PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 182.
Congressional Research Service
Version 18 · Reported to House amended, Part I · Jul 30, 2013
Federal and State Partnership for Environmental Protection Act of 2013 - (Sec. 2) Amends the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) to require the President to consult with affected states: (1) in undertaking a removal action concerning hazardous substances, pollutants, and contaminants (substances); and (2) during (currently, before) the process of selecting any appropriate remedial action.
Requires the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and each federal entity responsible for federal facility compliance to consult with state and local officials and provide them the opportunity to participate in the planning and selection of a remedial action with respect to such a facility. Requires a determination made by state or local officials to not participate in such action to be documented in the administrative record regarding the action.
(Sec. 3) Requires the President to grant states credit for the share of costs with respect to a facility listed on the National Priorities List under the National Contingency Plan for amounts expended for removal at such facility of such substances in addition to the credits currently given for remedial actions. Authorizes credit to be given for oversight costs and in-kind expenditures.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
(Sec. 4) Requires the President, upon the request of a state, to provide to such state the basis for not including a priority among releases of such substances on the revised national list. Prohibits the President from adding a facility to the national list over the written objection of the state, unless:
the state, as an owner or operator or a significant contributor of hazardous substances to the facility, is a potentially responsible party;
the President determines that the contamination has migrated across a state boundary, resulting in the need for response actions in multiple states; or
the criteria under the national contingency plan for issuance of a health advisory have been met.
Removes provisions concerning the 100 highest priority facilities. Authorizes states to designate a facility to the national list no more than once every five years.
Includes, as a minimum requirement in regulations that provide for involvement by each state in remedial actions, state concurrence in adding sites to the National Priorities List.
(Sec. 5) Requires remedial actions to meet any state environmental covenant law or state law or regulation requiring the use of engineering control or land use control if they are more stringent than federal requirements.
People & committees
Rep. Johnson, Bill [R-OH-6] · R–OH
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 182.
Committee on Transportation discharged.
Committee on Transportation discharged.
Provisions of this measure incorporated into H.R. 2279.
House Committee on Transportation Granted an extension for further consideration ending not later than Nov. 1, 2013.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. H. Rept. 113-178, Part I.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. H. Rept. 113-178, Part I.
Ordered to be Reported by the Yeas and Nays: 27 - 19.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee by the Yeas and Nays: 11 - 7 .
Referred to the Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 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 Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 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
Hearings Held by the Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy Prior to Introduction and Referral.
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Apr 7, 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.2226 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.2226 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.2226 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.2226 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.