Action Alert: Lawmakers Unveil Defense Authorization Conference Report
December 4, 2020
House and Senate negotiators late yesterday unveiled a conference report for the defense authorization bill that includes a number of PFAS-related provisions and language that would prohibit airports from using AIP funds to purchase boarding bridges from foreign companies that violate intellectual property rights of the United States.
The House is planning to consider the bipartisan National Defense Authorization Act next week. However, the measure is not without controversy. The President has threatened to veto the $740 billion defense bill because it would not repeal Section 230 of Communications Decency Act, which provides liability protection to social media companies.
PFAS-Related Provisions
Prize to Develop Florine-Free Firefighting Foam: The bill includes a House-passed provision that would 'create a prize program to incentivize innovation in development of a fire-fighting agent not containing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances.'
Phasing Out Fluorinated Firefighting Foam: The measure would 'require the Department of Defense to survey non-firefighting agent technologies that could facilitate execution of the required 2024 phase-out of fluorinated aqueous film-forming foam.'
Interagency Research: The bill calls for the Office of Science and Technology Policy to establish an interagency working group to coordinate Federal research and development activities related to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances.'
Procurement Ban: The bill includes a House-passed provision that would 'prohibit the Director of the Defense Logistics Agency from procuring certain items containing per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances' a year after the bill is enacted law.
Research and Development of Fluorine-Free Foam: The bill would 'require the Secretary of Defense, acting through the National Institute of Standards and Technology and in consultation with other stakeholders and Federal agencies, to award grants and carry out other activities related to fluorine-free alternatives to aqueous film-forming foam.'
Notifications to Agriculture Operators Near National Guard and other Defense Facilities: The bill would require the Departments of Defense and Agriculture to notify any agricultural operation near a military installation or National Guard facility where PFAS has been detected in groundwater and is suspected to be the result of the use of PFAS at those facilities.
Funding for CDC Study: The bill would increase the authorization for the Centers for Diseases Control to study the health implications of PFAS in drinking water from $10 million to $15 million.
Firefighter Equipment Study: The bill would require the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Heath to study 'the use of PFAS chemicals in firefighting equipment and the risk of exposure faced by firefighters." It would also create "a grant program for additional research and improvements to firefighting equipment to reduce exposure to PFAS."
Other Provisions
Boarding Bridges: The bill would prohibit airports from using AIP funds to purchase passenger boarding bridges from companies that have violated intellectual property rights of the United States. The language is aimed at CIMC-Tianda, a Chinese company that manufactures boarding bridges.
Notable Proposals Excluded
Buy American: The bill does not include a House-passed provision that would have added aluminum to Buy American requirements for the Department of Defense, Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration, Federal Railroad Administration and Amtrak.
CONTRACT Act: The bill does not contain language that would have provided an incentive for retired federal air traffic controllers to continue working as controllers at contract tower airports and help reduce staffing challenges those airports are facing. However, separate freestanding bills in the House and Senate continue to have strong bipartisan support.
PFAS Action Act: The bill does not contain the PFAS Action Act – a separate bill that would have required EPA to designate PFOA and PFOS as hazardous materials under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act within one year. That bill also calls on the agency to consider designating other PFAS as hazardous materials within five years. Proponents were unsuccessful in their attempts to add the PFAS Action Act to the House version of the defense bill.
