PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Sep 29, 1995
(Sec. 1) Amends the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 to modify notice requirements regarding releases of extremely hazardous substances (or releases of other substances subject to Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) notification requirements) to require notification by the owner or operator of the facility at which the chemical is produced, used, or stored to emergency planning officials within one hour of having knowledge (under current law, "immediately") that a release has occurred. Permits an exception to the one hour requirement in the event of unusual or extenuating circumstances. Allows such notice to be given (in addition to the community emergency coordinator and State emergency planning commission, as under current law) to a State agency authorized by State law to receive the notification and requires such an agency to then notify the State emergency response commission within two hours. (Sec. 2) Amends CERCLA to modify notice requirements regarding releases of hazardous substances to require notification by the person in charge of the vessel or facility within one hour of having knowledge of the release (under current law, "as soon as he has knowledge"). Allows such notice to be given (in addition to the National Response Center established under the Clean Water Act, as under current law) to the State emergency response commission or a State agency authorized by State law to receive the notification. Requires the National Response Center to convey the notification to all appropriate government agencies within two hours and provides a similar time period for notification of the Center or both the Center and the commission if first received by the emergency response commission or the authorized State agency, respectively. Allows an exception to the one hour requirement similar to the one provided by the right-to-know amendments of this Act. Revises penalties for failure to notify to conform with this Act's amendments.
People & committees
Rep. Minge, David [D-MN-2] · D–MN
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Hazardous Materials.
Referred to the Committee on 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 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 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
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Jan 2, 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.2440 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.2440 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.2440 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.2440 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.