Preemption in Proposed Amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA): Side-by-Side Analysis of S. 697 and H.R. 2576
Congressional research reportJun 25, 2015
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Preemption in Proposed Amendments
to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA):
Side-by-Side Analysis of S. 697 and H.R. 2576
(name redacted)
Legislative Attorney
June 25, 2015
Congressional Research Service
7-....
www.crs.gov
R44066
Preemption in Proposed Amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act
Summary
The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) was enacted in 1976 to govern the regulation of
chemical substances in U.S. commerce. Its core provisions have not been significantly amended
since that time. Under TSCA, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has implemented a
chemicals management program over the past four decades. EPA has issued a very limited
number of risk management rules under TSCA to restrict chemicals it has found to present
unreasonable risks of injury to human health or the environment. Meanwhile, states and, in a few
cases, local subdivisions of states have enacted an increasing number of their own chemical
programs and restrictions.
The federal preemption doctrine derives from the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution,
which provides that federal laws “shall be the supreme Law of the Land.” Congress can expressly
preempt state and local laws by statute, and the scope of preemption is determined by Congress’s
intent. Because TSCA preemption is based on EPA’s issuance of certain types of rules and orders
targeting particular chemicals (subject to exceptions), state and local chemical programs and
restrictions—for the most part targeting chemicals not subject to EPA risk management rules—
generally have not faced preemption under TSCA. As legislative proposals to amend TSCA have
been discussed in recent years, one major topic of debate has been the extent to which the scope
of TSCA’s preemption of state chemical regulations should be preserved, expanded, or reduced.
This report provides a brief background on preemption in current TSCA. The report then provides
a side-by-side comparison of the preemption provisions of House and Senate bills in the 114th
Congress to amend TSCA. S. 697, the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century
Act, was ordered to be reported out of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on
April 28, 2015, on a 15-5 vote. It was reported, as amended, on June 17, 2015, and placed on the
Senate Legislative Calendar. H.R. 2576, the TSCA Modernization Act of 2015, was first released
as a discussion draft on April 7, 2015. It was introduced as H.R. 2576 on May 26, 2015, and
passed the House as amended on June 23, 2015, on a 398-1 vote.
Both bills would expand EPA’s authority to regulate chemicals in a number of ways, similar in
some respects, although S. 697 is a longer and more detailed bill that would make more changes
to TSCA’s language than H.R. 2576. The preemption provisions of the two bills have many
similarities as well, including in their overall structure, which retains TSCA’s approach of only
preempting state and local laws on a chemical-by-chemical basis after EPA action on a chemical.
Both bills would also exclude from preemption state and some local chemical requirements in
effect as of August 1, 2015, and any state or local requirements arising from long-standing state
chemical laws such as California’s Proposition 65. However, the bills have a number of
differences with respect to preemption. For example, S. 697 would preempt new restrictions on a
chemical while EPA prepared a safety assessment on that chemical, a period of up to several
years; H.R. 2576 may impose somewhat broader preemption on the basis of EPA actions for new
chemicals and new uses than S. 697. Various other similarities and differences between the two
bills regarding preemptive EPA actions, exceptions, exemptions, and waivers are also compared.
A third proposal to amend TSCA, S. 725, the Alan Reinstein and Trevor Schaefer Toxic Chemical
Protection Act, would eliminate express TSCA preemption entirely. S. 725 is not included in this
report’s comparison.
Congressional Research Service
Preemption in Proposed Amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act
Contents
Introduction to Preemption in TSCA............................................................................................... 1
Preemption Under the Constitution ........................................................................................... 1
Overview of TSCA.................................................................................................................... 1
Preemption Under TSCA .......................................................................................................... 2
TSCA Amendment Proposals in the 114th Congress ....................................................................... 4
Legislative Background and Status ........................................................................................... 4
Comparison ............................................................................................................................... 5
Tables
Table 1. Side-by-Side Comparison of TSCA Legislation in the 114th Congress:
Preemption Provisions and State-Federal Relationship ............................................................... 7
Contacts
Author Contact Information .......................................................................................................... 15
Congressional Research Service
Preemption in Proposed Amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act
Introduction to Preemption in TSCA
Preemption Under the Constitution
Preemption raises complex issues of law, policy, and federalism. Under the Supremacy Clause of
the U.S. Constitution,1 state law and policy (or law and policy of local subdivisions of states,
acting under state law) that conflicts with federal law must yield to the exercise of Congress’s
powers. Whether a certain state action is preempted by federal law is a question of congressional
intent.2 When it acts, Congress can preempt state action within a field entirely, allow for states to
act freely, or permit state action to any intermediate degree. Federal statutes relating to protection
of the environment and public health have taken a diverse range of approaches to preemption
ranging between these two extremes of field preemption and no preemption. The Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA),3 which defines the authority of the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) to assess and regulate chemical substances in U.S. commerce, takes an
intermediate approach.
Overview of TSCA
An overview of TSCA as a whole is necessary to place TSCA’s preemption provisions in context.
For more information, see CRS Report RL31905, The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA): A
Summary of the Act and Its Major Requirements, by (name redacted)
.
TSCA establishes a chemical regulatory program allowing EPA to review new chemical
substances before they enter U.S. commerce, as well as significant new uses of chemical
substances as designated by EPA (§5);4 to regulate chemicals in commerce that EPA determines to
present unreasonable risks of injury to human health or the environment, using the least
burdensome requirements that adequately protect against such risks (§6);5 and to require testing
on chemicals that may present an unreasonable risk, or that merit testing by virtue of certain high
production volume or high exposure potential criteria (§4).6 TSCA also authorizes and mandates
that EPA require reporting of certain information on chemicals by manufacturers (including
importers), processors, and sometimes distributors, and to maintain an inventory of chemicals and
substances that have commenced non-exempt manufacture or import in the United States (§8).7 In
addition, among other provisions, TSCA requires EPA to maintain confidentiality of trade secrets
and privileged or confidential business information in a particular manner (§14),8 coordinate with
1
U.S. CONST. art. VI, cl. 2.
While this report focuses on express statutory provisions regarding preemption, preemption may be implied as well as
express. “Conflict preemption” could be implied either because compliance with both the state rule and the TSCA rule
would be impossible, or because the state rule would stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the
full purposes and objectives of Congress. See generally Article VI: Prior Debts, National Supremacy, and Oaths of
Office, in S. DOC. NO. 112-9, THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION,
INTERIM EDITION: ANALYSIS OF CASES DECIDED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES TO JULY 1, 2014, at
986-991, 100-1005 ((name redacted), ed., 2014),
available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CONAN-REV2014/pdf/GPO-CONAN-REV-2014-9-7.pdf.
3
15 U.S.C. §§2601-2697.
4
15 U.S.C. §2604.
5
15 U.S.C. §2605.
6
15 U.S.C. §2603.
7
15 U.S.C. §2607.
8
15 U.S.C. §2613.
2
Congressional Research Service
1
Preemption in Proposed Amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act
other federal agencies and EPA offices (§9),9 and respond to citizens’ petitions (§21).10 TSCA’s
core provisions (Title I) have not been significantly amended since the law’s enactment in 1976.11
It is also important to note that TSCA applies to “chemical substances” (defined in §3).12 To avoid
overlapping with other federal statutes, TSCA defines this term to exclude certain categories of
materials and substances from its scope. Substances when used in pesticides, foods (including
ingredients and additives), food contact substances (such as containers), personal care products,
tobacco, nuclear materials, firearms, and shells and cartridges are not within the scope of
TSCA—or consequently, within the scope of TSCA preemption.
Preemption Under TSCA
TSCA’s preemption provisions (§18)13 base preemption on certain actions taken by EPA under a
handful of specified statutory provisions. So long as EPA has not specifically addressed a
chemical under TSCA, there is no preemption of state regulation of that same chemical.14 When
EPA does take certain actions regarding a chemical, TSCA provides for preemption of duplicative
testing requirements and of non-identical state regulations, other than total bans or disposal
regulations, unless the state regulations are adopted under other federal laws or an exemption is
granted.15 Specifically, TSCA Section 18(a) provides the following:
If EPA promulgates a rule under TSCA Section 4 requiring manufacturers or
processors of a chemical substance to conduct testing on that substance to
develop data on its health and environmental effects, then a state or political
subdivision cannot establish or continue its own testing requirement rule for that
chemical substance “for purposes similar to those for which testing is required”
by EPA.16
EPA has issued testing rules for several hundred chemicals under Section 4.17
These would preempt similar testing requirements by states, but research has
uncovered no cases finding preemption of state testing requirements by EPA
testing rules.18
If EPA prescribes a rule or order under TSCA Section 5 (new chemicals) or
Section 6 (existing chemicals), which is designed to protect against a risk of
injury to health or the environment associated with a chemical substance, then a
state or political subdivision cannot establish or continue any non-identical
requirement applicable to the same chemical substance (or article containing such
9
15 U.S.C. §2608.
15 U.S.C. §2620.
11
Five titles have been added to deal with particular chemical concerns: asbestos (Title II), indoor radon (Title III), lead
(Title IV), environmental exposures in schools (Title V), and formaldehyde in composite wood products (Title VI).
12
15 U.S.C. §2602(2)(B).
13
15 U.S.C. §2617.
14
15 U.S.C. §2617(a)(1).
15
15 U.S.C. §2617(a)(2), (b).
16
15 U.S.C. §2617(a)(2)(A).
17
See generally 40 C.F.R. pt. 799.
18
EPA also works with chemical companies to develop needed data via Enforceable Consent Agreements and
Voluntary Testing Agreements; these do not have preemptive effect because TSCA’s testing preemption applies only to
rules, not orders or agreements. 15 U.S.C. §2617(a)(2)(A).
10
Congressional Research Service
2
Preemption in Proposed Amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act
chemical substance) that is designed to protect against the same risk.19
Since 1976, EPA has promulgated rules imposing restrictions to protect against
risk of injury to health or the environment from six existing chemicals under
Section 6 of TSCA20 and four new chemicals under Section 5(f).21 These few
EPA rules have not preempted many state or local requirements.22
Because these are the only bases for preemption, EPA information-gathering rules under Section
8, or actions under any other section of TSCA, do not preempt state or local actions. Pursuant to
exceptions, any preemption by EPA rules or orders under Sections 5 or 6 would not extend to the
following:
State regulations on the manner or method of disposal of chemicals; an EPA rule
pertaining to disposal has no preemptive effect.23
State requirements that are identical to federal requirements,24 enabling states to
provide additional enforcement (co-enforcement) of those requirements.
State requirements that are adopted under the authority of any other federal law.25
Complete prohibitions on the use of particular chemicals within a state’s
jurisdiction. However, a state cannot prohibit the chemical’s use in
manufacturing or processing of other substances.26
TSCA Section 18(b) allows a state to apply to EPA for an exemption to allow a more stringent
state chemical risk management regulation that would otherwise be preempted.27 EPA may, by
rule, grant such an exemption so long as compliance with the state requirement would not cause a
violation of the federal requirements for the chemical; would provide a significantly higher
19
15 U.S.C. §2617(a)(2)(B).
The section 6 rules are a ban on manufacturing, processing, distribution in commerce and use of PCBs, 40 C.F.R. pt.
761 (specifically required by TSCA section 6(e)); a ban on manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce of
chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) for aerosol propellants, 43 Fed. Reg. 11318 (Mar. 17, 1978) (other uses of CFCs were later
phased out under the Clean Air Act); a ban on storage and disposal of waste contaminated with a certain dioxin at one
facility in Arkansas (revoked five years later upon the effective date of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA), 50 Fed. Reg. 1978 (Jan. 14, 1985)); a limit on certain uses of metalworking fluids, 40 C.F.R. pt. 747; and a
ban on hexavalent chromium chemicals in comfort (i.e., non-industrial) cooling towers, 40 C.F.R. §749.68. A ban on
asbestos was largely struck down in 1991 (except with respect to certain new uses), because, among other reasons, the
court held that EPA had not considered less burdensome alternatives as required by TSCA section 6. Corrosion Proof
Fittings v. EPA, 947 F.2d 1201 (5th Cir. 1991).
21
See EPA, TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory, 2014 version, available at http://www.epa.gov/oppt/
existingchemicals/pubs/tscainventory/ (search of “regulatory flags” in inventory file). The new chemicals regulated
under TSCA section 5(f) are all used in metalworking. See 40 C.F.R. pt. 747; 49 Fed. Reg. 36846 (Sep. 20, 1984); 49
Fed. Reg. 24658 (June 14, 1984); 49 Fed. Reg. 2762 (Jan. 23, 1984).
22
EPA has also issued a number of consent orders under Section 5(e) imposing restrictions on individual
manufacturers, and Significant New Use Rules under Section 5(a) requiring notification to be submitted prior to
manufacturing or processing chemicals for non-ongoing uses designated as “significant” by EPA, but these actions do
not appear to have been subjected to judicial analysis as to their preemptive effect on any state or local requirements.
23
15 U.S.C. §2617(a)(2)(B) (citing 15 U.S.C. §2605(a)(6)).
24
15 U.S.C. §2617(a)(2)(B)(i).
25
15 U.S.C. §2617(a)(2)(B)(ii) (citing Clean Air Act as an example).
26
15 U.S.C. §2617(a)(2)(B)(iii).
27
15 U.S.C. §2617(b).
20
Congressional Research Service
3
Preemption in Proposed Amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act
degree of protection from risk; and would not “unduly burden interstate commerce.”28 It appears
that no exemption rule has ever been issued.29
Section 18 of TSCA does not expressly preempt or affect lawsuits regarding chemical exposures
under common law.30 Nonetheless, courts would generally interpret preempted “requirements” to
include state common law.31 Thus, it is possible, for example, that a defendant’s compliance with
TSCA could provide a viable preemption defense to a lawsuit, if the common law or statutory
requirement forming the basis for the lawsuit were designed to protect against the same risk as an
EPA rule or order under TSCA Sections 5 or 6.32 The division of federal and state authority over
chemicals is also affected by the lack of express authority, in Section 18 or elsewhere, for EPA to
share with states any trade secret information that it collects that is confidential under TSCA
Section 14.
TSCA Amendment Proposals in the 114th Congress
Legislative Background and Status
Legislative efforts to revise TSCA’s chemical regulatory framework date back at least to 2005.33
The legislative proposals that have been discussed over this time generally would preserve the
basic organization of TSCA Title I; for example, provisions related to testing would remain in
Section 4, new chemicals and new uses in Section 5, regulation of existing chemicals in Section
6, and preemption in Section 18. They would also generally continue TSCA’s exclusion of
specified categories of substances regulated under other laws. Yet the proposals would make
significant changes to the operation of TSCA. The proposals differ in various respects from one
another, however, including with respect to preemption.
In the 114th Congress, S. 697, the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act,
was introduced on March 10, 2015. A hearing on the bill was held before the Senate Environment
and Public Works Committee on March 18, 2015.34 Following a markup, an amended version of
S. 697 was ordered to be reported out of the committee on April 28, 2015, on a 15-5 vote with
bipartisan support. S. 697 was reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute on June
28
Id.
The state of Connecticut applied for an exemption to pursue a state registration program for PCB transformers. This
was not granted because EPA established a national registration requirement for PCB transformers at 40 C.F.R.
§761.30(a)(1)(vi). See 63 Fed. Reg. 35384, 35393-94 (June 29, 1998) (discussing Connecticut petition and response).
30
15 U.S.C. §2617. However, preemption would apply only to the extent the common law requirement was “designed
to protect against” the same risk as an EPA requirement for a chemical.
31
See, e.g., Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc., 552 U.S. 312, 324 (2008) (“Absent other indication, reference to a State’s
‘requirements’ includes its common-law duties.”).
32
See Anderson v. Hackett, 646 F. Supp. 2d 1041, 1053 (S.D. Ill. 2009) (stating in dicta that a showing by the
defendant chemical manufacturers that they had complied with EPA’s PCB regulations under TSCA “may provide
them a defense to Plaintiffs’s action” seeking damages and medical monitoring for alleged releases of PCB-containing
oil). There have been few or no examples of such defenses outside the PCB context.
33
Kid Safe Chemicals Act, S. 1391, H.R. 4308, 109th Cong. (2005). See also GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE,
GAO NO. 05-458, CHEMICAL REGULATION: OPTIONS EXIST TO IMPROVE EPA’S ABILITY TO ASSESS HEALTH RISKS AND
MANAGE ITS CHEMICAL REVIEW PROGRAM (2005), available at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05458.pdf. The Kid
Safe Chemicals Act was reintroduced with few substantive changes in 2008. S. 3040, H.R. 6100, 110th Cong. (2008).
34
Frank R Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act: Hearing before the S. Comm. on Env’t and Public
Works, 114th Cong. (2015), available at http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Hearing&
Hearing_id=60d1e265-cdac-7629-3385-2d72dd8fe3eb.
29
Congressional Research Service
4
Preemption in Proposed Amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act
17, 2015,35 and placed on the Senate legislative calendar. An alternate proposal, S. 725, the Alan
Reinstein and Trevor Schaefer Toxic Chemical Protection Act, has not been ordered to be
reported out of committee. S. 725 would eliminate express preemption from TSCA entirely,36 and
is not included in this report’s comparison.
In the House of Representatives, a discussion draft entitled the TSCA Modernization Act of 2015
was released in early April, and a hearing was held in the Subcommittee on Environment and the
Economy of the Committee on Energy and Commerce on April 14, 2015.37 After some revisions,
the House discussion draft was approved by the subcommittee on May 14, 2015, on a 21-0 voice
vote, also on a bipartisan basis. The TSCA Modernization Act of 2015 was formally introduced,
with some amendments, on May 26, 2015, as H.R. 2576 and referred to the full committee on
Energy and Commerce. The committee ordered the bill to be reported on June 3, 2015, on a 47-0
vote, with one abstaining, and the bill was reported on June 23, 2015. The bill, as amended, was
debated on the House floor and passed the House on June 23, 2015, on a 398-1 vote.
Comparison
S. 697 and H.R. 2576 address many of the same topics and provisions of TSCA, with important
similarities and differences in their approaches. For additional discussion of select issues
addressed by the bills, see CRS Report R44434, Proposed Amendments to the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA) in the 114th Congress: H.R. 2576 Compared with the Senate Substitute
Amendment, by (name redacted) and (name
redacted)
.
S. 697 generally takes a more comprehensive and detailed approach to amending TSCA. It would
add, among other new definitions, a definition of the term “safety standard” to mean a standard
that ensures, without taking into consideration cost or other nonrisk factors, that no unreasonable
risk of injury to health or the environment, including to any relevant “potentially exposed or
susceptible population,” will result from exposure to a chemical substance under the conditions of
use.38 EPA would be required to establish a risk-based screening process to identify chemicals as
high or low priorities for assessment, and then to conduct assessments on the high priority
chemicals, with at least 25 assessments initiated by five years after enactment (along with other
deadlines).39 Chemicals found not to meet the safety standard would have to be regulated; EPA
would not be limited to the “least burdensome requirements” as under current TSCA, although it
would have to take into account costs, benefits, and alternatives.40 S. 697 would make changes to
the new chemical provisions, including imposing new duties on EPA to review such chemicals
against the safety standard.41 New provisions on policies and guidance, including pertaining to
use of science, would also impose duties on EPA.42 Based on amended reporting requirements,
35
U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the
21st Century Act, report to accompany S. 697, 114th Cong., 1st sess., June 18, 2015, S.Rept. 114-67 (Washington: GPO,
2015).
36
S. 725, 114th Cong. §117 (2015).
37
H.R. ____, the TSCA Modernization Act of 2015: Hearing before the H. Subcomm. on Env’t and the Economy, 114th
Cong. (2015), available at http://energycommerce.house.gov/hearing/hr-tsca-modernization-act-2015.
38
S. 697, 114th Cong. §3(4) (adding new TSCA §3(16)).
39
Id. §6 (adding new TSCA §4A(a)(2)).
40
Id. §8(3) (adding new TSCA §6(a)-(e)).
41
Id. §7 (amending TSCA §5).
42
See id. §4 (adding new TSCA §3A), §23 (adding new TSCA §27(c)-(g)).
Congressional Research Service
5
Preemption in Proposed Amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act
EPA would be required to identify chemicals that have not recently been in U.S. commerce as
“inactive.”43
H.R. 2576 would make fewer changes to TSCA. Unlike S. 697, it would not change TSCA’s new
chemical provisions. Nor would it add a detailed new prioritization scheme for evaluating
chemicals (although EPA could likely continue its existing prioritization efforts, the TSCA Work
Plan for Chemical Assessments).44 Similar to S. 697, H.R. 2576 would prohibit EPA from taking
into account information on cost and other factors not directly related to health or the
environment in conducting risk evaluations, give EPA a mandate and framework to conduct such
risk evaluations, and remove the “least burdensome requirements” language from TSCA’s risk
management provisions for chemicals found to present an unreasonable risk. H.R. 2576 would
instead require that chemical rules be cost-effective, unless EPA determines that additional or
different requirements are necessary to protect against the identified risk.45 EPA would have to
initiate at least 10 risk evaluations per year, subject to the availability of appropriations.46
While doing so in different ways, both bills would also generally expand EPA’s testing authority;
impose certain requirements pertaining to scientific standards; modify TSCA’s confidentiality
provisions; expand TSCA’s fee provisions; and make certain other changes and additions to other
sections of the law—although as noted above, S. 697 would make substantially more changes and
additions.
Table 1 below provides a side-by-side comparison of the preemption provisions and other
provisions related to the state-federal relationship in these two bills.47 Table 1 first describes
limits on the universe of state or local rules that would potentially be subject to preemption by
EPA actions by comparing the bills’ overall preemption scope, exceptions, and savings clauses.
These are broadly similar, with some differences at the margins; most notably, both would retain
TSCA’s chemical-by-chemical preemption approach. Table 1 then compares the scope and timing
of preemption (subject to the exceptions) based on various EPA actions under each proposal.
Here, there are somewhat larger structural differences between the bills: for example, S. 697
preempts new state restrictions while a chemical is undergoing assessment by EPA, while H.R.
2576 has somewhat broader preemption on the basis of EPA actions on new chemicals and
significant new uses of chemicals. Both bills would preempt state requirements after EPA either
imposed requirements on a chemical found to present an unreasonable risk, or after EPA
determined that a chemical did not present an unreasonable risk. Table 1 then compares S. 697’s
new waiver provisions with those of H.R. 2576, which are retained from current TSCA. Finally,
Table 1 notes several other provisions not pertaining to preemption that nonetheless relate to the
federal-state relationship under TSCA.
43
Id. §10 (amending TSCA §8).
See EPA, Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, Existing Chemicals—Current Chemical Activities (2015),
http://www.epa.gov/oppt/existingchemicals/pubs/managechemrisk.html.
45
H.R. 2576, 114th Cong. §4 (2015) (amending TSCA §6).
46
Id.
47
Id. §7, S. 697 §17 (both amending TSCA §18). Detailed legal analysis whether the bills would preempt any
particular state chemical regulation is beyond the scope of this memorandum.
44
Congressional Research Service
6
Preemption in Proposed Amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act
Table 1. Side-by-Side Comparison of TSCA Legislation in the 114th Congress:
Preemption Provisions and State-Federal Relationship
Provision
S. 697, Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical
Safety for the 21st Century Act
(Ordered to be Reported out of
Committee April 28, 2015)
H.R. 2576, the TSCA Modernization Act
of 2015
(Ordered to be Reported out of Committee
June 3, 2015)
State or Local Law Not Preempted—Baseline, Exceptions, and Savings Clauses
Framework: No
Preemption Until EPA
Action on a Chemical
Broadly, both bills would retain the general structure of preemption under TSCA Section 18:
there would be no effect on state chemical regulations or actions unless and until EPA took
certain actions, and preemption would operate on a chemical-by-chemical basis.
Current TSCA Section 18(a)(1) states that “[e]xcept as provided … nothing in this chapter
shall affect the authority of any State or political subdivision of a State to establish or
continue in effect regulation of any chemical….” While S. 697 does not retain this express
language, as H.R. 2576 would, the effect of removing this provision would be minimal; it
would still remain the case that nothing in TSCA as amended by S. 697 would affect state or
local authority over chemicals except as specifically provided in the amended preemption
provisions (or as required in narrow circumstances by the Supremacy Clause of the U.S.
Constitution; see “Express Conflicts,” below).
Scope Limitation in
Definition of Chemical
Substances
Both bills would keep TSCA’s definition of “chemical substance” and its exclusion from the
scope of TSCA of categories including pesticides, tobacco products, nuclear materials,
firearms, shells, cartridges, food, food contact substances in containers, drugs, medical
devices, and personal care products. Thus, neither EPA actions under TSCA, nor preemption
based on EPA actions, would apply to such categories.
Preemptive Effect of
EPA Actions Taken
Before Enactment
S. 697 would not change the preemptive
effect of any rule or order promulgated or
issued by EPA prior to the date of its
enactment, or of any rule or order issued
after enactment for a chemical already
subject to a Section 6 rule on the date of
enactment, unless that post-enactment rule
or order followed designation of the
chemical as a high priority.
H.R. 2576 provides that nothing in it shall be
construed as changing the preemptive effect
of an action taken by EPA either prior to the
date of its enactment, or under Section 6(e)
(regarding regulation of polychlorinated
biphenyls or PCBs).
Express Conflicts
The Supremacy Clause of the U.S.
Constitution would operate in addition to
express preemption: “conflict preemption”
could be implied under certain
circumstances.a
S. 697 also addresses inconsistent
restrictions in its exception for
requirements under certain state or local
environmental laws, discussed below.
H.R. 2576 would add to the background
Supremacy Clause principles, in the provisions
preserving existing state chemical programs
and restrictions and the other exceptions
described below, language allowing
preemption if EPA’s requirement “actually
conflicts” with the state or local requirement.b
Preservation of Existing
State Chemical
Programs and
Restrictions
Under both bills, states and localities could continue to enforce actions taken before August
1, 2015, under the authority of a state law, restricting manufacturing, processing, distribution
in commerce, use, or disposal of a chemical, and would not be preempted by any EPA action
on that chemical. (Local ordinances issued under general local government authority, as well
as requirements that are not restrictions, could be subject to preemption.) This provision
would grandfather many existing state chemical restrictions from the possibility of
preemption by TSCA, but not, for example, any future chemical restrictions that might be
issued under states’ existing green chemistry statutes.
States and localities could also continue to enforce actions taken at any time under longstanding state laws in effect by August 31, 2003, such as California’s Proposition 65.
Congressional Research Service
7
Preemption in Proposed Amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act
S. 697, Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical
Safety for the 21st Century Act
(Ordered to be Reported out of
Committee April 28, 2015)
H.R. 2576, the TSCA Modernization Act
of 2015
(Ordered to be Reported out of Committee
June 3, 2015)
Exceptions from
Preemption for State
Reporting and
Monitoring
Requirements
S. 697 would expressly exempt from
preemption any state or local requirement
or other action implementing a reporting,
monitoring, disclosure, or other
information obligation for the chemical
substance not otherwise required under
TSCA or other federal law.
To the extent state or local requirements for
reporting or monitoring of chemicals were
designed for information gathering, and not
for testing for purposes similar to an EPA
testing rule or for protection against
exposure, they would not be within the scope
of H.R. 2576’s preemption. Courts would
have to interpret whether particular state or
local reporting or disclosure requirements
were “designed to protect against exposure.”
Exception from
Preemption for State
Requirements Identical
to Federal
Requirements
As in current TSCA, a state or local requirement identical to a requirement prescribed by
EPA would not be preempted, allowing for co-enforcement. New provisions on penalties and
sanctions would differ somewhat between the two bills but would generally aim to avoid
duplicative penalties by preventing states from assessing a penalty for a violation for which
EPA had already assessed a penalty.
Provision
S. 697 would cap the penalties and
sanctions available to states at the level
available to EPA. EPA could not assess a
penalty for a violation for which a state had
already assessed a penalty.
Exception from
Preemption for
Requirements Under
Other Federal Laws
State or local requirements or various
other actions adopted or authorized under
the authority of any other federal law, or
adopted to satisfy or obtain authorization
or approval under any other federal law,
would be shielded from preemption. This
language is somewhat broader than current
TSCA, which is limited to “requirement[s]
… adopted under” the authority of any
other federal law.
Congressional Research Service
H.R. 2576 would allow available state penalties
and sanctions to be more stringent than those
available to EPA; it would also allow EPA to
assess a penalty for a violation for which a
state had already assessed a penalty so long as
the combined total of the penalties did not
exceed the maximum that EPA could assess.
This exception would not extend to testing
requirements for purposes similar to an EPA
testing requirement.
The H.R. 2576 exception would be similar to
current TSCA: state or local requirements
adopted under the authority of any other
federal law would be shielded from
preemption. However, this exception would
not extend to testing requirements for
purposes similar to an EPA testing
requirement.
8
Preemption in Proposed Amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act
S. 697, Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical
Safety for the 21st Century Act
(Ordered to be Reported out of
Committee April 28, 2015)
H.R. 2576, the TSCA Modernization Act
of 2015
(Ordered to be Reported out of Committee
June 3, 2015)
Exceptions from
Preemption for
Disposal-Related
Requirements or
Requirements Under
Certain State or Local
Environmental Laws
State or local chemical requirements or
actions adopted pursuant to state or local
authority related to waste treatment or
disposal would not be preempted;
restrictions on disposal are not included
within the scope of preempted actions.
Requirements or actions adopted pursuant
to authority under a state or local law
related to water quality or air quality also
would not be preempted.
However, to the extent such requirement
or action, in fact, imposes a restriction on
the manufacture, processing, distribution in
commerce, or use of a chemical, it would
be preempted if it (a) addresses the same
hazards, exposures, and use conditions as
EPA’s safety determination, but is
inconsistent with EPA’s action; or (b)
would cause a violation of the EPA action.
State or local requirements “related to waste
treatment or waste disposal” would not be
preempted, and EPA disposal-related
requirements would not have preemptive
effect.
State or local chemical requirements
“adopted to protect air or water quality”
would not be preempted. This phrase is
worded somewhat more narrowly than the
comparable phrase in S. 697, because while S.
697 extends to actions under authorities
“related to” air or water quality, H.R. 2576
would require the actions to be adopted “to
protect” them; H.R. 2576 would thus require
purpose, as opposed to relation.
Like the exception above, these exceptions
would not extend to any testing requirements
for purposes similar to an EPA testing
requirement.
Savings Clause for
Various Rights, Causes
of Action and Remedies
S. 697 would protect the following from
being preempted by EPA actions under
TSCA as amended by S. 697:
- any federal or state common law rights
or statute creating either a remedy for
civil relief (including civil damages), or a
penalty for a criminal conduct,
- any cause of action for any injury based
on any legal theory of liability.
S. 697 does not address interpretation of
contracts, except to the extent that
contracts would be addressed by common
law rights or statutes creating remedies or
within any “legal theory of liability.”
While similar in many respects to the
comparable provision in S. 697, H.R. 2576’s
savings clause would protect the following
from being preempted or otherwise affected by
EPA actions under TSCA, as amended by H.R.
2576:
- federal or state tort law or the law
governing the interpretation of contracts,
including any remedy for civil relief
(including civil damages), whether under
statutory or common law, and
- any cause of action for any injury based on
any “legal theory relating to tort law.”
“Requirements” do not include tort actions
for damages under state law.
Savings Clause for Use
of EPA Determinations
as Evidence in Civil
Actions
Actions by EPA under TSCA as amended
by S. 697 (such as a determination that a
chemical meets or does not meet the
safety standard) cannot be interpreted as
dispositive in any civil action in any federal
or state court. (Note, however, that such
EPA actions, while not dispositive, could
still influence a federal or state court’s
determination if used as evidence.)
TSCA as amended by S. 697 would not
affect the authority of any court to make a
determination in an adjudicatory
proceeding with respect to the admissibility
of evidence.
It is “not the intent of Congress” that actions
by EPA under TSCA as amended by H.R. 2576
be interpreted as “influencing … the
disposition” of any civil action for damages.
However, use of EPA actions as evidence
would be left to courts. In H.R. 2576, this
provision is limited to state courts.
As with S. 697, TSCA as amended by H.R.
2576 would not affect the authority of any
state court to make a determination in an
adjudicatory proceeding with respect to the
admissibility of evidence.
Provision
Congressional Research Service
9
Preemption in Proposed Amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act
Provision
S. 697, Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical
Safety for the 21st Century Act
(Ordered to be Reported out of
Committee April 28, 2015)
H.R. 2576, the TSCA Modernization Act
of 2015
(Ordered to be Reported out of Committee
June 3, 2015)
Scope and Timing of Preemption Based on EPA Actions
New Chemicals
S. 697 does not provide for preemption on
the basis of EPA orders or consent
agreements under amended TSCA Section
5 for new chemicals, unless such actions
require the development of information on
the chemical (see “Testing,” below).
S. 697 contrasts in this respect with
current TSCA, which provides that, subject
to exceptions, any EPA rule or order for a
new chemical under Section 5, designed to
protect against a risk of injury to health or
the environment, preempts state or local
requirement designed to protect against
that same risk.
H.R. 2576 would not substantively amend
TSCA Section 5.
Subject to exceptions (see above), any EPA
rule or order for a new chemical under TSCA
Section 5, promulgated or issued after
enactment of H.R. 2576 and designed to
protect against a risk of injury to health or the
environment, would preempt state or local
requirements designed to protect against
exposure to that chemical from any use that
had been identified in that chemical’s
premanufacture notification (PMN), as PMNs
are “received by [EPA] under [TSCA] section
5(a).” This exposure- and use-based scope of
preemption differs from current TSCA’s
preemption of requirements designed to
protect against the same risk as an EPA
requirement. (PMNs must contain information
on proposed categories of use, to the extent
known to or reasonably ascertainable by the
submitter.)
Significant New Uses
Similar to current TSCA, Section 5 as
amended by S. 697 would authorize EPA to
declare certain non-ongoing uses of
chemicals “significant new uses” by rule
(Significant New Use Rule, or SNUR) and
require a Significant New Use Notification
(SNUN) 90 days prior to any
manufacturing (including importing) or
processing of that chemical for that
significant new use.
A SNUR issued by EPA for a chemical after
enactment of S. 697 would narrowly
preempt state or local requirements for
notification of the use that EPA designated
as a significant new use for that chemical,
beginning on the effective date of the
SNUR, and subject to exceptions (see
above). Any state or local requirements for
the chemical other than use notification
requirements would not be preempted by
the SNUR.
Preemption would depend in part on whether
a SNUR was deemed to be “designed to
protect against a risk of injury to health or the
environment.”
If so, then subject to exceptions (see above), a
SNUR for a chemical promulgated by EPA
after enactment of H.R. 2576 would preempt
requirements designed to protect against
exposure to that chemical from “a use
identified in a notice received by [EPA] under
[TSCA] section 5(a).” As noted above, this
would extend to ongoing uses identified in any
PMN for the chemical as well as in any new
uses identified in any SNUN submitted for the
chemical.
If a SNUR was deemed to be designed to give
EPA an opportunity for evaluation and not to
protect against risk, then it would not have
preemptive effect. This interpretation, while
possible, appears less likely given EPA’s use of
SNURs to date.
Congressional Research Service
10
Preemption in Proposed Amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act
S. 697, Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical
Safety for the 21st Century Act
(Ordered to be Reported out of
Committee April 28, 2015)
H.R. 2576, the TSCA Modernization Act
of 2015
(Ordered to be Reported out of Committee
June 3, 2015)
Testing
If EPA promulgated a rule, issued an order,
or entered into a consent agreement
requiring development of information (such
as by testing) on a chemical under Sections
4, 5, or 6 as amended by S. 697, that EPA
requirement would preempt state or local
information development requirements for
that chemical that would be reasonably
likely to produce the same information as
the EPA requirement, subject to
exceptions (see above).
H.R. 2576 would retain current TSCA Section
18(a)(2)(A), which provides that if EPA
promulgates a rule under TSCA Section 4
requiring testing on a chemical, that rule
would preempt state or local testing
requirements for that chemical for purposes
similar to those of the EPA rule. H.R. 2576
would change “rule” to “rule, order, or
consent agreement” (but would not change
the lack of preemptive effect of pre-enactment
testing orders or consent agreements).
Exceptions for identical requirements or for
requirements under other federal or certain
state laws would not apply, nor waivers for
the most part (see below), but actions taken
under state laws in effect in 2003 would be
preserved (see above).
EPA Prioritization and
Assessment; New State
or Local Restrictions
Subject to exceptions (see above), S. 697
would preempt a state or locality from
establishing a new restriction (other than
on disposal) on a chemical designated by
EPA as a high priority for safety assessment
under new Section 4A, beginning when
EPA defined the scope of the safety
assessment, and continuing while EPA
conducted the assessment.
S. 697 would require EPA to publish the
scope of the safety assessment and safety
determination as soon as practicable and
no later than six months after the date on
which EPA designated the chemical a high
priority. Until that publication, states and
localities could enact new restrictions that
would not be preempted.
Preemption under this provision would last
until EPA completed the safety assessment
and safety determination for the chemical;
at that time, preemption would either
continue, if EPA found the chemical to
meet the safety standard, or be temporarily
lifted, if EPA found the chemical not to
meet the safety standard, as described
below. S. 697 would require EPA to
complete a safety assessment and safety
determination not later than three years
after the date of a chemical’s high-priority
designation, subject to extension.
EPA’s designation of a chemical as a low
priority would not preempt any state or
local requirements.
No preemption provision. States and localities
could establish new restrictions on chemicals
during the period in which EPA evaluated a
chemical.
(H.R. 2576 does not set forth a specific
prioritization process, although as discussed at
a hearing, EPA could likely continue its
existing prioritization efforts, the TSCA Work
Plan for Chemical Assessments. Instead of
high priority and low priority lists, EPA would
be required to complete a risk evaluation
within three years, subject to extension, after:
- EPA determined the chemical may present
an unreasonable risk of injury to health or
the environment because of potential
hazard and a potential route of exposure,
- EPA began the evaluation on a chemical on
its Work Plan, or
- a manufacturer of the chemical requested a
risk evaluation.)
Provision
Congressional Research Service
11
Preemption in Proposed Amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act
S. 697, Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical
Safety for the 21st Century Act
(Ordered to be Reported out of
Committee April 28, 2015)
H.R. 2576, the TSCA Modernization Act
of 2015
(Ordered to be Reported out of Committee
June 3, 2015)
EPA Completion of Risk
Assessment;
Determination that
Chemical Does Not
Present Unreasonable
Risk
If EPA made a final determination under
amended Section 6(c) that a chemical
meets the safety standard (that is, will not
result in an unreasonable risk from
exposure under the intended conditions of
use, as further defined in S. 697), that
safety determination would preempt state
and local restrictions (but not disposal
restrictions or other requirements) for the
uses included within the scope of EPA’s
safety determination. Exceptions could
apply (see above).
If EPA made a final determination under
amended Section 6(b) that a chemical will not
present an unreasonable risk under the
intended condition of use, EPA’s
determination would preempt state and local
requirements designed to protect against
exposure to the chemical under intended
conditions of use that EPA had considered in
the risk evaluation, and to apply under such
conditions of use. Requirements not designed
to protect against exposure would therefore
not be preempted, but state or local disposal
requirements could potentially be preempted.
Exceptions could apply (see above).
EPA Completion of Risk
Assessment;
Determination that
Chemical Presents
Unreasonable Risk
If EPA made a final determination under
amended Section 6(c) that a chemical does
not meet the safety standard (that is,
presents an unreasonable risk from
exposure under the intended conditions of
use), the preemption of new state or local
requirements by EPA’s safety assessment of
high priority chemicals (see above) would
stop. EPA’s negative safety determination
would preclude preemption of new or
existing state or local requirements until
the effective date of an EPA rule restricting
the chemical under amended TSCA Section
6(d).
After a negative safety determination, EPA
would be required to promulgate a rule
within two years of completing the
negative safety determination, subject to
extension.
If EPA made a final determination under
amended Section 6(b) that a chemical presents
or will present an unreasonable risk from
exposure under the intended conditions of
use, that negative determination would not
preempt state or local requirements. State or
local requirements designed to protect against
exposure to the chemical under intended
conditions of use considered by EPA in the
risk evaluation would not be preempted until
the effective date of an EPA rule restricting
the chemical under amended TSCA Section
6(a).
After a negative determination, EPA would be
required to promulgate a rule within 180 days
after publication of the determination, subject
to extension.
EPA Rulemaking and
Imposition of
Requirements on a
Chemical; Scope of
Preemption
If EPA imposed any requirement on a
chemical by rule under amended Section 6,
then any non-identical, non-disposal-related
state or local prohibition or restriction also
applicable to that chemical (or to an article
containing the chemical) would be
preempted consistent with the scope of
the safety determination. Preemption
would be limited to the uses or conditions
of use included in the scope of the rule, but
would apply to state or local requirements
whether designed to protect against
exposure (as under H.R. 2576) or designed
to manage risk by some other means.
Exceptions could apply (see above).
If EPA imposed any requirement by rule under
amended Section 6 (other than a disposalrelated requirement) designed to protect
against a risk associated with a chemical, then
any non-identical state or local requirement
also applicable to that chemical (or to an
article because the article contains the
chemical), and designed to protect against
exposure to the chemical under the intended
conditions of use considered by EPA in the
chemical’s risk evaluation, would be
preempted. The requirement would not
necessarily have to be a “restriction” on the
manufacture, processing, distribution in
commerce or use of a chemical, as under S.
697, although presumably most
“requirement[s] … designed to protect
against exposure” would be restrictions.
Exceptions could apply (see above).
Provision
Congressional Research Service
12
Preemption in Proposed Amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act
Provision
EPA Rulemaking and
Imposition of
Requirements on a
Chemical; Timing of
Preemption
S. 697, Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical
Safety for the 21st Century Act
(Ordered to be Reported out of
Committee April 28, 2015)
H.R. 2576, the TSCA Modernization Act
of 2015
(Ordered to be Reported out of Committee
June 3, 2015)
Preemption would start on the EPA
requirement’s “effective date.” It could be
a matter of interpretation whether this
would necessarily be the date that full
compliance with the EPA rule’s
requirements would be mandatory, if EPA
set an “effective date” earlier than when all
requirements would be enforced. (Section
6 as amended by S. 697 would require
rules under that section to include “dates
by which compliance is mandatory,” which
must be “as soon as practicable.”)
Preemption would start on the EPA
requirement’s “effective date” which possibly
could differ from the date that compliance
with all the EPA rule’s requirements became
mandatory. (H.R. 2576 would retain TSCA’s
requirement that EPA “specify in any [Section
6] rule … the date on which it shall take
effect, which date shall be as soon as feasible,”
and would add a provision requiring that “any
rule … shall provide for a reasonable
transition period.”)
Exemptions or Waivers from Otherwise Applicable Preemption
Discretionary
Exemptions for States
or Localities
S. 697 would add a new TSCA Section
18(f) governing state exemptions (or
waivers) in greater detail than current
TSCA, with provisions for both
discretionary and required waivers.
Upon application of a state or locality, the
EPA Administrator (non-delegable) could,
in his or her discretion, promulgate a rule
exempting from preemption a chemical
restriction relating to effects of or
exposure to a chemical, under such
conditions as EPA would prescribe, if EPA
determined that:
(1) compelling state or local conditions
warrant granting the waiver to protect
health or the environment;
(2) requirement would not unduly burden
interstate commerce;
(3) the requirement would not cause a
violation of federal law; and
(4) the requirement is consistent with
sound objective scientific practices, the
weight of the evidence, and the best
available science.
The Administrator would have to decide
on an application within 180 days.
Congressional Research Service
H.R. 2576 would retain current TSCA Section
18(b), which allows for discretionary waivers.
EPA (not specifically limited to the
Administrator in a non-delegable capacity) in
its discretion, upon application of a state or
locality, could issue a rule exempting a state
or local chemical restriction (but not a testing
requirement unless designed to protect
against risk) from preemption, under such
conditions as EPA may prescribe, if EPA
determined that:
(1) compliance with the state or local
requirement would not cause a violation of
the federal requirement;
(2) the state or local requirement provides a
significantly higher degree of protection from
risk than the EPA requirement; and
(3) the state or local requirement does not,
through difficulties in marketing, distribution,
or other factors, unduly burden interstate
commerce.
Unlike S. 697, there is no specific requirement
for waivers to be consistent with any scientific
criteria. No timeline for exemption decisions
is provided.
13
Preemption in Proposed Amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act
S. 697, Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical
Safety for the 21st Century Act
(Ordered to be Reported out of
Committee April 28, 2015)
H.R. 2576, the TSCA Modernization Act
of 2015
(Ordered to be Reported out of Committee
June 3, 2015)
Required Exemptions
for States or Localities
The Administrator would be required to
grant an exemption application for a state
or local requirement relating to the effects
of exposure to a chemical if conditions (2)
and (3) above were met and the state or
locality “has a concern about the chemical
substance or use of the chemical substance
based in peer-reviewed science.”
Rulemaking would not be required,
although public notice and opportunity for
comment generally would be.
The Administrator would have to decide
on an application made on this basis within
90 days, or approval would be automatic.
Approval would also be automatic if EPA
missed its deadline for completing a safety
determination.
No comparable provision.
Judicial Review of State
or Local Waiver
Decisions
Any person could petition for judicial
review within 60 days of a decision of the
administrator on exemptions, or a failure
to meet the 180 or 90 day deadline.
Judicial review of EPA’s exemption decisions
would be governed by the Administrative
Procedure Act;c TSCA does not have, and
H.R. 2576 would not add, any specific
provision regarding judicial review of EPA
decisions on state exemptions.
Critical Use Exemptions
from EPA Rules; Effect
on Preemption
In general, EPA would be authorized to
exempt uses of a chemical from any
restriction in a Section 6 rule if EPA made
any of several determinations and imposed
conditions in a rule exempting such uses.
State and local restrictions on the
exempted uses apparently still would be
preempted by the rule from which the uses
were exempted, unless the uses were
excluded from the scope of the Section 6
rule itself.
H.R. 2576 would authorize comparable critical
use exemptions, but with different EPA
determinations. Also, a rule would not be
required, but the exemption could be granted
only after public notice and opportunity for
comment.
State and local restrictions on the exempted
uses apparently still would be preempted by
the rule from which the uses were exempted.
Exclusion of any uses from the scope of the
Section 6 rule also apparently would not affect
preemption.
Provision
Congressional Research Service
14
Preemption in Proposed Amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act
Provision
S. 697, Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical
Safety for the 21st Century Act
(Ordered to be Reported out of
Committee April 28, 2015)
H.R. 2576, the TSCA Modernization Act
of 2015
(Ordered to be Reported out of Committee
June 3, 2015)
Other Provisions Related to State-Federal Relationship
Consideration of State
Recommendations
S. 697, in a new Section 4A of TSCA on
prioritization of chemicals for evaluation,
would require EPA to consider information
and recommendations submitted by a state
governor or agency regarding a chemical in
making prioritization decisions regarding
that chemical.
No comparable provision.
State Notification Duty
Under new Section 4A, states would be
required to inform EPA if they proposed or
enacted a new restriction on a chemical
EPA had not designated as high priority.
No comparable provision.
Disclosure of
Confidential
Information to States
Under amended Section 14, EPA would be
required to disclose confidential
information to a state or locality (S. 697
does not include tribes), on written
request, for development, administration,
or enforcement of a law if agreements
ensure that the state or locality can and
will protect the information, and EPA
notifies the submitter of the disclosure.
EPA would also have to disclose
confidential information on request in
emergency situations, subject to certain
conditions, or to state health or
environmental professionals who provided
an adequate statement of need.
Under amended Section 14, EPA would be
authorized to disclose confidential information
to a state, on request, to a state, local, or
tribal official for administration or
enforcement (but not development) of a law.
EPA would also have to disclose confidential
information on request to state health or
environmental professionals in response to an
environmental release.
Source: CRS analysis of S. 697 and H.R. 2576.
Notes: S. 725, the Alan Reinstein and Trevor Schaefer Toxic Chemical Protection Act, would eliminate express
preemption from TSCA entirely and is not included in this Table.
a. U.S. CONST. art. VI, cl. 2; report footnote 2, supra.
b. An amendment changing the “[EPA action] actually conflicts with …” standard to a standard of “impossible
… to comply with both the State requirement and” an EPA action was withdrawn at the committee
markup. See House Energy and Commerce Committee, Full Committee Vote on the TSCA Modernization
Act and FCC Process Reform Act (June 3, 2015), https://energycommerce.house.gov/markup/fullcommittee-vote-tsca-modernization-act-and-fcc-process-reform-act.
c. 5 U.S.C. tit. 7.
Author Contact Information
(name redacted)
Legislative Attorney
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov
, 7-....
Congressional Research Service
15
EveryCRSReport.com
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the
Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on
issues that may come before Congress.
EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to all Congressional staff. The
reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to
the public.
Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts
who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentionally made
any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.
CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not subject to copyright protection in
the United States. Any CRS report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without
permission from CRS. However, as a CRS report may include copyrighted images or material from a
third party, you may need to obtain permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or
otherwise use copyrighted material.
Information in a CRS report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public
understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of Congress in
connection with CRS' institutional role.
EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim
copyright on any CRS report we have republished.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.