{
  "id": "R44434",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "R44434",
  "active": true,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 451210,
      "date": "2016-03-29",
      "retrieved": "2016-04-06T16:51:30.875798",
      "title": "Proposed Amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) in the 114th Congress: H.R. 2576 Compared with the Senate Substitute Amendment",
      "summary": "This report compares H.R. 2576, the TSCA Modernization Act of 2015, as passed by the House on June 23, 2015, and the Senate\u2019s substitute amendment (S.Amdt. 2932) to H.R. 2576, the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, as passed by the Senate on December 17, 2015. The Senate amendment is based, in part, on S. 697, as reported by the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works on April 28, 2015.\nThe House bill and the Senate amendment would amend Title I of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Enacted in 1976, TSCA is the primary federal law that authorizes the regulation of commercial chemicals throughout their lifecycle from manufacture to disposal. TSCA authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to determine whether regulation of a chemical is necessary to provide protection against \u201cunreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment.\u201d The Senate amendment, but not the House bill, would also amend the Mercury Export Ban Act of 2008 and add a provision to the Public Health Service Act regarding potential cancer clusters. \nOver the 39-year history of TSCA, EPA, regulated entities, environmental and public health groups and others have observed significant challenges in implementing the statute. For example, concerns have been raised on whether the threshold to regulate a chemical under TSCA is too difficult for EPA to demonstrate and whether the agency is unnecessarily constrained by the requirement that it impose the \u201cleast burdensome requirement\u201d to restrict a chemical. In addition, EPA has argued that limits in requesting test information have constrained its ability to assess risks of certain chemicals. Many have argued that these concerns have diminished public confidence in the \u201csafety\u201d of chemicals in commerce. Additionally, regulated entities and right-to-know advocates have raised concerns about the appropriate balance between disclosures of chemical information and confidentiality of business information submitted to EPA under TSCA. Regulated entities have also raised concerns that state and local governments are adopting different requirements with respect to particular chemicals and compliance may be difficult with this growing \u201cpatchwork\u201d of requirements. They argue that there should be uniform regulation under TSCA nationally. However, certain states and others have expressed concerns regarding the role of preemption in limiting states\u2019 ability to regulate chemicals. Since 2005, these concerns and others led to the introduction of legislation that would amend TSCA in each Congress. \nThe first section of the report provides a brief background on TSCA. The second section provides a brief comparison between the House bill and the Senate amendment and also provides a background discussion of seven issues:\nPrioritization of chemicals for the evaluation of risks;\nRegulatory threshold for restricting a chemical;\nRegulatory options for restricting a chemical;\nRequirements for the development of test information;\nPreemption of state requirements;\nConfidentiality and disclosures of information; and\nResources to administer TSCA.\nFinally, Table 1 presents a side-by-side comparison of the provisions of existing law, the House bill, and the Senate amendment. This report does not provide a comprehensive analysis of the potential effect of particular provisions. Ultimately, the outcome, if either the House bill or the Senate amendment were enacted, depends on implementation.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": true,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44434",
          "sha1": "ab9c5427ad7ad9be0ba57bf34370d3e491430344",
          "filename": "files/20160329_R44434_ab9c5427ad7ad9be0ba57bf34370d3e491430344.html",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44434",
          "sha1": "65d065708e9c6ce59ae7375e625afea63020de68",
          "filename": "files/20160329_R44434_65d065708e9c6ce59ae7375e625afea63020de68.pdf",
          "images": null
        }
      ],
      "topics": [
        {
          "source": "IBCList",
          "id": 3096,
          "name": "Chemicals in Commerce"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Environmental Policy",
    "Science and Technology Policy"
  ]
}