PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Mar 30, 2004
Toxic Flame Retardant Prohibition Act - Amends the Toxic Substances Control Act to prohibit the manufacture, processing, or distribution in commerce of a product, or a flame-retarded part of a product, containing more than one percent of pentabrominated diphenyl ethers or octabrominated diphenyl ethers by mass.
Requires the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to: (1) determine whether pentabrominated diphenyl ethers or octabrominated diphenyl ethers are formed in the environment as the result of chemical degradation of other materials and to identify any such precursors; (2) take appropriate action to ensure that products and processes that introduce identified precursors into the environment are phased out within three years of enactment of this Act, unless doing so would endanger human health and the environment; and (3) issue regulations requiring any product containing pentabrominated diphenyl ethers, octabrominated diphenyl ethers, or decabrominated diphenyl ethers that is manufactured 18 months or more after enactment of this Act to bear a label that meets specified requirements.
People & committees
Rep. Solis, Hilda L. [D-CA-32] · D–CA
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 Environment and Hazardous Materials.
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
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: Aug 18, 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.4076 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.4076 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.4076 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.4076 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.