Sponsors
Need the quick take? I'll walk you through this bill.
This is not an official government website.
Copyright © 2026 PLEJ LC. All rights reserved.
Replaces the prior statutory text to direct how EPA program offices manage and carry out chemical research and assessments. It shifts responsibility for some IRIS assessments into program offices, requires research funding to be coordinated with program priorities, creates a steering committee and a central chemical-assessment database, and sets scientific standards, reporting requirements, and timelines for implementation and oversight. The section also defines key terms, sets procedures to avoid duplicate or inconsistent assessments, requires biennial certification reporting, and establishes deadlines for forming the new steering committee and beginning the new processes. The changes aim to align toxicity values and assessments more closely with program needs while adding new management and documentation requirements across EPA and its research partners.
Amend the Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1978 by striking section 7 (42 U.S.C. 4364) and inserting new sections (7, 7A, 7B) titled to address research needs and priorities of EPA program offices.
The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency must assure that expenditure of any funds appropriated under this Act or any other law for environmental research and development related to regulatory program activities is coordinated with and reflects the research needs and priorities of the relevant EPA program offices and the Agency’s overall research priorities, including those in the five-year research plan.
Beginning on the date of enactment, covered assessments that as of the day before enactment were carried out through the IRIS program shall instead be carried out by the relevant EPA program office if that office determines there is a need for the assessment.
Covered assessments carried out by relevant program offices must be conducted using the scientific standards specified in section 7B and be based on the weight of the scientific evidence.
When carrying out a covered assessment, the relevant program office shall assign a toxicity value or values for the chemical substance when scientifically supported by available data.
Who is affected and how:
EPA program offices: They gain increased responsibility and authority for directing chemical research and for managing or hosting certain assessments formerly handled centrally; they must allocate staff time and administrative capacity to integrate, review, and use toxicity values and to coordinate funding. That may improve relevance of assessments for regulatory actions but increases workload and coordination tasks.
IRIS program staff and centralized assessment units: Some assessment tasks, oversight roles, or assessment ownership may move to program offices, requiring internal reorganization, handoffs, or redefined workflows. Centralized IRIS staff may shift to advisory, quality-review, or support roles.
Researchers and grantees (academic, federal, and contractor researchers): Research priorities and funding decisions will be more closely tied to program office needs. Project proposals and funded work may need to demonstrate linkage to program priorities and the central database standards; reporting and data submission requirements may increase.
Chemical manufacturers, distributors, and regulated industry: Regulatory endpoints (toxicity values) and the timing or focus of assessments that underpin regulatory decisions could change in pace or emphasis, affecting compliance planning, product reviews, and permitting timelines.
Public-health agencies, state regulators, and communities: State and local public-health agencies and community stakeholders that rely on EPA toxicity values and assessments will use the new central database and program-derived values; the changes could speed delivery of program-relevant values but also risk variability if program offices adopt different assessment emphases.
Potential benefits and risks:
Benefits: Better alignment of assessments with program needs; fewer duplicated or inconsistent assessments; clearer documentation via a central database; potential for faster availability of program-relevant toxicity values.
Risks and tradeoffs: Increased administrative and coordination burdens across EPA; potential for fragmentation if program offices diverge in methods or priorities; risk that program-led assessments reflect policy priorities rather than consistent, cross-program scientific standards unless the established standards and steering committee effectively enforce uniformity.
Operational implications: EPA will need to stand up the steering committee, set up and populate the central database, update grant and contract guidance, and implement new reporting and certification cycles — all of which require staff time, IT support, and transitional planning.
Expand sections to see detailed analysis
Referred to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 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 January 3, 2025 by Andrew S. Biggs · Last progress January 3, 2025
Referred to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 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