PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Dec 16, 2009
Decabromine Elimination and Control Act of 2009 - Makes it unlawful, beginning January 1, 2013, to produce for distribution in commerce, distribute in commerce, import, or export decabromodiphenyl ether, CAS No. 1163-19-5, either pure or in commercial mixtures which are predominantly decabromodiphenyl ether (decaBDE) or decaBDE mixtures or products. Phases in such ban through a series of annual quotas through 2012.
Requires each entity that engaged in such decaBDE activities during 2009 to report on them, including the amount of decaBDE and decaBDE mixtures used, and to then report annually.
Requires an entity that engages in decaBDE activities to: (1) disclose to any entity that receives decaBDE, decaBDE mixtures, or decaBDE products that these contain decaBDE; and (2) disclose to the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) any articles that contain decaBDE.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Applies to violations of this Act the enforcement procedures applicable to violations of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Allows citizens' civil actions to restrain violations.
Provides exceptions from the restrictions imposed by this Act relating to critical uses, recycled articles, resale, and low-concentration articles.
States as policy that decaBDE shall be replaced by safer alternatives and prohibits use of any alternative determined to contain a chemical substance that is a persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic chemical. Directs the Administrator to: (1) require any entity that produces a chemical substance that is a substitute for decaBDE to provide all existing information about the hazard and exposure characteristics of the chemical substance that is known to, in the possession or control of, or reasonably ascertainable by the entity and that has not previously been submitted; and (2) require any such entity to notify the Administrator at least 90 days before new or existing chemicals are introduced into interstate commerce for significant new uses as decaBDE substitutes.
People & committees
Rep. Pingree, Chellie [D-ME-1] · D–ME
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 Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Trade.
Referred to House Ways and Means
Referred to House Foreign Affairs
Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on Foreign Affairs, and Ways and Means, 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 House 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 14, 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.4394 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.4394 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.4394 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.4394 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.