who has worked on this for three terms, I think, Mr. Speaker.
I want to ask my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to join us
and vote in support of this important legislation.
{time} 1530
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Capps).
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, we all know that our chemical regulatory
system is badly broken and that it has been broken for a very long
time. When it comes to chemicals, weak statutory authority and limited
resources have prevented the EPA from fulfilling its mission of
protecting public health and the environment. Current law is so weak
that the EPA famously could not even use it to ban the use of asbestos
despite overwhelming evidence that asbestos poses serious risks to
human health.
Even when the EPA can successfully regulate a chemical under the
Toxic Substances Control Act, which we know as TSCA--which has happened
only five times--they must do so using a flawed cost-benefit analysis
that prioritizes profits over health and safety. These are just a few
of the many serious flaws of the current system.
While the TSCA Modernization Act does not address all of these
problems, it does take several important steps forward that will help
improve the health and safety of consumers and their families. It
finally ensures that health, not cost, is the standard by which the
safety of chemicals is evaluated; it maintains critical State chemical
safety laws, such as California's landmark Proposition 65; and for the
first time, it includes explicit protections for vulnerable
populations, such as pregnant mothers, children, and seniors.
I want to commend Chairmen Upton and Shimkus, Ranking Members Pallone
and Tonko, and the committee staffs for all of their hard work and
commitment for making this a truly bipartisan bill. It is far from
perfect, but it has improved at every step of the process, and I hope
that continues. Should the Senate pass its TSCA reform package, I hope
this cooperation continues in conference so we can produce an even
stronger bill.
Mr. Speaker, for far too long, our chemical laws have prioritized
profits over human health and safety. This bill would put an end to
this inequity and to many other serious failings of the current system.
The TSCA Modernization Act is a good compromise and is a major step
forward. That is why I will be voting for it today, and I urge my
colleagues to do the same.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Colorado (Ms. DeGette).
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2576, the TSCA
Modernization Act.
Since the 111th Congress, a lot of us have been wrestling very
seriously with how to reform the EPA's current regime for reviewing and
regulating chemicals. Everyone agrees that the statute has been broken
for most of the decades that it has been in effect. Devising a new
program, though, that would both enable the EPA to take meaningful
action on the chemicals that truly need regulation and that will
protect the health of our citizens was an uphill battle in deeply
partisan times; yet what we have come up with is a true compromise. We
have focused on the aspects of current law that really need to be
addressed, and we have developed language that will move the ball
forward.
As all of the other speakers have said, our work is not done after
the vote later today. The Senate, in working its own will, has come up
with a reform bill that takes a distinctly different approach. We have
a lot to reconcile. It is important that legislation makes it to the
President's desk that will equip the EPA to protect us from toxic
chemicals over the long term. Ultimately, we will be judged by how well
the new law works, not only over the next few years, but over the
coming decade.
I want to add my thanks, Mr. Speaker, to Congressman Frank Pallone,
Congressman Shimkus, Congressman Tonko, Congressman Gene Green, all of
our staffs, and, in particular, to my legislative director, Eleanor
Bastian, who has been working on this bill ever since we really started
seriously negotiating.
One last thing--and I think it is important--is that Congresswoman
Capps mentioned that this bill will not preempt State law and that it
will not preempt Proposition 65. This was an important provision, and I
want to thank Congressman Shimkus and his staff for working on it with
us because it is important that we have these kinds of protections that
we need.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
In closing, I will just say thank you again to Mr. Shimkus, in
particular, for reaching out to me and to Mr. Tonko on this legislation
and for making it bipartisan.
[[Page H4559]]
I almost feel anticlimactic today because I know how much hard work
has gone into getting this bill to the floor. I know we are going to
work hard after it passes in the House to get it passed in the Senate
and to have a law that goes to the President, so I urge all of my
colleagues to support the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
This is a good bill, and I am going to give my thanks to my
colleagues, too. We want a good vote today because we want to make sure
we have a strong House position as we go into negotiations with the
Senate, and I think we are going to have that. I also appreciate the
leadership for bringing this up on the suspension calendar, which, I
think, shows a lot of support right at the outset.
As everyone else has done, I want to take a moment to thank our
colleagues. This has been a multiyear, multi-Congress approach. As a
former high school teacher in government history, so far, the system is
working on this bill, and we are hoping for good things as we move
forward with conference and get something to the President's desk. I
harken back to Paul Tonko's comment and Frank Pallone's comment that we
could pass a bill but that, if we wanted to pass a law, we really
needed to open up the process a little bit. That was very helpful to
me, and I appreciate that.
I also want to thank Chairman Upton, obviously, for his leadership
and for his friendship.
Diana DeGette, who just spoke, and Gene Green have both been with me,
slaving away, over the last couple of years. We have learned a lot
about each other, and we have learned a lot about the law, and it is a
very difficult law to understand. We also started getting help from Bob
Latta, from Ohio, and from Bill Johnson, and I want to thank them for
their help.
H.R. 2576 has also gained letters of support from a variety of
stakeholders, which include--and sometimes this shocks people to know
that we have this group of diverse interests--the American Chemistry
Council, the American Alliance for Innovation, the American Cleaning
Institute, the Consumer Specialty Products Association, the National
Association of Chemical Distributors, the National Wildlife Federation,
just to name a few.
I also want to thank two people who never promoted any particular
policy but who were responsible for exceptional quality in the
legislation before us--Tim Brown and Kakuti Lin, who are our House
legislative counsel. They make sure that the words in the bill do what
we intend them to do. That is a part of this process that really goes
unrecognized, the people who are legislative counsel. They spend long
hours, and we ask them to do heavy lifting on short notice, so we want
to make sure that we thank them here today. In a highly technical field
such as chemical risk management, that is not an easy task. I thank
them for their skill, dedication, and hard work.
Finally, I would like to recognize the dedicated staffs on both sides
of the aisle who helped us craft this legislation--David McCarthy, who
has already been mentioned, along with Jerry Couri on the Energy and
Commerce staff. Understanding our chemical regulations has helped
Members navigate through the complex nature of TSCA reform from our
very first informational hearing in the last Congress.
I know, over there, we have got Jackie Cohen, who in the last
Congress was a real pain in the rear end to me, but, this year, we have
been able to work together, which has been helpful. Jean Fruci also was
a calming influence, and we appreciate her steady guidance. They have
both provided quality input to my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle throughout this process. I appreciate their dedication,
oftentimes through nights and weekends, to help us get to where we are
today.
I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote
``yes'' on H.R. 2576 to send a strong signal that the time is now to
update this outdated law and to keep the momentum and the bipartisan
spirit moving forward until the President signs it into law.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today for the purpose of engaging
Chairman Shimkus in colloquy. First, I would like to thank Mr. Shimkus
for working with me during and after markup to make sure that the
important role of states in chemical regulation is preserved. In the
absence of a strong federal chemical regulatory program, many states
have taken action to protect their citizens from toxic chemicals.
Strong laws are in place in many states to address chemicals including
BPA, flame retardants, and more. Through the Committee process,
explicit protections have been added for state laws and state common
laws, including important changes taken from the amendment that I
offered at markup. My amendment was drafted in response to the letter
sent by 12 State Attorneys General, which I would like to introduce now
into the Record. Again, I appreciate you working with me to address the
points they raised. It is my understanding that nothing in this bill
would preempt or otherwise affect existing state laws or private rights
of action, unless there is an actual conflict between a federal
requirement and a state requirement. Is that correct?
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, Yes it is. H.R. 2576 contains protection
for existing state laws and existing citizen enforcement actions. No
existing state requirements will be preempted unless they actually
conflict with federal requirements.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, as you know, over twenty-five years ago, the
people of California enacted a landmark ballot measure known as
Proposition 65. Proposition 65 requires persons who expose individuals
to certain chemicals that are known to cause cancer or reproductive
harm to display a clear and reasonable warning. Proposition 65
enforcement actions by the state and by private parties have played a
crucial role in reducing childhood exposure to harmful chemicals. This
state law operates somewhat differently from other state laws related
to chemicals, so I want to ask specifically about the protection for
Proposition 65 in the bill. It is my understanding that nothing in this
bill would preempt or otherwise impact enforcement of Proposition 65 or
the ability of the State to continue to authorize citizen enforcement
of Proposition 65, unless there is an actual conflict. Is that correct?
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, that is correct. We do not intend to
interfere with operation of Proposition 65 unless a requirement under
that law actually conflicts with a federal requirement under TSCA.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, and just to be clear, the waiver provision in
Section 18(b) of current law, which could protect additional state
laws, is not changed by this bill?
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, that is correct.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, this is a long time coming. The breakthrough
bipartisan bill before us today is the culmination of a multi-year,
multi-Congress effort to modernize our decades-old chemical safety
laws. The Toxic Substances Control Act, which was signed into law by
Michigan's own President Jerry Ford, needs to be updated for the 21st
century. And this thoughtful bill improves chemical safety while
encouraging continued innovation and economic growth and gives the
public greater confidence in the safety of American-made chemicals and
the products that contain them.
There are six core elements that form the basis of the TSCA
Modernization Act. First, this bill helps markets work and provides
certainty. Chemicals will get reviewed and will be ruled either safe
for intended uses, or in need of a risk management rule. Once a
decision is made by EPA, that decision will apply in all the states.
Manufacturers won't have to produce 50 different product versions for
50 different states.
Second, the bill respects the role of states and individual rights of
action. Tort and contract claims are explicitly protected in the pre-
emption section.
Third, any regulation of a chemical will be guided by common sense.
Is the regulation cost effective? If use in an article were restricted,
will exposure actually go down? Is there a feasible replacement? Is the
transition period fair? Without good answers to these questions
regulation will not move forward.
Fourth, the bill will build confidence for consumers and the general
public that chemicals on the market anywhere in the U.S. are safe, and
not just because EPA says so. EPA must evaluate risk against the most
stringent science standards we've ever enacted for chemicals. And the
science has to be transparent and hold up to objective peer review.
Fifth, the bill lets government and industry actually collaborate.
Chemical manufacturers are given the choice to ask for and get a
chemical evaluated. And EPA must meet strict action deadlines. If the
science indicates the chemical is safe, then EPA must say so, and that
determination will be the law in all 50 states.
Finally, the bill encourages innovation, largely by protecting
confidential business information. New technology is not likely to
appear if the secret formula can be stolen and
[[Page H4560]]
copied the minute a new product appears. This bill would prevent that
from happening.
Each of the elements of the bill are not trade-offs, each provision
works to the support the others. It would not accomplish much good for
EPA to evaluate all these chemicals if the results were not going to
apply in all the states. It does not make sense for the government to
be writing safety regulations if the result is no real improvement in
safety. And a manufacturer is not likely to cooperate with the
government in chemical evaluation if to do so means giving up a trade
secret.
The TSCA Modernization Act solves each of these concerns, as all
these safeguards work together.
Mr. Speaker, this is a big day. The TSCA Modernization Act is good
for consumers, good for trade, and good for the environment. I
especially commend Mr. Shimkus, Mr. Pallone, Mr. Tonko, and Mr. Latta
for their dedication and hard work in putting together a bill that can
be signed into law. Let's put jobs and the economy first and vote yes.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 2576, as amended.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this motion will be postponed.
____________________