PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 3, 2025
Improving Science in Chemical Assessments Act
This bill modifies procedures related to specified chemical assessments performed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Specifically, chemical hazard identification and dose response assessments must be performed by the appropriate EPA program office (they are currently performed by the Integrated Risk Information System program).
Additionally, the bill requires the EPA to establish a steering committee to ensure there is no duplication of effort by relevant program offices in conducting covered assessments.
People & committees
Rep. Biggs, Andy [R-AZ-5] · R–AZ
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Feb 3, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.123 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.123 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.123 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.123 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2025-01-03 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
This proposal would move certain Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) assessments of health risks from long-term chemical exposure out of its Integrated Risk Information System program and into relevant EPA program offices, if those offices determine an assessment is needed. It would require scientific standards, preserve completed assessments in a chemical database, and create an internal committee to coordinate assessments. These are proposed requirements, not evidence of changes already in force.
Beginning on the date of the enactment of the Improving Science in Chemical Assessments Act, any covered assessments carried out with respect to a chemical substance through the Integrated Risk Information System program of the Environmental Protection Agency as of the day before such date of enactment shall, in lieu of being carried out through such program, be carried out by the relevant program office of the Environmental Protection Agency, so long as the relevant program office determines there is a need for such an assessment.
Such an assessment shall be carried out using the scientific standards specified in section 7B and be based on the weight of the scientific evidence.
All covered assessments stored, as of the date of the enactment of this Act, in the IRIS database of the Environmental Protection Agency shall be retained in the chemical assessment database established pursuant to paragraph (1).
the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall establish a chemical hazard identification and dose-response steering committee
The bill is titled the Improving Science in Chemical Assessments Act. It would replace section 7 of the Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1978 with new sections 7, 7A, and 7B addressing research priorities, coordination, and scientific standards.
This Act may be cited as the Improving Science in Chemical Assessments Act.
The Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1978 is amended by striking section 7 (42 U.S.C. 4364) and inserting the following new sections:
7. Research needs and priorities of EPA program offices
7A. Hazard Identification and Dose-Response Steering Committee
7B. Scientific standards
The EPA Administrator would have to coordinate spending on environmental research and development related to regulatory programs with the needs of relevant program offices and EPA overall, including its five-year research plan. This requirement would cover funds appropriated under the named act or any other law.
The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall assure that the expenditure of any funds appropriated pursuant to this Act or any other provision of law for environmental research and development related to regulatory program activities shall be coordinated with and reflect the research needs and priorities of the relevant program offices, as well as the overall research needs and priorities of the Agency, including those defined in the five-year research plan.
The assessment rules would cover identifying chemical health hazards and assessing how health effects change with exposure levels, specifically for long-term exposure. The legal definitions of those assessment terms would be EPA's definitions from the day before enactment. Relevant offices would include EPA's water, air and radiation, land and emergency management, and chemical safety and pollution prevention offices, their successors, and any other office the Administrator determines is relevant.
The term covered assessment means, with respect to the evaluation of the human health effects resulting from chronic exposure to a chemical substance, a chemical hazard identification and dose-response assessment (as such terms are defined by the Environmental Protection Agency on the day before the date of the enactment of this section).
The term relevant program office includes the following offices of the Environmental Protection Agency: (A) The Office of Water. (B) The Office of Air and Radiation. (C) The Office of Land and Emergency Management. (D) The Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. (E) Any successor to an office specified in subparagraphs (A) through (D) and any other office determined to be relevant by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Starting on enactment, covered assessments being carried out through the Integrated Risk Information System program on the previous day would move to relevant EPA program offices. An office would carry out an assessment only so long as it determines there is a need, using the proposed scientific standards and the weight of the scientific evidence.
Beginning on the date of the enactment of the Improving Science in Chemical Assessments Act, any covered assessments carried out with respect to a chemical substance through the Integrated Risk Information System program of the Environmental Protection Agency as of the day before such date of enactment shall, in lieu of being carried out through such program, be carried out by the relevant program office of the Environmental Protection Agency, so long as the relevant program office determines there is a need for such an assessment. Such an assessment shall be carried out using the scientific standards specified in section 7B and be based on the weight of the scientific evidence.
When available data scientifically support doing so, the responsible office would have to assign one or more toxicity values—measures used to describe a chemical's health risk. When supported by the data, these would include a range of individual risk estimates and the sources and sizes of uncertainty around them.
In carrying out a covered assessment with respect to a chemical substance under subsection (b), the relevant program office shall assign a toxicity value or values, when scientifically supported by the available data, for such chemical substance.
When supported by the available data, the toxicity value or values shall include a range of point estimates of risk, as well as sources and magnitudes of uncertainty associated with the estimates.
If multiple individual risk estimates can be developed, the responsible office would have to consider all datasets and determine how best to represent the chemical's human health risk.
When multiple point estimates can be developed, the relevant program office shall— (A) consider all datasets; and (B) make a determination about how best to represent the human health risk posed by the chemical substance involved.
EPA's Office of Research and Development would maintain a chemical assessment database containing assigned toxicity values. It would retain all covered assessments stored in the existing IRIS database on enactment and update the database through assessments performed by relevant program offices, including changes to existing toxicity values.
A toxicity value or values assigned to a chemical substance under subsection (c) shall be included in a chemical assessment database to be maintained by the Office of Research and Development of the Environmental Protection Agency.
All covered assessments stored, as of the date of the enactment of this Act, in the IRIS database of the Environmental Protection Agency shall be retained in the chemical assessment database established pursuant to paragraph (1).
Such database shall be updated pursuant to a covered assessment performed by a relevant program office, including to make a change in the existing toxicity value or values for a chemical substance included in such database.
Starting two years after enactment and every two years afterward, the Office of Research and Development would report to the House Science, Space, and Technology and Energy and Commerce committees and the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Each report would certify that every covered assessment completed during the reporting period used the proposed scientific standards.
Beginning 2 years after the date of the enactment of the Improving Science in Chemical Assessments Act and every 2 years thereafter, the Office of Research and Development of the Environmental Protection Agency shall submit to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report containing a certification that each covered assessment completed during the period covered by the report was conducted using the scientific standards specified in section 7B.
Within 30 days after enactment, EPA would have to establish a steering committee to coordinate covered assessments and avoid duplicate work. If multiple program offices intend to assess the same chemical, the committee would determine the most effective way to conduct a single assessment.
Not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of the Improving Science in Chemical Assessments Act, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall establish a chemical hazard identification and dose-response steering committee (referred to in this section as the steering committee) to coordinate the conduct of covered assessments by relevant program offices for purposes of ensuring that, with respect to such assessments, there is no duplication of effort by such offices.
If the steering committee learns that more than one relevant program office intends to conduct covered assessments with respect to the same chemical substance, the steering committee shall determine the most effective means of carrying out a single covered assessment to prevent duplication of effort by such offices.
The steering committee would have 15 members, all active, full-time EPA employees appointed by the Administrator, with at least one representative from each relevant program office and each regional office. The Assistant Administrator of the Office of Research and Development would chair it. Vacancies would follow the same appointment process, and the committee would meet at least once each calendar year.
The steering committee shall be chaired by the Assistant Administrator of the Office of Research and Development of the Environmental Protection Agency.
The steering committee shall be composed of 15 members, all of whom shall be active, full-time employees of the Environmental Protection Agency, with at least one member representing each relevant program office and each regional office of the Environmental Protection Agency. The members of the steering committee shall be appointed by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. Any vacancy shall be filled in the same manner as the initial appointment.
The steering committee shall meet at least once each calendar year.
To supplement an assessment, the steering committee would have to consider qualifying assessments from other federal, state, or international agencies or members of the scientific community. Those assessments would need to follow the proposed scientific standards, undergo independent scientific review for transparency, completeness, and quality, and reflect the best available science and the weight of available evidence. The requirement is to consider them, not automatically adopt their conclusions.
For purposes of supplementing a covered assessment, the steering committee shall consider any third-party assessment of a chemical substance generated by another Federal, State, or international agency or agencies or members of the scientific community that meets the requirements specified in subsection (e).
The requirements specified in this subsection with respect to a third-party assessment of a chemical substance are that the assessment— (1) is conducted using scientific standards specified in section 7B; (2) has undergone independent scientific review for transparency, completeness, and quality; and (3) reflects the best available science and the weight of the available scientific evidence.
Covered assessments, committee discussions of them, and reviews of outside assessments would have to use scientific information and methods consistently with the best available science. Program offices would have to integrate all lines of scientific evidence and consider, where applicable, whether the methods fit their intended use and whether the information is relevant to the chemical decision.
Covered assessments carried out under section 7 and discussion of such assessments and review of third-party assessments carried out under section 7A shall be conducted using scientific information, technical procedures, measures, methods, protocols, methodologies, or models in a manner consistent with the best available science. In carrying out such an assessment, the relevant program office shall integrate all lines of scientific evidence and consider, as applicable, the following:
(1) The extent to which the scientific information, technical procedures, measures, methods, protocols, methodologies, or models employed to generate the scientific information are reasonable for and consistent with the intended use of the scientific information. (2) The extent to which the scientific information is relevant for the relevant program office’s use in making a decision regarding a chemical substance.
Where applicable, program offices would have to consider how clearly and completely the data, assumptions, methods, quality controls, and analyses are documented and publicly available. That consideration would include legal and ethical duties to reduce unauthorized disclosure and the risk of identifying people from data. Offices would also consider how variability and uncertainty are evaluated and described.
In carrying out such an assessment, the relevant program office shall integrate all lines of scientific evidence and consider, as applicable, the following:
(3) The degree of clarity and completeness with which the data, assumptions, methods, quality assurance, and analyses employed to generate the scientific information are documented and publicly available in a manner that honors legal and ethical obligations to reduce the risks of unauthorized disclosure and re-identification. (4) The extent to which the variability and uncertainty in the scientific information, or in the procedures, measures, methods, protocols, methodologies, or models, are evaluated and characterized.
Where applicable, program offices would also have to consider independent verification or expert review, whether scientific results can be repeated or reproduced, and how much the available information supports non-linear dose-response models—models in which risk does not necessarily change in direct proportion to exposure. The text makes support for such modeling a factor to consider, rather than an unconditional requirement to use it.
In carrying out such an assessment, the relevant program office shall integrate all lines of scientific evidence and consider, as applicable, the following:
(5) The extent of independent verification or peer review of the scientific information or of the procedures, measures, methods, protocols, methodologies, or models. (6) The ability of the scientific findings and research to be replicated or reproduced. (7) The extent to which the available scientific information supports dose-response modeling, using non-linear approaches.
The supplied official-actions snapshot, updated February 3, 2025, records introduction in the House on January 3, 2025, and referral that day to the House Science, Space, and Technology and Energy and Commerce committees for provisions within their respective jurisdictions. This snapshot does not establish the bill's later status.
Source snapshot updated 2025-02-03T17:29:11Z.
2025-01-03: Introduced in House
2025-01-03: Referred to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2025-01-03. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No provision unrelated to the bill's main subject was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish the contents or attachment history of other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for a particular recipient or place was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version; formal earmark status and accompanying materials are not established by this source set.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow carve-out, special exemption, or preferential treatment was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Feb 3, 2025. How PlainBill uses AI