Referred to the Subcommittee on Health and the Environment.
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Aug 6, 1993
Risk Communication Act of 1993 - Requires the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to apply the following principles when preparing risk assessments to assure that such assessments are scientifically objective and inclusive of all relevant data: (1) explicitly distinguish scientific findings in such assessments from other considerations affecting the design and choice of regulatory strategies; (2) consider and discuss both negative and positive laboratory or epidemiological data when presenting assessments of human health risks; and (3) where the assessment process involves selection of any significant assumption, inference, or model: present a representative list and explanation of plausible and alternative assumptions, inferences, or models; explain the basis for any choices; and identify policy or value judgments. Directs the Administrator, in characterizing risk in any risk assessment document, regulatory proposal or decision, report to the Congress, or other document made available to the public, to: (1) characterize the populations or natural resources at risk; (2) explain the range of exposure scenarios used in the assessment and provide a statement of the size of the corresponding population at risk and the likelihood of the exposure scenarios; (3) provide appropriate comparisons with estimates of other risks; (4) include a statement of any known and significant substitution risks when a risk assessment or characterization for proposed and final regulatory actions is provided; and (5) present the summary of results of an assessment provided by a commenter in any case in which a public commment period is provided with respect to an assessment or regulation. Requires the Administrator to: (1) issue guidance consistent with the risk assessment principles of this Act and to provide a format for summarizing assessment results; (2) publish a plan to review and revise risk assessments with respect to which new information or methodologies that could significantly alter assessment results become available; and (3) report to the Congress on policy and value judgments which are made in risk assessments for programs under the Toxic Substances Control Act and the effect such judgments have on the regulatory decisions of such programs.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Jun 3, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Explore the bill from different angles
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.
Neutral evidence review
Objective
Analyze H.R.2910 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.
View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact
Progressive lens
Examine H.R.2910 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.
View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope
Conservative lens
Examine H.R.2910 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.
View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power
Liberty lens
Examine H.R.2910 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.