[House Report 118-14]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


118th Congress    }                                     {      Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session      }                                     {      118-14

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



 
          ELIMINATION OF FUTURE TECHNOLOGY DELAYS ACT OF 2023

                                _______
                                

 March 23, 2023.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

Mrs. Rodgers of Washington, from the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                             MINORITY VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 1158]

    The Committee on Energy and Commerce, to whom was referred 
the bill (H.R. 1158) to amend the Toxic Substances Control Act 
with respect to new critical energy resources, and for other 
purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon 
without amendment and recommends that the bill do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
Purpose and Summary..............................................     2
Background and Need for Legislation..............................     2
Committee Action.................................................     4
Committee Votes..................................................     5
Oversight Findings and Recommendations...........................     9
New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditures     9
Congressional Budget Office Estimate.............................     9
Federal Mandates Statement.......................................     9
Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives............     9
Duplication of Federal Programs..................................     9
Related Committee and Subcommittee Hearings......................     9
Committee Cost Estimate..........................................    10
Earmark, Limited Tax Benefits, and Limited Tariff Benefits.......    10
Advisory Committee Statement.....................................    10
Applicability to Legislative Branch..............................    10
Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation...................    10
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............    12
Minority Views...................................................    22

                          Purpose and Summary

    To amend the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) with 
respect to critical energy resources, to prevent delays on the 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) deciding whether a 
critical energy resource presents an unreasonable risk, and to 
prohibit EPA from pre-emptively attempting to suspend reviews 
of future technology.

                  Background and Need For Legislation

    TSCA is unique among Federal statutes; it gives the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sweeping authority to 
regulate the manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, 
use and disposal of ``chemical substances'', mixtures of 
``chemical substances'', and articles containing ``chemical 
substances'' before they enter commerce and once, they are in 
it. A TSCA ``chemical substance'' is very broadly defined--with 
a few exceptions, it is ``any organic or inorganic substance of 
a particular molecular identity''\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ TSCA section 3(2)(A)--15 U.S.C. 2602(2)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Because of this, TSCA directly impacts American innovation 
for products that directly improve the standard of living for 
our families and contribute to our global competitiveness. 
Disjointed or poor implementation of TSCA will not just affect 
innovation in this country but discourage investment and lead 
to fewer products that are cleaner and greener.\2\ To guard 
against a bad outcome, TSCA Section 2 states two things:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF18/20130613/100980/HMTG-
113-IF18-Wstate-AuerC-20130613.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
           It is U.S. policy that authority over 
        chemicals should not unduly impede nor create 
        unnecessary economic barriers to technological 
        innovation.
           Congress intends TSCA be implemented in ``a 
        reasonable and prudent manner'', and EPA must consider 
        ``the environmental, economic, and social impact of any 
        action the Administrator takes or proposes to take''.
    As mentioned above, TSCA gives EPA authority to regulate 
chemicals before they enter the market. TSCA section 5, in a 
few key areas, has remain unchanged since its 1976 enactment.
    First, it requires the manufacturer of a new chemical 
substance or the manufacturer or processor of a new use of a 
commercialized chemical substance to notify EPA--at least 90-
days in advance--of their intent to commercially manufacture.
    Second, upon receiving this notice, EPA has the opportunity 
to review information about the new chemical or new use and, if 
necessary, take action to limit or prevent an unreasonable risk 
to health that EPA sees presented by the commercial 
introduction of the new chemical substance or new use.
    Third, if EPA needs more time to review the notice, EPA can 
delay the notice's submitter from commercial production for up 
to another 90 days (180 in total).\3\ Moreover, if EPA needs 
more data to make its determination about an unreasonable risk, 
EPA can order the company to submit more information--which 
would stop the statutory clock until the information is given 
to EPA.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ TSCA section 5(c)--15 U.S.C. 2604(c).
    \4\ TSCA section 5(b)--15 U.S.C. 2604(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Fourth, there is a regulatory option for a notice submitter 
to voluntarily withdraw or suspend the clock on their notice 
if--in talking to EPA--the company learns EPA was leaning 
towards declaring an unreasonable risk that would limit or 
prevent their new chemical or new use from going to market.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\Section 720.75(b) of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In May and June of 2016, Congress passed, and the President 
signed into law the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 
21st Century Act (Public Law 114-182), which amended TSCA 
section 5 provisions related to what happens after the 180-day 
period expired and EPA had not made a determination on notice 
concerning a new chemical or new use of an existing 
chemical.\6\ Prior to the June 2016 amendments, if EPA, within 
90 days--but no more than 180 days--made no determination of 
risk or asked for more information to conduct a review on the 
notice, the manufacturer was free to produce the new substance 
or new use. After enactment of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical 
Safety for the 21st Century Act, while the 90 day and 180-day 
deadlines were maintained to avoid EPA apathy towards American 
manufacturers who needed predictability from the process, to 
provide tangible evidence of EPA reviews, no new chemical 
substance or new use could enter commerce until EPA had 
determined whether it presented a newly defined ``unreasonable 
risk,'' and regulated that risk.\7\ Also, if EPA missed the 
review deadline, it had to refund the entirety of the user fees 
paid by the applicant. Despite the deadline mandate and the 
refund requirement, the frequency of decisions has dramatically 
dropped, and EPA has not returned any user fees for missing a 
statutory deadline because all those applicants voluntarily 
suspended or withdrew their notices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2576.
    \7\Section 5 of Public Law 114-182.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    TSCA is not the only Federal law with an ``unreasonable 
risk'' standard, but it is the only one to limit considerations 
under it. Prior to June 2016 and in other laws, ``unreasonable 
risk'' was considered an evaluation of a chemical's risk to 
determine if the risk was a reasonable one based upon the 
utility of the product, or the utility of the aspect of the 
product that causes the risk, the level of exposure to the 
risk, the nature and severity of the hazard presented, and the 
likelihood of resulting serious injury or death. The 
unreasonable risk analysis also evaluates the state of 
manufacture, the availability of alternative designs or 
products, and the feasibility of eliminating the risk or 
creating greater ones by shifting to those alternatives. For 
instance, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide 
Act (FIFRA) defines ``unreasonable adverse effects to the 
environment'' to include an ``unreasonable risks to [persons] 
or the environment taking into account the economic, social, 
and environmental costs and benefits of the use of any 
pesticide''.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\FIFRA section 2(bb)(1)--7 U.S.C. 136(bb)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The 2016 amendments changed the definition of 
``unreasonable risk'' to preclude EPA from considering ``costs 
or other non-risk factors.'' While the intent was to eliminate 
the consideration of compliance and enforcement costs, EPA's 
practice, however, has been to misinterpret this language in 
two significant ways that ignore risk factors: it interprets 
``unreasonable'' as an invisible modifier of ``risk'' (meaning 
it is not considering certain risks as reasonable) and EPA's 
practice limits the acceptable level of reasonable risk while 
discounting risk reduction benefits--including the health and 
environmental benefits that may be provided by the new 
chemical. In other words, a ``safer'' chemical is unacceptable, 
only ``safe'' chemicals (i.e., ones without any hazards 
identified by EPA) are permissible without a regulation.
    The results of the 2016 law have been striking in another 
way. EPA's reviews of applications for new chemicals and new 
uses of existing chemicals have gotten increasing slower; 
exacerbating the backlog of innovative technologies that must 
wait for decisions--only 85 chemicals received a final 
determination in 2021, down from 663 in 2011.\9\ The average 
review time for these chemicals since 2016 has also increased 
to 432 days.\10\ Since 2016, annual submissions for new 
chemicals and new uses of existing chemicals fell 65 percent 
from an average of 270 to 178 in 2020.\11\ EPA was on pace to 
only receive 192 new chemical notices in, post-pandemic, 
2022.\12\ This decline means losses in US-made products, 
including those to reduce greenhouse gases, reduce water 
consumption, and make products more durable and biodegradable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\Op. Cit.
    \10\Op. Cit. Captured March 2, 2023.
    \11\https://chemicalinnovations.org/.
    \12\Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Compounding the meager output of decisions and diminished 
number of new notices being submitted is a growing backlog of 
notices. According to EPA's website, there were 405 pre-
manufacturing notices (PMNs) under review at EPA as of February 
1, 2023. Of this number, 341 of these PMNs remain at EPA 
awaiting a decision even though the statutory deadline has 
expired. Data from the EPA's website also demonstrates that 
this backlog has increased by 40 percent in the last 2 years. 
Most concerning, 51 percent of the legal determination backlog 
has been in limbo for more than 1 year--with 60 percent of that 
group's wait exceeding 2 years. In addition, the Government 
Accountability Office recently noted EPA's been getting worse 
with time, failing to meet the legal deadline for determination 
100 percent of the time last year. This occurred while EPA's 
overall budget has grown 10 percent over the last few years--
from $9.24 billion in Fiscal Year 2021\13\ to $10.14 billion in 
Fiscal Year 2023\14\--plus, add in $1.67 billion in 
supplemental funding,\15\ another $25.27 billion under the 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act,\16\ and $14.46 billion 
for the Inflation Reduction Act.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\P.L. 116-260.
    \14\P.L. 117-328, Division G.
    \15\P.L. 117-328, Division N.
    \16\P.L. 117-58.
    \17\P.L. 117-169.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            Committee Action

    On February 7, 2023, the Subcommittees on Energy, Climate, 
and Grid Security and Environment, Manufacturing, and Critical 
Materials held a joint hearing entitled, ``Unleashing American 
Energy, Lowering Energy Costs, and Strengthening Supply 
Chains,'' on 17 pieces of legislation, including H.R. 1158. The 
Subcommittees received testimony from:
           The Honorable Mark Menezes, Former United 
        States Deputy Secretary of Energy, Department of 
        Energy.
           The Honorable Bernard McNamee, Former 
        Commissioner, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
           Jeffrey Eshelman, II, President and Chief 
        Executive Officer, Independent Petroleum Association of 
        America.
           Katie Sweeney, Executive Vice President and 
        Chief Operating Officer, National Mining Association.
           Raul Garcia, Legislative Director for 
        Healthy Communities, Earthjustice; and
           Tyson Slocum, Director of the Energy 
        Program, Public Citizen.
    On February 28, 2023, the Subcommittee on Environment, 
Manufacturing and Critical Materials met in open markup session 
and forwarded H.R. 1158, without amendment, to the full 
Committee by a record vote of 13 yeas and 6 nays. On March 9, 
2023, the full Committee on Energy and Commerce met in open 
markup session and ordered H.R. 1158, without amendment, 
favorably reported to the House by a record vote of 27 yeas and 
21 nays.

                            Committee Votes

    Clause 3(b) of rule XIII requires the Committee to list the 
record votes on the motion to report legislation and amendments 
thereto. The following reflects the record votes taken during 
the Committee consideration:

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                 Oversight Findings and Recommendations

    Pursuant to clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of 
rule XIII, the Committee held hearings and made findings that 
are reflected in this report.

   New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditures

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII, the Committee 
finds that H.R. 1158 would result in no new or increased budget 
authority, entitlement authority, or tax expenditures or 
revenues.

                  Congressional Budget Office Estimate

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII, at the time this 
report was filed, the cost estimate prepared by the Director of 
the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 402 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 was not available.

                       Federal Mandates Statement

    The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of Federal 
mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act.

         Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the general 
performance goal or objective of this legislation is to 
increase American energy production and restore energy 
leadership by amending the Toxic Substances Control Act with 
respect to critical energy resources, to prevent delays on the 
Environmental Protection Agency deciding whether a critical 
energy resource presents an unreasonable risk, and to prohibit 
EPA from pre-emptively attempting to suspend reviews of future 
technology.

                    Duplication of Federal Programs

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(5) of rule XIII, no provision of 
H.R. 1158 is known to be duplicative of another Federal 
program, including any program that was included in a report to 
Congress pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139 or the 
most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance.

              Related Committee and Subcommittee Hearings

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(6) of rule XIII,
    (1) the following hearings were used to develop or consider 
H.R. 1158:
           A January 31, 2023, hearing by the Committee 
        on Energy and Commerce entitled, ``American Energy 
        Expansion: Strengthening Economic, Environmental, and 
        National Security.''
           A February 7, 2023, joint hearing by the 
        Subcommittees on Energy, Climate, and Grid Security and 
        Environment, Manufacturing, and Critical Materials 
        entitled, ``Unleashing American Energy, Lowering Energy 
        Costs, and Strengthening Supply Chains''.
    (2) The following related hearings were held:
           An October 27, 2021, hearing by the 
        Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change 
        entitled, ``TSCA and Public Health: Fulfilling the 
        Promise of the Lautenberg Act.''
           A May 17, 2022, hearing by the Subcommittee 
        on Environment and Climate Change entitled, ``The 
        Fiscal Year 2023 EPA Budget.''

                        Committee Cost Estimate

    Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII, the Committee 
adopts as its own the cost estimate prepared by the Director of 
the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 402 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974. At the time this report was 
filed, the estimate was not available.

       Earmark, Limited Tax Benefits, and Limited Tariff Benefits

    Pursuant to clause 9(e), 9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI, the 
Committee finds that H.R. 1158 contains no earmarks, limited 
tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits.

                      Advisory Committee Statement

    No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b) 
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by this 
legislation.

                  Applicability to Legislative Branch

    The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to 
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public 
services or accommodations within the meaning of section 
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act.

             Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation


Section 1

    Section 1 provides a short title of ``Elimination of Future 
Technology Delays Act of 2023.''

Section 2

    Section 2 creates amendments to the end of TSCA section 
5(a) to create a different review regime for critical energy 
resources.
    First, section 2, using the FIFRA standard for 
``unreasonable adverse effects to the environment,'' requires 
EPA to consider ``economic, societal, and environmental costs 
and benefits'' when deciding if an unreasonable risk is present 
by a new chemical or new use of an existing chemical that is a 
critical energy resource. These are legitimate risk factors in 
weighing both whether an ``unreasonable risk'' is present for 
deciding whether and, if so how, to regulate a chemical 
substance.
    Second, section 2, recognizing the increasing backlog and 
the deleterious impact to innovation, returns section 5 to its 
pre-2016 status and puts a hard trigger on EPA to meet the 
statutory deadlines--90 days, but in no case, no more than 180 
days--to decide on the risks presented by a new critical energy 
resource. The bill does not undercut EPA's ability to request 
additional information if it is needed to do the evaluation--
which allows the clock to be stopped until the information is 
given to EPA. With millions of dollars in investment on the 
line and China and others offering the alternative venues for 
manufacturing, EPA cannot foot-drag and it cannot make excuses. 
If EPA does not decide in this time--and does not ask for more 
information to make one--the new critical energy resource can 
go to commercial manufacture. Importantly, the Committee 
intends that when EPA does not meet its statutory deadlines 
that it is not allowed to claw back regulation of chemicals in 
the marketplace. For this reason, the language requires EPA 
only undertake efforts to regulate commercially produced 
chemical substance under TSCA section 6.
    The Committee understands that some critics will be 
surprised this bill is reversing a few provisions of the 2016 
amendments only six years after their enactment. The Committee 
believes that while the situation appears to be deteriorating, 
if Congress cannot take action to address critical materials 
that are vulnerable to disruption, what will it take for 
Congress to correct this entire matter? The Committee notes 
that the overall thrust of the 2016 amendments remain intact in 
this legislation regarding new chemicals and new uses. 
Particularly, this bill: does not prevent the EPA from deciding 
on new chemicals and new uses of a chemical, does not force EPA 
to approve chemicals regardless of their toxicity, does not 
change the definition of a ``potentially exposed or susceptible 
population'', EPA still maintains very muscular authority to 
compel new information to assess a chemical, and EPA must still 
assess for the existence of and adequately control an 
unreasonable risk to a potentially exposed or susceptible 
population identified by EPA.
    Third, under section 2, a manufacturer of critical energy 
resource that is a new chemical substance or new use of a 
chemical substance may only receive a refund of their user fee 
from EPA if that manufacturer does not begin commercial 
manufacture of the critical energy resource and continues to 
wait for a risk determination from EPA. The Committee 
acknowledges that EPA likely performed some work on a notice 
even when a decision is not rendered timely and does not 
believe the Agency should be financially punished for that work 
nor made to take additional steps to prorate the fee.
    Fourth, section 2, in furtherance of the Committee's 
insistence on adherence to statutory deadliners, prevents EPA 
from suggesting to or requesting of a notice submitter that 
they, pursuant to existing regulations, voluntarily suspend or 
withdraw their pre-manufacturing notice unless EPA has first 
reviewed the notice, made an initial determination on the 
notice, and shares that initial determination with the 
manufacturer. The Committee notes that use of the term 
``preliminary review'' is not intended to create a formal step 
or process but rather to capture that EPA has paid enough 
attention to the notice to make an initial, reasonable, and 
informed assessment of the chemical notice that was submitted 
and the potential risks that might be present.
    Finally, section 2 adds a definition to proposed TSCA 
section 5(a)(6) for ``critical energy resource.'' It states 
that a ``critical energy resource'' is any energy resource 
that, as determined by the Secretary of Energy, is essential to 
the energy sector and energy systems of the United States and 
whose supply chain is vulnerable to disruption. The Committee 
intends this definition to be interpreted broadly and points to 
the word ``any'' as proof of this desire. This designation is 
not limited to the use of one kind of fuel but instead includes 
all types of fuels that are important to our nation's energy 
sector and system and that might be vulnerable to disruption. 
Moreover, while this designation is purposely the domain of the 
Secretary of Energy--not the Secretary of Interior or EPA--who 
has been given statutory responsibility of and care for the 
energy sector and systems of the United States, the 
determinations about whether an unreasonable risk exists under 
TSCA are the domain of EPA. The Committee expects the Secretary 
of Energy to work cooperatively and expeditiously with EPA to 
determine whether a notice under TSCA section 5(a) would 
qualify as a critical energy resource for the purposes of this 
proposed amendment.

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

  In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (new matter is 
printed in italics and existing law in which no change is 
proposed is shown in roman):

                      TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL ACT


TITLE I--CONTROL OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



SEC. 5. MANUFACTURING AND PROCESSING NOTICES.

  (a) In General.--(1)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph 
(B) of this paragraph and subsection (h), no person may--
          (i) manufacture a new chemical substance on or after 
        the 30th day after the date on which the Administrator 
        first publishes the list required by section 8(b), or
          (ii) manufacture or process any chemical substance 
        for a use which the Administrator has determined, in 
        accordance with paragraph (2), is a significant new 
        use.
          (B) A person may take the actions described in 
        subparagraph (A) if--
                  (i) such person submits to the Administrator, 
                at least 90 days before such manufacture or 
                processing, a notice, in accordance with 
                subsection (d), of such person's intention to 
                manufacture or process such substance and such 
                person complies with any applicable requirement 
                of, or imposed pursuant to, subsection (b), 
                (e), or (f); and
                  (ii) the Administrator--
                          (I) conducts a review of the notice; 
                        and
                          (II) makes a determination under 
                        subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of 
                        paragraph (3) and takes the actions 
                        required in association with that 
                        determination under such subparagraph 
                        within the applicable review period.
  (2) A determination by the Administrator that a use of a 
chemical substance is a significant new use with respect to 
which notification is required under paragraph (1) shall be 
made by a rule promulgated after a consideration of all 
relevant factors, including--
          (A) the projected volume of manufacturing and 
        processing of a chemical substance,
          (B) the extent to which a use changes the type or 
        form of exposure of human beings or the environment to 
        a chemical substance,
          (C) the extent to which a use increases the magnitude 
        and duration of exposure of human beings or the 
        environment to a chemical substance, and
          (D) the reasonably anticipated manner and methods of 
        manufacturing, processing, distribution in commerce, 
        and disposal of a chemical substance.
          (3) Review and determination.--Within the applicable 
        review period, subject to section 18, the Administrator 
        shall review such notice and determine--
                  (A) that the relevant chemical substance or 
                significant new use presents an unreasonable 
                risk of injury to health or the environment, 
                without consideration of costs or other nonrisk 
                factors, including an unreasonable risk to a 
                potentially exposed or susceptible 
                subpopulation identified as relevant by the 
                Administrator under the conditions of use, in 
                which case the Administrator shall take the 
                actions required under subsection (f);
                  (B) that--
                          (i) the information available to the 
                        Administrator is insufficient to permit 
                        a reasoned evaluation of the health and 
                        environmental effects of the relevant 
                        chemical substance or significant new 
                        use; or
                          (ii)(I) in the absence of sufficient 
                        information to permit the Administrator 
                        to make such an evaluation, the 
                        manufacture, processing, distribution 
                        in commerce, use, or disposal of such 
                        substance, or any combination of such 
                        activities, may present an unreasonable 
                        risk of injury to health or the 
                        environment, without consideration of 
                        costs or other nonrisk factors, 
                        including an unreasonable risk to a 
                        potentially exposed or susceptible 
                        subpopulation identified as relevant by 
                        the Administrator; or
                          (II) such substance is or will be 
                        produced in substantial quantities, and 
                        such substance either enters or may 
                        reasonably be anticipated to enter the 
                        environment in substantial quantities 
                        or there is or may be significant or 
                        substantial human exposure to the 
                        substance,
                in which case the Administrator shall take the 
                actions required under subsection (e); or
                  (C) that the relevant chemical substance or 
                significant new use is not likely to present an 
                unreasonable risk of injury to health or the 
                environment, without consideration of costs or 
                other nonrisk factors, including an 
                unreasonable risk to a potentially exposed or 
                susceptible subpopulation identified as 
                relevant by the Administrator under the 
                conditions of use, in which case the submitter 
                of the notice may commence manufacture of the 
                chemical substance or manufacture or processing 
                for a significant new use.
          (4) Failure to render determination.--
                  (A) Failure to render determination.--If the 
                Administrator fails to make a determination on 
                a notice under paragraph (3) by the end of the 
                applicable review period and the notice has not 
                been withdrawn by the submitter, the 
                Administrator shall refund to the submitter all 
                applicable fees charged to the submitter for 
                review of the notice pursuant to section 26(b), 
                and the Administrator shall not be relieved of 
                any requirement to make such determination.
                  (B) Limitations.--(i) A refund of applicable 
                fees under subparagraph (A) shall not be made 
                if the Administrator certifies that the 
                submitter has not provided information required 
                under subsection (b) or has otherwise unduly 
                delayed the process such that the Administrator 
                is unable to render a determination within the 
                applicable review period.
                  (ii) A failure of the Administrator to render 
                a decision shall not be deemed to constitute a 
                withdrawal of the notice.
                  (iii) Nothing in this paragraph shall be 
                construed as relieving the Administrator or the 
                submitter of the notice from any requirement of 
                this section.
          (5) Article consideration.--The Administrator may 
        require notification under this section for the import 
        or processing of a chemical substance as part of an 
        article or category of articles under paragraph 
        (1)(A)(ii) if the Administrator makes an affirmative 
        finding in a rule under paragraph (2) that the 
        reasonable potential for exposure to the chemical 
        substance through the article or category of articles 
        subject to the rule justifies notification.
          (6) Critical energy resources.--
                  (A) Standard.--For purposes of a 
                determination under paragraph (3) with respect 
                to a chemical substance that is a critical 
                energy resource, the Administrator shall take 
                into consideration economic, societal, and 
                environmental costs and benefits, 
                notwithstanding any requirement of this section 
                to not take such factors into consideration.
                  (B) Failure to render determination.--
                          (i) Actions authorized.--If, with 
                        respect to a chemical substance that is 
                        a critical energy resource, the 
                        Administrator fails to make a 
                        determination on a notice under 
                        paragraph (3) by the end of the 
                        applicable review period and the notice 
                        has not been withdrawn by the 
                        submitter, the submitter may take the 
                        actions described in paragraph (1)(A) 
                        with respect to the chemical substance, 
                        and the Administrator shall be relieved 
                        of any requirement to make such 
                        determination.
                          (ii) Non-duplication.--A refund of 
                        applicable fees under paragraph (4)(A) 
                        shall not be made if a submitter takes 
                        an action described in paragraph (1)(A) 
                        under this subparagraph.
                  (C) Prerequisite for suggestion of withdrawal 
                or suspension.--The Administrator may not 
                suggest to, or request of, a submitter of a 
                notice under this subsection for a chemical 
                substance that is a critical energy resource 
                that such submitter withdraw such notice, or 
                request a suspension of the running of the 
                applicable review period with respect to such 
                notice, unless the Administrator has--
                          (i) conducted a preliminary review of 
                        such notice; and
                          (ii) provided to the submitter a 
                        draft of a determination under 
                        paragraph (3), including any supporting 
                        information.
                  (D) Definition.--For purposes of this 
                paragraph, the term ``critical energy 
                resource'' means, as determined by the 
                Secretary of Energy, any energy resource--
                          (i) that is essential to the energy 
                        sector and energy systems of the United 
                        States; and
                          (ii) the supply chain of which is 
                        vulnerable to disruption.
  (b) Submission of Information.--(1)(A) If (i) a person is 
required by subsection (a)(1) to submit a notice to the 
Administrator before beginning the manufacture or processing of 
a chemical substance, and (ii) such person is required to 
submit information for such substance pursuant to a rule, 
order, or consent agreement under section 4 before the 
submission of such notice, such person shall submit to the 
Administrator such information in accordance with such rule, 
order, or consent agreement at the time notice is submitted in 
accordance with subsection (a)(1).
  (B) If--
          (i) a person is required by subsection (a)(1) to 
        submit a notice to the Administrator, and
          (ii) such person has been granted an exemption under 
        section 4(c) from the requirements of a rule or order 
        under section 4 before the submission of such notice,
such person may not, before the expiration of the 90-day period 
which begins on the date of the submission in accordance with 
such rule of the information the submission or development of 
which was the basis for the exemption, manufacture such 
substance if such person is subject to subsection (a)(1)(A)(i) 
or manufacture or process such substance for a significant new 
use if the person is subject to subsection (a)(1)(A)(ii).
  (2)(A) If a person--
          (i) is required by subsection (a)(1) to submit a 
        notice to the Administrator before beginning the 
        manufacture or processing of a chemical substance 
        listed under paragraph (4), and
          (ii) is not required by a rule, order, or consent 
        agreement under section 4 before the submission of such 
        notice to submit information for such substance,
such person may submit to the Administrator information 
prescribed by subparagraph (B) at the time notice is submitted 
in accordance with subsection (a)(1).
  (B) Information submitted pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall 
be information which the person submitting the information 
believes shows that--
          (i) in the case of a substance with respect to which 
        notice is required under subsection (a)(1)(A)(i), the 
        manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, use, 
        and disposal of the chemical substance or any 
        combination of such activities will not present an 
        unreasonable risk of injury to health or the 
        environment, or
          (ii) in the case of a chemical substance with respect 
        to which notice is required under subsection 
        (a)(1)(A)(ii), the intended significant new use of the 
        chemical substance will not present an unreasonable 
        risk of injury to health or the environment.
  (3) Information submitted under paragraph (1) or (2) of this 
subsection or under subsection (e) shall be made available, 
subject to section 14, for examination by interested persons.
  (4)(A)(i) The Administrator may, by rule, compile and keep 
current a list of chemical substances with respect to which the 
Administrator finds that the manufacture, processing, 
distribution in commerce, use, or disposal, or any combination 
of such activities, presents or may present an unreasonable 
risk of injury to health or the environment, without 
consideration of costs or other nonrisk factors.
  (ii) In making a finding under clause (i) that the 
manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, use, or 
disposal of a chemical substance or any combination of such 
activities presents or may present an unreasonable risk of 
injury to health or the environment, the Administrator shall 
consider all relevant factors, including--
          (I) the effects of the chemical substance on health 
        and the magnitude of human exposure to such substance; 
        and
          (II) the effects of the chemical substance on the 
        environment and the magnitude of environmental exposure 
        to such substance.
  (B) The Administrator shall, in prescribing a rule under 
subparagraph (A) which lists any chemical substance, identify 
those uses, if any, which the Administrator determines, by rule 
under subsection (a)(2), would constitute a significant new use 
of such substance.
  (C) Any rule under subparagraph (A), and any substantive 
amendment or repeal of such a rule, shall be promulgated 
pursuant to the procedures specified in section 553 of title 5, 
United States Code.
  (c) Extension of Review Period.--The Administrator may for 
good cause extend for additional periods (not to exceed in the 
aggregate 90 days) the period, prescribed by subsection (a) or 
(b). Subject to section 14, such an extension and the reasons 
therefor shall be published in the Federal Register and shall 
constitute a final agency action subject to judicial review.
  (d) Content of Notice; Publications in the Federal 
Register.--(1) The notice required by subsection (a) shall 
include--
          (A) insofar as known to the person submitting the 
        notice or insofar as reasonably ascertainable, the 
        information described in subparagraphs (A), (B), (C), 
        (D), (F), and (G) of section 8(a)(2), and
          (B) in such form and manner as the Administrator may 
        prescribe, any information in the possession or control 
        of the person giving such notice which are related to 
        the effect of any manufacture, processing, distribution 
        in commerce, use, or disposal of such substance or any 
        article containing such substance, or of any 
        combination of such activities, on health or the 
        environment, and
          (C) a description of any other information concerning 
        the environmental and health effects of such substance, 
        insofar as known to the person making the notice or 
        insofar as reasonably ascertainable.
Such a notice shall be made available, subject to section 14, 
for examination by interested persons.
  (2) Subject to section 14, not later than five days 
(excluding Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays) after the 
date of the receipt of a notice under subsection (a) or of 
information under subsection (b), the Administrator shall 
publish in the Federal Register a notice which--
          (A) identifies the chemical substance for which 
        notice or information has been received;
          (B) lists the uses of such substance identified in 
        the notice; and
          (C) in the case of the receipt of information under 
        subsection (b), describes the nature of the tests 
        performed on such substance and any information which 
        was developed pursuant to subsection (b) or a rule, 
        order, or consent agreement under section 4.
A notice under this paragraph respecting a chemical substance 
shall identify the chemical substance by generic class unless 
the Administrator determines that more specific identification 
is required in the public interest.
  (3) At the beginning of each month the Administrator shall 
publish a list in the Federal Register of (A) each chemical 
substance for which notice has been received under subsection 
(a) and for which the applicable review period has not expired, 
and (B) each chemical substance for which such period has 
expired since the last publication in the Federal Register of 
such list.
  (e) Regulation Pending Development of Information.--(1)(A) If 
the Administrator determines that--
          (i) the information available to the Administrator is 
        insufficient to permit a reasoned evaluation of the 
        health and environmental effects of a chemical 
        substance with respect to which notice is required by 
        subsection (a); or
          (ii)(I) in the absence of sufficient information to 
        permit the Administrator to make such an evaluation, 
        the manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, 
        use, or disposal of such substance, or any combination 
        of such activities, may present an unreasonable risk of 
        injury to health or the environment, without 
        consideration of costs or other nonrisk factors, 
        including an unreasonable risk to a potentially exposed 
        subpopulation identified as relevant by the 
        Administrator under the conditions of use; or
          (II) such substance is or will be produced in 
        substantial quantities, and such substance either 
        enters or may reasonably be anticipated to enter the 
        environment in substantial quantities or there is or 
        may be significant or substantial human exposure to the 
        substance,
the Administrator shall issue an order, to take effect on the 
expiration of the applicable review period, to prohibit or 
limit the manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, 
use, or disposal of such substance or to prohibit or limit any 
combination of such activities to the extent necessary to 
protect against an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the 
environment, without consideration of costs or other nonrisk 
factors, including an unreasonable risk to a potentially 
exposed or susceptible subpopulation identified as relevant by 
the Administrator under the conditions of use, and the 
submitter of the notice may commence manufacture of the 
chemical substance, or manufacture or processing of the 
chemical substance for a significant new use, including while 
any required information is being developed, only in compliance 
with the order.
  (B) An order may not be issued under subparagraph (A) 
respecting a chemical substance (i) later than 45 days before 
the expiration of the applicable review period, and (ii) unless 
the Administrator has, on or before the issuance of the order, 
notified, in writing, each manufacturer or processor, as the 
case may be, of such substance of the determination which 
underlies such order.
  (f) Protection Against Unreasonable Risks.--(1) If the 
Administrator determines that a chemical substance or 
significant new use with respect to which notice is required by 
subsection (a) presents an unreasonable risk of injury to 
health or environment, without consideration of costs or other 
nonrisk factors, including an unreasonable risk to a 
potentially exposed subpopulation identified as relevant by the 
Administrator under the conditions of use, the Administrator 
shall, before the expiration of the applicable review period, 
take the action authorized by paragraph (2) or (3) to the 
extent necessary to protect against such risk.
  (2) The Administrator may issue a proposed rule under section 
6(a) to apply to a chemical substance with respect to which a 
finding was made under paragraph (1)--
          (A) a requirement limiting the amount of such 
        substance which may be manufactured, processed, or 
        distributed in commerce,
          (B) a requirement described in paragraph (2), (3), 
        (4), (5), (6), or (7) of section 6(a), or
          (C) any combination of the requirements referred to 
        in subparagraph (B).
Such a proposed rule shall be effective upon its publication in 
the Federal Register. Section 6(d)(3)(B) shall apply with 
respect to such rule.
  (3)(A) The Administrator may issue an order to prohibit or 
limit the manufacture, processing, or distribution in commerce 
of a substance with respect to which a finding was made under 
paragraph (1). Such order shall take effect on the expiration 
of the applicable review period.
  (B) The provisions of subparagraph (B) of subsection (e)(1) 
shall apply with respect to an order issued under subparagraph 
(A).
          (4) Treatment of nonconforming uses.--Not later than 
        90 days after taking an action under paragraph (2) or 
        (3) or issuing an order under subsection (e) relating 
        to a chemical substance with respect to which the 
        Administrator has made a determination under subsection 
        (a)(3)(A) or (B), the Administrator shall consider 
        whether to promulgate a rule pursuant to subsection 
        (a)(2) that identifies as a significant new use any 
        manufacturing, processing, use, distribution in 
        commerce, or disposal of the chemical substance that 
        does not conform to the restrictions imposed by the 
        action or order, and, as applicable, initiate such a 
        rulemaking or publish a statement describing the 
        reasons of the Administrator for not initiating such a 
        rulemaking.
          (5) Workplace exposures.--To the extent practicable, 
        the Administrator shall consult with the Assistant 
        Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health 
        prior to adopting any prohibition or other restriction 
        relating to a chemical substance with respect to which 
        the Administrator has made a determination under 
        subsection (a)(3)(A) or (B) to address workplace 
        exposures.
  (g) Statement on Administrator Finding.--If the Administrator 
finds in accordance with subsection (a)(3)(C) that a chemical 
substance or significant new use is not likely to present an 
unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment, then 
notwithstanding any remaining portion of the applicable review 
period, the submitter of the notice may commence manufacture of 
the chemical substance or manufacture or processing for the 
significant new use, and the Administrator shall make public a 
statement of the Administrator's finding. Such a statement 
shall be submitted for publication in the Federal Register as 
soon as is practicable before the expiration of such period. 
Publication of such statement in accordance with the preceding 
sentence is not a prerequisite to the manufacturing or 
processing of the substance with respect to which the statement 
is to be published.
  (h) Exemptions.--(1) The Administrator may, upon application, 
exempt any person from any requirement of subsection (a) or (b) 
to permit such person to manufacture or process a chemical 
substance for test marketing purposes--
          (A) upon a showing by such person satisfactory to the 
        Administrator that the manufacture, processing, 
        distribution in commerce, use, and disposal of such 
        substance, and that any combination of such activities, 
        for such purposes will not present any unreasonable 
        risk of injury to health or the environment, including 
        an unreasonable risk to a potentially exposed or 
        susceptible subpopulation identified by the 
        Administrator for the specific conditions of use 
        identified in the application, and
          (B) under such restrictions as the Administrator 
        considers appropriate.
  (2)(A) The Administrator may, upon application, exempt any 
person from the requirement of subsection (b)(2) to submit 
information for a chemical substance. If, upon receipt of an 
application under the preceding sentence, the Administrator 
determines that--
          (i) the chemical substance with respect to which such 
        application was submitted is equivalent to a chemical 
        substance for which information has been submitted to 
        the Administrator as required by subsection (b)(2), and
          (ii) submission of information by the applicant on 
        such substance would be duplicative of information 
        which has been submitted to the Administrator in 
        accordance with such subsection,
the Administrator shall exempt the applicant from the 
requirement to submit such information on such substance. No 
exemption which is granted under this subparagraph with respect 
to the submission of information for a chemical substance may 
take effect before the beginning of the reimbursement period 
applicable to such information.
  (B) If the Administrator exempts any person, under 
subparagraph (A), from submitting information required under 
subsection (b)(2) for a chemical substance because of the 
existence of previously submitted information and if such 
exemption is granted during the reimbursement period for such 
information, then (unless such person and the persons referred 
to in clauses (i) and (ii) agree on the amount and method of 
reimbursement) the Administrator shall order the person granted 
the exemption to provide fair and equitable reimbursement (in 
an amount determined under rules of the Administrator)--
          (i) to the person who previously submitted the 
        information on which the exemption was based, for a 
        portion of the costs incurred by such person in 
        complying with the requirement under subsection (b)(2) 
        to submit such information, and
          (ii) to any other person who has been required under 
        this subparagraph to contribute with respect to such 
        costs, for a portion of the amount such person was 
        required to contribute.
In promulgating rules for the determination of fair and 
equitable reimbursement to the persons described in clauses (i) 
and (ii) for costs incurred with respect to a chemical 
substance, the Administrator shall, after consultation with the 
Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission, consider all 
relevant factors, including the effect on the competitive 
position of the person required to provide reimbursement in 
relation to the persons to be reimbursed and the share of the 
market for such substance of the person required to provide 
reimbursement in relation to the share of such market of the 
persons to be reimbursed. For purposes of judicial review, an 
order under this subparagraph shall be considered final agency 
action.
  (C) For purposes of this paragraph, the reimbursement period 
for any previously submitted information for a chemical 
substance is a period--
          (i) beginning on the date of the termination of the 
        prohibition, imposed under this section, on the 
        manufacture or processing of such substance by the 
        person who submitted such information to the 
        Administrator, and
          (ii) ending--
                  (I) five years after the date referred to in 
                clause (i), or
                  (II) at the expiration of a period which 
                begins on the date referred to in clause (i) 
                and is equal to the period which the 
                Administrator determines was necessary to 
                develop such information,
        whichever is later.
  (3) The requirements of subsections (a) and (b) do not apply 
with respect to the manufacturing or processing of any chemical 
substance which is manufactured or processed, or proposed to be 
manufactured or processed, only in small quantities (as defined 
by the Administrator by rule) solely for purposes of--
          (A) scientific experimentation or analysis, or
          (B) chemical research on, or analysis of such 
        substance or another substance, including such research 
        or analysis for the development of a product,
if all persons engaged in such experimentation, research, or 
analysis for a manufacturer or processor are notified (in such 
form and manner as the Administrator may prescribe) of any risk 
to health which the manufacturer, processor, or the 
Administrator has reason to believe may be associated with such 
chemical substance.
  (4) The Administrator may, upon application and by rule, 
exempt the manufacturer of any new chemical substance from all 
or part of the requirements of this section if the 
Administrator determines that the manufacture, processing, 
distribution in commerce, use, or disposal of such chemical 
substance, or that any combination of such activities, will not 
present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the 
environment, including an unreasonable risk to a potentially 
exposed or susceptible subpopulation identified by the 
Administrator under the conditions of use.
  (5) The Administrator may, upon application, make the 
requirements of subsections (a) and (b) inapplicable with 
respect to the manufacturing or processing of any chemical 
substance (A) which exists temporarily as a result of a 
chemical reaction in the manufacturing or processing of a 
mixture or another chemical substance, and (B) to which there 
is no, and will not be, human or environmental exposure.
  (6) Immediately upon receipt of an application under 
paragraph (1) or (5) the Administrator shall publish in the 
Federal Register notice of the receipt of such application. The 
Administrator shall give interested persons an opportunity to 
comment upon any such application and shall, within 45 days of 
its receipt, either approve or deny the application. The 
Administrator shall publish in the Federal Register notice of 
the approval or denial of such an application.
  (i) Definitions.--(1) For purposes of this section, the terms 
``manufacture'' and ``process'' mean manufacturing or 
processing for commercial purposes.
  (2) For purposes of this Act, the term ``requirement'' as 
used in this section shall not displace any statutory or common 
law.
  (3) For purposes of this section, the term ``applicable 
review period'' means the period starting on the date the 
Administrator receives a notice under subsection (a)(1) and 
ending 90 days after that date, or on such date as is provided 
for in subsection (b)(1) or (c).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                             MINORITY VIEWS

     H.R. 1158, the ``Elimination of Future Technology Delays 
Act,'' amends Section 5 of the Toxic Substances Control Act 
(TSCA) related to new chemical reviews--changes that would put 
human health and the environment at risk. The legislation would 
reverse and eliminate fundamental safety protections enacted in 
the bipartisan TSCA reform law, the Frank R. Lautenberg 
Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (Lautenberg Act),\1\ 
in an attempt to expedite review of chemicals classified as 
``critical energy resources.'' The majority report 
mischaracterizes the need for this legislation and its effects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\Pub. L. No. 114-182 (2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               BACKGROUND

    TSCA, which originally passed in 1976, is the nation's 
chemical safety law.\2\ Under TSCA, the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for identifying, 
testing, and regulating chemical substances in U.S. commerce 
whose manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, use, 
and disposal present or will present an unreasonable risk of 
injury to health or the environment. The original 1976 law 
failed to protect public health, allowing a majority of 
chemicals to enter commerce without complete review or 
consideration of safety, exposing workers and families to toxic 
chemicals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\15 U.S.C. Sec. 2601 et seq. (1976).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In 2016, President Obama signed into law the Lautenberg 
Act, bipartisan legislation that amended Title I of TSCA. Among 
the amendments, the Lautenberg Act overhauled Section 5 by 
adding protections that require EPA to identify and manage 
risks associated with each new chemical before it is 
manufactured or used.

                          SUMMARY OF H.R. 1158

    H.R. 1158 amends Section 5(a) of TSCA to create a new 
regulatory pathway for chemicals designated as ``critical 
energy resources'', circumventing key public health 
protections. The new Section 5(a)(6)(A), as proposed in H.R. 
1158, would require EPA to consider costs and other non-risk 
factors when making a determination for any chemical deemed a 
``critical energy resource.'' Currently, TSCA explicitly 
prohibits EPA from considering costs and other non-risk factors 
when evaluating whether the chemical substance poses an 
unreasonable risk. EPA may only consider such factors when 
deciding how to manage any risks it identifies.
    By injecting non-risk factors into safety determinations 
based solely on risks to health or the environment, the 
majority is prioritizing economic considerations of chemical 
companies over public health. Also, adding non-risk factors 
would require EPA to conduct economic analyses and assessments 
of indirect benefits, which would add to the review time and 
thereby defeat one of the stated purposes of the legislation.
    Section 5(a)(6)(B) allows a company to commence the 
manufacture or use of a new chemical designated a ``critical 
energy resource'' within 90 days in the absence of a 
determination by EPA. This reverses one of the core reforms in 
the Lautenberg Act. Previously, EPA issued risk determinations 
for approximately 20 percent of new chemical submissions, 
allowing 80 percent of chemicals to go to market without 
further review. The original 1976 law failed to protect 
families and communities from exposure to toxic chemicals in 
everything from household goods to releases from nearby 
factories. Congress addressed this fundamental flaw in 2016 by 
requiring EPA to review each new chemical, make a final 
determination, and take any needed regulatory action prior to 
and as a condition of a company's commencement of manufacture 
or use of that chemical. With H.R. 1158, the majority is 
effectively reversing course and providing a pathway for 
potentially toxic chemicals to enter the market undetected. 
This policy is ill-conceived and dangerous, needlessly exposing 
children, families, and fenceline communities to harm.
    Section 5(a)(6)(C) would create an intermediary step of 
conducting a ``preliminary review'' of the new chemical 
substance and sharing it with the submitter. Adding these 
additional steps would lead to multiple iterations of 
assessment work by EPA and increase the amount of time it takes 
for EPA to complete its review and risk management.
    Section 5(a)(6)(D) broadly defines ``critical energy 
resources'' as a chemical, determined by the Secretary of 
Energy, to be essential to the energy sector and vulnerable to 
supply chain disruption. This definition could apply to 
virtually any chemical that plays a role in the production, 
refining, distribution, and use of energy and is designated as 
``critical'' by the Department of Energy (DOE). Once a 
substance has been fast tracked through the premanufacture 
notice (PMN) process, the substance could be used for non-
energy applications that could pose unreasonable risks to 
health and the environment.
    It is unclear how the Secretary would deem a new chemical, 
that has not yet entered commerce, to be ``essential'' to an 
existing energy sector or system, given that those systems 
would presumably continue operating in the absence of the 
availability of the new chemical. Also, the supply chain 
vulnerabilities of a new chemical would presumably be unclear 
since again the chemical has yet to enter the market. 
Additionally, there are significant logistical concerns 
regarding these provisions--including how EPA and DOE would 
share confidential business information and whether DOE's 
determination of ``critical energy resources'' would occur 
during or before the 90-day review period--all of which 
undermine Committee Republican's argument that this legislation 
would expedite reviews.
    During the Full Committee markup of H.R. 1158, Democratic 
Members offered amendments intended to address the problems in 
the bill, and concerns voiced by the bill's proponents. Every 
Republican Committee member voted against an amendment 
excluding perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (also 
known as PFAS chemicals) from as the definition of a ``critical 
energy resource''. PFAS chemicals are known as ``forever 
chemicals'' because of their persistence in the environment and 
the body. These chemicals have been linked to serious health 
problems at low doses, including cancer, hormone disruption, 
liver and thyroid problems, interference with vaccine uptake, 
reproductive harm, and abnormal fetal development. EPA should 
thoroughly review any new PFAS chemicals to ensure they are 
manufactured and used in a way that does not pose unreasonable 
risk. Safety determinations should be conducted based on 
science, not economic considerations, and, considering the 
persistent nature of these chemicals, EPA should make an 
affirmative determination before they enter commerce and 
potentially expose families, workers, and other susceptible 
subpopulations.
    Every Republican Committee member also voted against an 
amendment requiring the U.S. Government Accountability Office 
(GAO) to certify that EPA has completed a strategic workforce 
plan to support chemical reviews.\3\ While Committee 
Republicans have expressed concern about the delays in chemical 
reviews, GAO reported that EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and 
Pollution Prevention has been under resourced and understaffed 
while conducting increased workload at the direction of 
Congress. The Biden Administration has requested additional 
resources for the Office.\4\ Additionally, EPA has proposed an 
updated user fee rule to support chemical reviews and is using 
its authority to hire staff with relevant expertise. Congress 
should fully fund the TSCA program to provide staff and 
resources necessary to safely, transparently, and quickly 
review new chemicals proposed for entry into the market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\Government Accountability Office, EPA Chemical Reviews: 
Workforce Planning Gaps Contributed to Missed Deadlines (Feb. 17, 2023) 
(GAO-23-105728).
    \4\Environmental Protection Agency, Office of the Chief Financial 
Officer, FY 2023 EPA Budget in Brief (Mar. 2023) (EPA-190-R-23-002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               CONCLUSION

    H.R. 1158 undermines the protections found in TSCA, as 
updated by the Lautenberg Act, and puts human health and the 
environment at risk. Proponents assert that H.R. 1158 is needed 
to expedite chemical reviews essential to the energy sector. 
But the majority is positing a false choice. There is no 
evidence the public needs to sacrifice health protections from 
toxic chemicals in exchange for a clean energy future. The 
public needs and wants more, not less, protection from toxic 
chemicals.\5\ Undermining the protections in TSCA is not the 
answer to fostering innovation. Furthermore, H.R. 1158's 
rejection of a future that is clean and health-protective, 
sells American innovation short. H.R. 1158 puts workers and 
families at risk by rolling back critical public health 
protections and weakening a core environmental law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\University of California San Francisco Program on Reproductive 
Health and the Environment, Public Opinion on Chemicals (prhe.ucsf.edu/
public-opinion-chemicals) (accessed Mar. 16, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For the reasons stated above, we dissent from the views 
contained in the Committee's report.
                                        Frank Pallone, Jr.,
                  Ranking Member, Committee on Energy and Commerce.

                                  [all]