59–006 

109TH CONGRESS REPT. 109–730 " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session Part 1 

ANTIFREEZE BITTERING ACT OF 2006 

DECEMBER 8, 2006.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State 

of the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. BARTON of Texas, from the Committee on Energy and 

Commerce, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 2567] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Energy and Commerce, to whom was referred 

the bill (H.R. 2567) to amend the Federal Hazardous Substances 

Act to require engine coolant and antifreeze to contain a bittering 

agent so as to render it unpalatable, having considered the same, 

report favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that 

the bill as amended do pass. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Amendment .............................................................................................................. 2 

Purpose and Summary ............................................................................................ 3 

Background and Need for Legislation .................................................................... 3 

Hearings ................................................................................................................... 4 

Committee Consideration ........................................................................................ 5 

Committee Votes ...................................................................................................... 5 

Committee Oversight Findings ............................................................................... 11 

Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives .................................... 11 

New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditures ............. 11 

Committee Cost Estimate ....................................................................................... 11 

Congressional Budget Office Estimate ................................................................... 11 

Federal Mandates Statement ................................................................................. 13 

Advisory Committee Statement .............................................................................. 13 

Constitutional Authority Statement ...................................................................... 13 

Applicability to Legislative Branch ........................................................................ 13 

Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation ...................................................... 13 

Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ..................................... 15 

Dissenting Views ..................................................................................................... 18 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMRPT
2 

AMENDMENT

The amendment is as follows: 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Antifreeze Bittering Act of 2006’’. 

SEC. 2. ADDITION OF BITTERING AGENT IN ANTIFREEZE REQUIRED. 

The Federal Hazardous Substances Act (15 U.S.C. 1261 et seq.) is amended by 

adding after section 24 (15 U.S.C. 1278) the following new section: 

‘‘SEC. 25. ADDITION OF BITTERING AGENT IN ANTIFREEZE REQUIRED. 

‘‘(a) BITTERING AGENT.— ‘‘(1) ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION REQUIRED.—

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of 

this section, the Consumer Product Safety Commission shall commence an 

evaluation, in cooperation with the Environmental Protection Agency and 

appropriate State health and environmental officials in those States that, 

as of the date of enactment of this section, have enacted laws requiring a 

bittering agent in engine coolant or antifreeze, to determine whether there 

is evidence that the use of the bittering agent denatonium benzoate in engine coolant or antifreeze has an unreasonable adverse effect on the environment. 

‘‘(B) CERTAIN TESTS PROHIBITED.—The evaluation required under subparagraph (A) may not include any new animal or human testing. 

‘‘(C) REQUIRED DATE OF COMPLETION.—The Commission shall complete 

the evaluation within 180 days after the date of enactment of this section 

and publish its findings in the Federal Register. 

‘‘(2) USE OF BITTERING AGENT.—

‘‘(A) GENERAL REQUIREMENT.—Unless the Commission, in its evaluation 

under paragraph (1), finds there is evidence of an unreasonable adverse effect on the environment, any engine coolant or antifreeze that is manufactured on or after the date that is 180 days after the date of publication of 

the Commission’s finding in the Federal Register pursuant to paragraph 

(1)(C), and that contains more than 10 percent ethylene glycol, shall include 

not less than 30 parts per million, and not more than 50 parts per million, 

denatonium benzoate as a bittering agent in order to render the coolant or 

antifreeze unpalatable. 

‘‘(B) ALTERNATIVE AGENT.—If the inclusion of denatonium benzoate in engine coolant or antifreeze is required under subparagraph (A) and the Commission finds that—

‘‘(i) an alternative bittering agent is as effective as denatonium benzoate in rendering coolant or antifreeze unpalatable in terms of both 

its bittering capacity and its compatibility with motor vehicle engine 

coolant and antifreeze, and 

‘‘(ii) in cooperation with the Environmental Protection Agency, there 

is no evidence that the use of the alternative bittering agent has an unreasonable adverse effect on the environment, 

the Commission may initiate a rulemaking to permit the use of the alternative bittering agent in lieu of denatonium benzoate. 

‘‘(3) UNREASONABLE ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT DEFINED.—As 

used in this subsection, the term ‘unreasonable adverse effect on the environment’ means an unreasonable risk to human health or the environment, taking 

into account the economic, social, and environmental costs and benefits. 

‘‘(4) FAILURE TO COMPLY.—Any engine coolant or antifreeze that is required 

to contain a bittering agent under paragraph (2) that is not in compliance with 

that paragraph shall be considered to be a banned hazardous substance within 

the meaning of section 2(q) (15 U.S.C. 1261(q)), and shall be subject to the penalties provided for in section 5 (15 U.S.C. 1264). 

‘‘(b) RECORD KEEPING.—

‘‘(1) NAME AND ACTIVE INGREDIENT.—A manufacturer of an engine coolant or 

antifreeze that is required to contain a bittering agent under subsection (a) 

shall maintain a record of the trade name, scientific name, and any active ingredients of a bittering agent used in compliance with such subsection. 

‘‘(2) AVAILABILITY TO THE PUBLIC.—Any record maintained under paragraph 

(1) shall be made available to the public on receipt by the manufacturer of a 

request from any person. 

‘‘(c) LIMITATION OF LIABILITY.—


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMRPT
3 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraph (2), a manufacturer, processor, distributor, recycler, or seller of an engine coolant or antifreeze that is required 

to contain a bittering agent under subsection (a) shall not be liable to a person 

for any personal injury, death, property damage, damage to the environment 

(including natural resources), or economic loss that results from the inclusion 

in the engine coolant or antifreeze of the bittering agent, provided that the 

bittering agent is present in concentrations mandated by subsection (a)(2)(A) or 

permitted pursuant to a rulemaking under subsection (a)(2)(B). 

‘‘(2) EXCEPTION.—Paragraph (1) shall not apply in any case in which a cause 

of liability referred to in that paragraph is unrelated to the inclusion in an engine coolant or antifreeze of the bittering agent as required by subsection (a). 

Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to exempt any manufacturer or 

distributor of denatonium benzoate, or an alternative bittering agent the use of 

which is required or permitted under subsection (a)(2), from any liability related 

to denatonium benzoate or the alternative bittering agent. 

‘‘(d) PREEMPTION.—No State or political subdivision of a State shall establish or 

continue to enforce with respect to retail containers containing less than 55 gallons 

of engine coolant or antifreeze any prohibition, limitation, standard or other requirement relating to the inclusion of a bittering agent in engine coolant or antifreeze 

that is different from, or in addition to, the requirements of this section. 

‘‘(e) EXEMPTION.—This section shall not be construed to apply to—

‘‘(1) the sale of a motor vehicle that contains engine coolant or antifreeze; or 

‘‘(2) a wholesale container of engine coolant or antifreeze that contains 55 gallons or more of engine coolant or antifreeze.’’. 

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

The purpose of the Antifreeze Bittering Act of 2005 is to reduce 

the number of exposures of people and animals to ethylene glycolbased engine coolant and antifreeze products through the addition 

of denatonium benzoate, or other suitable bittering agents. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

Increasing concerns are being raised about the health effects of 

ingestion of antifreeze, particularly by pets and small children. 

Dogs and cats find antifreeze sweet tasting and, if not deterred, are 

prone to consume it. Ethylene glycol is the primary active ingredient in many engine coolant and antifreeze products sold to consumers. According to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease 

Registry, ethylene glycol can damage the kidneys, heart, and nervous system of humans. In addition, the Washington State University College of Veterinary Medicine states on its website that about 

five tablespoons can kill a medium-sized dog and that treatment for 

antifreeze exposure and poisoning needs to be started as soon as 

possible after ingestion to be effective. 

Notwithstanding Federal packaging requirements for retail sales 

of antifreeze and engine coolant, the 2003 Toxic Exposure Surveillance System (TESS) report of the American Association of Poison 

Control Centers (AAPCC) stated that it recorded 5,081 cases of persons who had been exposed to the poison, ethylene glycol. The following year (2004), the AAPCC TESS report showed an increase in 

total ethylene glycol exposure cases to 5,562. Of note, the 2004 figures bore out a 12 percent increase (from 592 to 672) in the number of reported cases for children under the age of 6 and growth 

in the number of cases yielding a ‘‘moderate’’ or ‘‘major’’ health outcome—from 9.2 percent of all reported cases to 11.5 percent. There 

was also an increase from 16 to 23 reported cases of intentional exposures between 2003 and 2004 resulting in death, 18 of which 

were intentional adult suicides. These statistics regarding an increase in adult deaths and the increase in number of reported cases 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMRPT
4 

for children under the age of 6 stand in contrast to the AAPCC 

data-base numbers from 1985–2002, where there were both no 

deaths of patients reported under the age of 12 years or no deaths 

reported from unintentional exposures. While the Committee is 

concerned about the poisoning of any child, regardless of whether 

it results in death, it is not aware of any reported deaths from exposure to ethylene glycol from 2003–2004. The Washington State 

University College of Veterinary Medicine has also found that approximately 10,000 dogs and cats are exposed to antifreeze or engine coolant each year. 

In order to deter children and pets from ingesting unhealthy 

quantities of ethylene glycol-based antifreeze or engine coolant, 

three States have enacted laws to require the inclusion of a 

bittering agent. Currently, California, Oregon, and New Mexico 

have adopted legal requirements that certain automotive products—particularly consumer sales of ethylene glycol-based antifreeze and engine coolants—contain prescribed levels of aversive 

agents/bitterants. With a number of other States and some localities contemplating legislation of this nature, there is a concern 

that inconsistent State laws would force antifreeze or engine coolant manufacturers into creating several different formulations, 

thereby affecting the production and flow in interstate commerce of 

engine coolant and antifreeze products. This legislation would set 

forth one national standard for the production of embittered engine 

coolant and antifreeze products. 

H.R. 2567 amends the Federal Hazardous Substances Act 

(FHSA) (15 U.S.C. 1261–1278), under which the Consumer Product 

Safety Commission (CPSC) has the authority to regulate engine 

coolant and antifreeze and require that a bittering agent, either 

denatonium benzoate (DB) or another similarly effective substance, 

be added to antifreeze and thereby reduce the possibility that a 

child or animal is enticed to accidentally ingest an unsafe—and potentially fatal—amount of antifreeze. 

According to the California Institute of Technology’s Center for 

Science and Engineering of Materials, DB is recognized as the 

bitterest substance known. Minute quantities of DB can render 

household, garden, or automotive products unpalatable, deterring 

ingestion by children and animals. While testing has determined 

that DB is aversively bitter at 1 to 10 parts per million (ppm) in 

water, most consumer products become bitter at 30 to 100 ppm. 

This aversive method also has been used to deter ingestion of a 

multitude of other consumer products, including deer repellant, 

nail polish, household cleaners, paints, windshield washing fluid, 

and to coat electrical cables. 

HEARINGS

The Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials 

held a hearing on H.R. 2567, the Antifreeze Bittering Act of 2005 

on May 23, 2006. The Subcommittee received testimony from: the 

Honorable Gary Ackerman, Member, U.S. House of Representatives; Mr. Jim Willis, Division Director, Chemical Control Division 

Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxic Substances, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Mr. Jeffrey Bye, Vice President, Prestone, Honeywell International, Inc., on behalf of Consumer Specialty Products Association; Mr. Patrice L. Simms, Senior Project 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMRPT
5 

Attorney, Natural Resources Defense Council; Ms. Sarah 

Amundson, Deputy and Legislative Director, Doris Day Animal 

League; Dr. Melinda Eyrich, Co-owner, Urgent Care Veterinary 

Hospital, Albuquerque, NM; and Mr. Tom Bonacquisti, Director of 

Water Quality and Production, Fairfax County Water Authority on 

behalf of the American Water Works Association. 

COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

On Wednesday, July 12, 2006, the Committee on Energy and 

Commerce met in open markup session and ordered H.R. 2567 favorably reported to the House, amended, by a record vote of 30 

yeas and 15 nays, a quorum being present. 

COMMITTEE VOTES

Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires the Committee to list the record votes on the motion 

to report legislation and amendments thereto. The following are 

the recorded votes taken on amendments offered to the measure, 

including the names of those Members voting for and against. A 

motion by Mr. Barton to order H.R. 2567 favorably reported to the 

House, amended, was agreed to by a record vote of 30 yeas and 15 

nays. 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMRPT
6 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMRPTInsert offset folio 8 here HR730.001
7 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMRPTInsert offset folio 9 here HR730.002
8 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMRPTInsert offset folio 10 here HR730.003
9 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMRPTInsert offset folio 11 here HR730.004
10 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMRPTInsert offset folio 12 here HR730.005
11 

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials held a legislative hearing and made findings that 

are reflected in this report. 

STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

The objective of H.R. 2567 is to require engine coolant and antifreeze to contain a bittering agent so as to render it unpalatable. 

NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY, ENTITLEMENT AUTHORITY, AND TAX

EXPENDITURES

In compliance with clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee finds that H.R. 2567, the 

Antifreeze Bittering Act of 2005, would result in no new or increased budget authority, entitlement authority, or tax expenditures or revenues. 

COMMITTEE COST ESTIMATE

The Committee adopts as its own the cost estimate prepared by 

the Director of the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 

402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE ESTIMATE

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the following is the cost estimate provided by 

the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 402 of the 

Congressional Budget Act of 1974: 

U.S. CONGRESS, 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, 

Washington, DC, July 27, 2006. 

Hon. JOE BARTON, 

Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 2567, the Antifreeze 

Bittering Agent Act of 2006. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Geoffrey Gerhardt. 

Sincerely, 

DONALD B. MARRON, Acting Director. 

Enclosure. 

H.R. 2567—Antifreeze Bittering Agent Act of 2006 

H.R. 2567 would direct the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to issue regulations requiring the use of a bittering 

agent in antifreeze and other engine coolants. The purpose of the 

bittering agent would be to make antifreeze unpalatable to humans 

and animals. Prior to issuing its regulations, the CPSC would be 

required to conduct an environmental impact evaluation in conVerDate Aug 31 2005 02:40 Dec 16, 2006 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR730P1.XXX HR730P1

hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMRPT
12 

junction with the Environmental Protection Agency. The bill would 

require the CPSC to ensure that manufacturers comply with the 

new regulations and maintain compliance records. Based on information provided by the CPSC, CBO estimates that implementing 

H.R. 2567 would cost less than $500,000 annually, subject to the 

availability of appropriated funds. 

The legislation would preempt state laws that require the addition of bittering agents in antifreeze and would establish a uniform 

federal standard. The bill also would limit liability claims associated with the addition of bittering agents to antifreeze. The preemption and the limitation on liability would be intergovernmental 

mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA). 

Although the preemption would limit the application of state law, 

it would not impose a duty on states that would require additional 

spending. The liability protection would be narrow in scope—providing protection primarily to manufacturers and other entities involved in distributing antifreeze that includes a bittering agent. 

CBO is unaware of any current or pending case that would be affected by the bill; consequently, we estimate that the costs of the 

mandates would be small and would not exceed the threshold established in UMRA ($64 million in 2006, adjusted annually for inflation). 

H.R. 2567 contains private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA 

on manufacturers of engine coolant and antifreeze that distribute 

their products to be sold by retail businesses. In the event that the 

CPSC finds evidence that the use of the bittering agent 

denatonium benzoate (or a comparable alternative) has no ‘‘unreasonable adverse effect on the environment,’’ those manufacturers 

would be required to: • Add denatonium benzoate to their product mixtures that 

are comprised of more than 10 percent ethylene glycol; and • Keep detailed records of any bittering agents used in their 

products. 

As noted above, the bill also would limit liability claims associated with the addition of bittering agents to antifreeze. CBO estimates that the aggregate direct costs of complying with those mandates would be minimal compared to the annual threshold established by UMRA for private-sector mandates ($128 million in 2006, 

adjusted annually for inflation). 

Under H.R. 2567, if the CPSC determines that the use of the 

bittering agent in engine coolant or antifreeze would have no adverse effects on the environment, coolant and antifreeze manufacturers would be required to add the agent to certain product mixtures. The bill would exempt coolant and antifreeze distributed to 

original manufacturers (such as motor vehicle manufacturers) and 

garages that purchase wholesale engine coolant or antifreeze for 

purposes other than retail sales. According to industry sources, 

about 160 million gallons of coolant and antifreeze are sold in the 

U.S. retail market each year. Industry and government sources indicate that adding the bittering agent to product mixtures would 

cost manufacturers less than $0.03 per gallon of coolant or antifreeze. Furthermore, the industry expects to incur some costs associated with upgrades necessary for storing denatonium benzoate at 

manufacturing plants. Industry sources estimate such costs fall beVerDate Aug 31 2005 02:40 Dec 16, 2006 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR730P1.XXX HR730P1

hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMRPT
13 

tween $50,000 and $70,000 per plant. Based on those data, CBO 

estimates that the costs associated with this mandate would not 

exceed $6 million per year. 

Also, contingent upon CPSC’s determination, coolant and antifreeze manufacturers would be required to record the trade name, 

scientific name, and any active ingredient of any bittering agent 

used in product mixtures. The bill also would require manufacturers to make those records available to the public. Since manufacturers would already have such information, CBO expects the costs 

associated with such record keeping to be minimal. 

On December 14, 2005, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for S. 

1110, the Engine Coolant and Antifreeze Bittering Agent Act of 

2005, as ordered reported by the Senate Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation on November 17, 2005. The mandates 

contained in H.R. 2567 are identical to those in S. 1110. 

The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Geoffrey Gerhardt 

(for federal costs), Leo Lex (for the state and local impact), and 

Craig Cammarata (for the private-sector impact). This estimate 

was approved by Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for 

Budget Analysis. 

FEDERAL MANDATES STATEMENT

The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of Federal mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office 

pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. 

ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT

No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b) of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by this legislation. 

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the Committee finds that the Constitutional authority for this legislation is provided in Article I, section 8, clause 

3, which grants Congress the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among the several States, and with the Indian tribes. 

APPLICABILITY TO LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to the 

terms and conditions of employment or access to public services or 

accommodations within the meaning of section 102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF THE LEGISLATION

Section 1. Short title 

Section 1 sets forth the short title of the bill as the ‘‘Engine Coolant and Antifreeze Bittering Agent Act of 2005.’’

Section 2. Addition of bittering agent in antifreeze 

Section 2 amends the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA) 

by adding a new Section 25 to FHSA establishing a national standard for the production and distribution of engine coolant and antiVerDate Aug 31 2005 02:40 Dec 16, 2006 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR730P1.XXX HR730P1

hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMRPT
14 

freeze products by requiring the addition of a bittering agent, subject to Section 25(a)(1)(A–C). 

Section 25. Addition of bittering agent in antifreeze required 

New Section 25(a)(1)(A–C) requires the CPSC, in cooperation 

with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and State 

and local officials in States that have already enacted an antifreeze 

or engine coolant bitterant requirement, to evaluate whether evidence exists of any unreasonable adverse effect on the environment 

resulting from the addition of denatonium benzoate in engine coolant and antifreeze products. In addition, new Section 25(a)(1)(C) 

prohibits the use of new animal or human testing studies to be 

used as part of the evaluations required under this paragraph. 

New Section 25(a)(2)(A) requires all antifreeze products containing more than 10 percent ethylene glycol to have a chemical 

concentration of at least 30–50 parts per million of the bittering 

agent denatonium benzoate. The 10 percent threshold covers all 

off-the-shelf, retail antifreeze products made with ethylene glycol. 

New Section 25(a)(2)(B) allows for additional bittering agents to 

enter the market if the CPSC decides, through a rulemaking, that 

an alternative additive is as effective as denatonium benzoate and 

does not present an unreasonable adverse effect to the environment. 

New Section 25(a)(3) defines ‘‘unreasonable adverse effect’’ as 

that which poses an unreasonable risk to human health or the environment, after taking into account economic, social, and environmental costs and benefits. 

New Section 25(a)(4) establishes that any antifreeze product 

manufactured without denatonium benzoate, or an approved alternative, be considered a banned hazardous substance. The CPSC 

would have the authority to impose penalties on manufacturers of 

antifreeze that fail to add the bittering agent. If the omission is 

purposeful, or a repeat offense, the CPSC could fine a manufacturer up to $500,000 when a human death occurs, under current 

regulations. 

New Section 25(b) requires antifreeze manufacturers to maintain 

a record, available to the public upon request, of the antifreeze 

product trade name, a record of the scientific name (ethylene glycol), and a compilation of any active ingredients of the relevant 

bittering agent (denatonium benzoate). 

New Section 25(c) assigns liability to manufacturers, processors, 

distributors, recyclers, or sellers of engine coolant and antifreeze 

products, manufacturers and distributors of denatonium benzoate, 

and manufacturers and distributors of any alternative bittering 

agent. It would assign liability based upon which product, i.e., antifreeze, or bittering agent, is proven to have caused personal injury, 

death, property damage, damage to the environment (including 

natural resources), or economic loss. If the injury, death, damage, 

or loss stems from the inclusion of a bittering agent in an engine 

coolant or antifreeze product, the manufacturer, processor, distributor, recycler, or seller of the engine coolant or antifreeze product would not be held liable. The bill would not afford any protection from liability to manufacturers and distributors of DB or alternative bittering agents. The liability protection for the antifreeze or 

coolant manufacturer does not attach unless and until the bittering 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMRPT
15 

agent is present in concentrations mandated by the Act, therefore 

injury or damage caused by mishandling of the bittering agent 

prior to or separate from being blended with the antifreeze or coolant is not limited. The assignment of liability established in the 

statute should not be construed to prevent or deter both manufacturers from being named as parties to a lawsuit. Each manufacturer remains wholly liable for its respective product of manufacture, and to the extent a court determines causation and liability 

for that respective product under State or Federal law. 

New Section 25(d) preempts all State or political subdivision 

statutes and regulations that prohibit, limit, standardize, or impose 

any requirement different from the Federal standard set forth by 

this Act. The Committee does not intend these preemption provisions to apply to any part or provision of a State law that addresses the inclusion of a bittering agent in any product other than engine coolant or antifreeze, especially if that State law requiring the 

bittering agent in another product also contains provisions directing the inclusion of a bittering agent in engine coolant or antifreeze. 

New Section 25(e) exempts sales of motor vehicles that contain 

engine coolant or antifreeze, or sales of wholesale containers of engine coolant or antifreeze containing more than 55 gallons of antifreeze, from the Federal standard imposed by this Act. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (new matter is printed in italic 

and existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in 

roman): 

FEDERAL HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES ACT 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 25. ADDITION OF BITTERING AGENT IN ANTIFREEZE REQUIRED. 

(a) BITTERING AGENT.— (1) ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION REQUIRED.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 30 days after the date 

of enactment of this section, the Consumer Product Safety 

Commission shall commence an evaluation, in cooperation 

with the Environmental Protection Agency and appropriate 

State health and environmental officials in those States 

that, as of the date of enactment of this section, have enacted laws requiring a bittering agent in engine coolant or 

antifreeze, to determine whether there is evidence that the 

use of the bittering agent denatonium benzoate in engine 

coolant or antifreeze has an unreasonable adverse effect on 

the environment. 

(B) CERTAIN TESTS PROHIBITED.—The evaluation required under subparagraph (A) may not include any new 

animal or human testing. 

(C) REQUIRED DATE OF COMPLETION.—The Commission 

shall complete the evaluation within 180 days after the 

date of enactment of this section and publish its findings 

in the Federal Register. 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMRPT
16 

(2) USE OF BITTERING AGENT.— (A) GENERAL REQUIREMENT.—Unless the Commission, in 

its evaluation under paragraph (1), finds there is evidence 

of an unreasonable adverse effect on the environment, any 

engine coolant or antifreeze that is manufactured on or 

after the date that is 180 days after the date of publication 

of the Commission’s finding in the Federal Register pursuant to paragraph (1)(C), and that contains more than 10 

percent ethylene glycol, shall include not less than 30 parts 

per million, and not more than 50 parts per million, 

denatonium benzoate as a bittering agent in order to render 

the coolant or antifreeze unpalatable. 

(B) ALTERNATIVE AGENT.—If the inclusion of denatonium 

benzoate in engine coolant or antifreeze is required under 

subparagraph (A) and the Commission finds that—

(i) an alternative bittering agent is as effective as 

denatonium benzoate in rendering coolant or antifreeze 

unpalatable in terms of both its bittering capacity and 

its compatibility with motor vehicle engine coolant and 

antifreeze, and 

(ii) in cooperation with the Environmental Protection 

Agency, there is no evidence that the use of the alternative bittering agent has an unreasonable adverse effect on the environment, 

the Commission may initiate a rulemaking to permit the 

use of the alternative bittering agent in lieu of denatonium 

benzoate. 

(3) UNREASONABLE ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT

DEFINED.—As used in this subsection, the term ‘‘unreasonable 

adverse effect on the environment’’ means an unreasonable risk 

to human health or the environment, taking into account the 

economic, social, and environmental costs and benefits. 

(4) FAILURE TO COMPLY.—Any engine coolant or antifreeze 

that is required to contain a bittering agent under paragraph 

(2) that is not in compliance with that paragraph shall be considered to be a banned hazardous substance within the meaning of section 2(q) (15 U.S.C. 1261(q)), and shall be subject to 

the penalties provided for in section 5 (15 U.S.C. 1264). 

(b) RECORD KEEPING.— (1) NAME AND ACTIVE INGREDIENT.—A manufacturer of an engine coolant or antifreeze that is required to contain a bittering 

agent under subsection (a) shall maintain a record of the trade 

name, scientific name, and any active ingredients of a bittering 

agent used in compliance with such subsection. 

(2) AVAILABILITY TO THE PUBLIC.—Any record maintained 

under paragraph (1) shall be made available to the public on 

receipt by the manufacturer of a request from any person. 

(c) LIMITATION OF LIABILITY.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraph (2), a manufacturer, 

processor, distributor, recycler, or seller of an engine coolant or 

antifreeze that is required to contain a bittering agent under 

subsection (a) shall not be liable to a person for any personal 

injury, death, property damage, damage to the environment (including natural resources), or economic loss that results from 

the inclusion in the engine coolant or antifreeze of the bittering 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMRPT
17 

agent, provided that the bittering agent is present in concentrations mandated by subsection (a)(2)(A) or permitted pursuant to 

a rulemaking under subsection (a)(2)(B). 

(2) EXCEPTION.—Paragraph (1) shall not apply in any case in 

which a cause of liability referred to in that paragraph is unrelated to the inclusion in an engine coolant or antifreeze of the 

bittering agent as required by subsection (a). Nothing in this 

subsection shall be construed to exempt any manufacturer or 

distributor of denatonium benzoate, or an alternative bittering 

agent the use of which is required or permitted under subsection (a)(2), from any liability related to denatonium benzoate 

or the alternative bittering agent. 

(d) PREEMPTION.—No State or political subdivision of a State 

shall establish or continue to enforce with respect to retail containers containing less than 55 gallons of engine coolant or antifreeze any prohibition, limitation, standard or other requirement relating to the inclusion of a bittering agent in engine coolant or antifreeze that is different from, or in addition to, the requirements of 

this section. 

(e) EXEMPTION.—This section shall not be construed to apply to—

(1) the sale of a motor vehicle that contains engine coolant or 

antifreeze; or 

(2) a wholesale container of engine coolant or antifreeze that 

contains 55 gallons or more of engine coolant or antifreeze. 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMRPT
(18) 

DISSENTING VIEWS OF THE HONORABLE JOHN D. DINGELL, HENRY A. WAXMAN, EDWARD J. MARKEY, 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, FRANK PALLONE, JR., ANNA G. 

ESHOO, BART STUPAK, GENE GREEN, DIANA DEGETTE, 

LOIS CAPS, TOM ALLEN, JAN SCHAKOWSKY, HILDA L. 

SOLIS, JAY INSLEE, AND TAMMY BALDWIN 

H.R. 2567, the ‘‘Antifreeze Bittering Act of 2005’’, as reported by 

the Committee on Energy and Commerce is a bill with a worthy 

goal, but a fundamentally flawed approach that puts drinking 

water supplies at risk, eliminates environmental liability (including 

Superfund), and preempts all existing and future State laws. 

Under the terms of the bill, Congress will be effectively mandating the use of a particular chemical bittering agent, denatonium 

benzoate, in all antifreeze manufactured and sold in any container 

smaller that 55 gallons. The Committee is taking this action in the 

absence of sound science showing this chemical is safe for the environment and public health and is effective and efficacious in preventing children and pets from ingesting antifreeze. 

While many questions remain about the environmental impact of 

this chemical, what we do know is very disturbing. We know that 

multiple studies by reputable companies, such as Roy F. Westin, 

Inc., have shown that denatonium benzoate does not biodegrade, 

that it would pass through publicly-owned treatment facilities, and 

could reasonably be expected to contaminate groundwater and 

make it bitter. 

One such study conducted for the Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Association concluded: 

* * * denatonium benzoate does not ‘‘stick’’ in the soil. 

Rather, it stays in and travels with the groundwater. 

Therefore, it is reasonable to expect contamination problems as the denatonium benzoate accumulates in the 

groundwater—the net result is that the groundwater may 

become bitter (and thus, well water in the area would potentially be unpotable). 

The American Water Works Association (AWWA), representing 

4,800 utilities and 57,000 drinking water professionals, testified on 

May 23, 2006, before the Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials that ‘‘we believe it is reasonable to expect contamination problems as DB [denatonium benzoate] accumulates in 

the groundwater supplies. Given the extreme bitter properties of 

DB, it appears that tiny amounts of the chemical could render 

drinking water supplies bitter and unpalatable.’’

The water utility industry also informed the Committee that 

taste and odor concerns are extremely important to drinking water 

utility customers. According to the U.S. distributor of DB, consumers would taste denatonium benzoate in water at levels of 1–


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMRPT
19 

10 parts per million (ppm), and according to AWWA, consumers 

would taste DB on the order of low part per billion levels, if not 

lower. 

The President of the Consumer Specialty Product Association, 

representing antifreeze manufacturers such as Honeywell, raised 

the same environmental concerns publicly in a letter to a New 

Mexico newspaper when he stated: 

Not only is the effectiveness of mandating the use of a 

bittering agent in antifreeze questionable, there are also 

concerns about the impact of denatonium on the environment. Independent scientific studies have determined that 

DB does not biodegrade and is not removed during the 

processes used to treat wastewater at publicly owned 

treatment facilities. If poured onto the ground, DB could 

contaminate ground water, potentially threatening public 

drinking water. (Letter from Chris Cathcart, President, 

Consumer Speciality Product Association, to Albuquerque 

Journal, July 28, 2004.) 

In the face of these credible and serious public health and environmental concerns, we strongly believe that the Committee should 

require the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to conduct a 

comprehensive toxicological, exposure, and risk evaluation of the 

bitterant denatonium benzoate and make a finding that it will not 

endanger public health or the environment before we mandate its 

use in antifreeze. Representative Solis offered this approach, but it 

was rejected by a vote of 27–17. 

The amendment offered by Representative Wilson and adopted 

by a vote of 26–13 that proponents claim provides for an environmental review actually stacks the deck in favor of mandating the 

one chemical, denatonium benzoate, as a bittering agent. It gives 

the final decision to the Consumer Product Safety Commission 

(CPSC), an agency with no environmental expertise, prohibits any 

new animal testing, does not allow for public comment or judicial 

review under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act, and places an 

unrealistic time frame of 180 days for the decision by the CPSC. 

Further, the regulatory standard that the CPSC must use (unreasonable risk to human health or the environment, taking into 

account the economic, social, and environmental costs and benefits) 

is similar to one EPA used in its failed attempt to regulate asbestos, a known carcinogen, after a 10-year rulemaking and a 100,000 

page record. 

Under the Democratic Substitute we would get the facts first, assure the American public that denatonium benzoate is safe, and 

only then require denatonium benzoate or another equally effective 

aversive agent in antifreeze. 

We find the opposition to this sensible and responsible approach 

surprising since it is exactly what the antifreeze industry recommended two years ago when they were opposing the mandating 

of denatonium benzoate in antifreeze. In a July 16, 2004, letter the 

Consumer Specialty Product Association said: 

* * * In addition we believe that any additional requirements for the inclusion of bitterants in antifreeze and 

other [automotive products/engine coolants] should be deVerDate Aug 31 2005 02:40 Dec 16, 2006 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR730P1.XXX HR730P1

hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMRPT
20 

ferred at least until such time as full toxicological, exposure and risk evaluations are publicly available for the 

bitterants themselves—both as discrete chemicals, and as 

incorporated into automotive products. Just as our members have developed scientific profiles of their automotive 

products, it is important both that comprehensive scientific 

assessments of the bitterants be performed, and that the 

complete results of those assessments be made to the producers of the automotive products, to government officials, 

and to the general public. This has not happened to date. 

(Letter dated July 16, 2004, from the Consumer Specialty 

Product Association to Macfarlan Smith Limited.) 

The antifreeze industry was so concerned about the environmental consequences of the bittering agent, denatonium benzoate, 

that they attempted to get information about its environmental 

fate, environmental toxicology, and mammalian toxicology from the 

foreign manufacturers. These attempts have been totally unsuccessful to date. 

The EPA has not performed any comprehensive evaluation and 

has extremely limited actual data about the chemical denatonium 

benzoate. At the Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous 

Materials hearing on May 23, 2006, the EPA witness testified that 

the EPA had ‘‘not actually done any testing,’’ ‘‘did not do a data call 

in,’’ had ‘‘no extensive database of toxicity or environmental fate information on DB,’’ had ‘‘not conducted a full risk assessment,’’ and 

had ‘‘not enough information for the agency to conduct a thorough 

human health or environmental assessment on this chemical.’’ In 

fact, at the Subcommittee’s hearing the EPA witness acknowledged 

that he was not aware of the myriad of scientific studies that the 

Consumer Specialty Products Association had submitted to the 

Congressional Research Service indicating serious environmental 

concerns that could lead to the pollution of drinking water supplies. 

In addition, the EPA could not guarantee that DB will not have 

harmful human health effects as the following exchange reflects: 

Mr. INSLEE. . . . can the Federal government guarantee 

that DB will not be harmful to human health in any manifestation? 

Mr. WILLIS. No, Congressman, we cannot make that 

guarantee. 

Mr. INSLEE. And why can’t you make that guarantee? 

Mr. WILLIS. Because we don’t have the test data for all 

possible endpoints, nor do we have the fate and exposure 

data that would allow us to do that sort of assessment. 

LIABILITY SHIELD

It appears that these serious environmental concerns, and absence of any comprehensive evaluation showing that denatonium 

benzoate is safe, is the reason that the antifreeze manufacturers 

have insisted on the sweeping legal immunity provision that would 

eliminate all environmental liability, including Superfund liability 

for the manufacturers, processors, distributors, recyclers, or sellers 

of antifreeze from the inclusion of the prescribed amount of 

denatonium benzoate. Under H.R. 2567 they would be immune 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMRPT
21 

from liability for the harm caused by denatonium benzoate even if 

the antifreeze spill was caused by their own negligence or gross 

negligence. This provision violates the ‘‘polluter pays’’ principle. 

This liability shield would also override State tort laws. Three 

States: Oregon, California, and New Mexico, have passed laws requiring aversive agents in antifreeze. Neither the California or Oregon laws provide a shield against environmental liability, including natural resources damages. The New Mexico law has an environmental liability waiver from State laws but it has no effect on 

federal Superfund liability, and Governor Richardson informed the 

Committee by letter dated May 22, 2006, that he does not support 

an exemption from Superfund liability. 

In the case of public drinking water supplies or rural potable 

wells contaminated by denatonium benzoate from an antifreeze 

spill, H.R. 2567 would shift the costs of cleanup or alternative 

water supplies onto the community ratepayers or the local rancher 

or farmer. It gives us no comfort that in the case of a spill caused 

by the negligence or gross negligence of an antifreeze manufacturer 

that results in denatonium benzoate contamination that the bill 

does not exempt the liability of the foreign manufacturer of DB—

a liability they in all likelihood do not have in the circumstances 

described. 

We do not support overriding our Superfund and other environmental laws in this manner to leave our citizens with no effective 

legal redress. While denatonium benzoate may be used in other 

household products, we are aware of no such product where the 

manufacturer of the product has been given a liability exemption 

from Federal laws, including environmental laws. 

The American Water Works Association, the American Metropolitan Water Association, the League of Conservation Voters, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Clean Water Action, Earth Justice, National Environment Trust, Friends of the Earth, the Sierra 

Club, and the U.S. Public Interest Research Group have told the 

Committee that they strongly oppose the environmental liability 

shield for the antifreeze manufacturers. Therefore, an amendment 

was offered by Reps. Schakowsky, Pallone, and Inslee to strike the 

environmental liability shield from the bill. It was rejected by a 

vote of 27–15. 

EFFECTIVENESS OF DENATONIUM BENZOATE QUESTIONED

Very serious questions have also been raised about the effectiveness and efficacy of denatonium benzoate in preventing unwanted 

toxic ingestion of antifreeze by children or dogs. The Animal Poison 

Control Center has taken the position that legislation requiring the 

addition of taste deterrents to certain commercial products to protect animals is not appropriate without scientific data demonstrating that commercial products containing taste aversive deterrent agents consistently protect dogs from consuming toxic 

amounts of commercial products. Further, the Animal Poison Control Center has stated: 

However, we are not aware of any well-controlled published scientific research demonstrating that dogs can be 

consistently protected from poisoning through the addition 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMRPT
22 

1Mason, J.R., and J.A. McConnell. 1997. Hedonic responsiveness of coyotes to 15 aqueous 

taste solutions. Journal of Wildlife Research, v. 2, p. 21–24. 2 Nolte, D.L., and K.K. Wagner. 2000. Comparing the efficacy of delivery systems and active 

ingredients of deer repellents. In: T.P. Salmon and A.C. Crabb (eds.) Proceedings, Nineteenth 

Vertebrate Pest Conference, University of California, Davis, CA, p. 93–100. [http:// 

www.aphis.usda.gov/ws/nwrc/is/00pubs/00–52.PDF], visited June 30, 2004. 3Klein-Schwartz, W. 1991. Denatonium benzoate: review of efficacy and safety. Veterinary 

and Human Toxicology, v. 33, n. 6, p. 545–547. 

of taste aversive agents including denatonium benzoate. 

Furthermore, we are concerned that pet owners will have 

a false sense of security if products containing taste aversive substances were marketed as ‘‘safer’’ for use in households with pets. (Letter dated March 30, 2004, from Animal Poison Control Center to Consumer Specialty Products 

Association.) 

According to a June 30, 2004, memorandum from the Congressional Research Service assessing the studies that have been done 

to determine its effectiveness as a bittering agent and deterrent in 

animals and humans: 

Few studies have been conducted to assess the effectiveness of denatonium benzoate in discouraging tasting, swallowing, or otherwise repelling wildlife, pets, or children. A 

recent review concluded that with respect to carnivores, 

‘‘products that contain denatonium derivatives . . . are ineffective repellents, almost regardless of species . . . or 

method of application (e.g., topical spray, incorporated into 

products). Canids [i.e., dogs], in particular coyotes, are 

markedly insensitive to denatonium benzoate.’’ 1 A comparison of 20 deer repellents reportedly concluded that 

compared to repellents that emitted sulfurous odors, 

‘‘. . .[p]roducts that use a bitter taste (denatonium benzoate) were usually the least effective in reducing damage 

by herbivores.’’ 2

Only a few studies have been conducted with children, 

and these were too small and narrowly focused to allow 

conclusions regarding the efficacy of denatonium benzoate.3 Because the chemical is odorless, its bitter chemical 

taste could not deter children from taking an initial drink 

of the available liquids. Of 30 children in one study, 7 took 

more than a single taste, despite the bitter taste. A comment in the journal Pediatrics provides a succinct summary of the situation and a recommendation. 

We recommend that the use of denatonium benzoate be 

studied in a limited number of products including those 

containing ethylene glycol, methanol, and toxic pesticides. 

Such studies must be monitored prospectively to determine 

the impact of this intervention. The surveillance data annually compiled by the American Association of Poison 

Control Centers is one tool that could be utilized. Future 

use of denatonium benzoate as an aversive agent should 

depend on the clear demonstration of efficacy in such prospective studies. The use of aversive agents must not be a 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMRPT
23 

4 Rodgers, G.D. and M. Tenenbein. 1994. The role of aversive bittering agents in the prevention of pediatric poisonings. Pediatrics, v. 93, n. 1, p. 68–69. 

substitute for other preventive measures, such as child-resistant closures.4

Similar concerns have been raised by governmental agencies and 

private industry. 

In a final report of the Congressionally directed study of aversive 

agents by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, the 

Commission found that: ‘‘. . . there is no evidence that denatonium 

benzoate or any other possible aversive agent is actually effective 

at limiting ingestions of consumer products.’’ (Consumer Product 

Safety Commission, Final Report—Study of Aversive Agents, Nov. 

18, 1992.) 

In the early 1990s, Texaco, Inc., conducted studies on Bitrex, a 

brand name for denatonium benzoate, and concluded: ‘‘We have 

found no evidence to date that Bitrex imparts any aversive properties to antifreeze, regardless of composition.’’ (Letter dated Aug. 

26, 1991, from Texaco to the Consumer Product Safety Commission.) 

Another study dated November 21, 1990, submitted by the antifreeze industry to the Congressional Research Service was conducted by the Procter & Gamble Company to evaluate the effectiveness of denatonium benzoate as an aversive. The Procter & Gamble 

study concluded the following: 

(1) Denatonium benzoate does not reduce the incidence 

of ingestions. 

(2) Even though the number of ingestions greater than 

one ounce is very small, the data demonstrate that even 

with denatonium benzoate large volume ingestions can 

occur, and that the percent of ingestions greater than one 

ounce is similar between products with and without aversive. 

Oregon was the first State in the country to mandate the addition of an aversive agent to antifreeze. In 2004, two medical doctors 

from the Oregon Poison Control Center published the results of 

their analysis of whether it was necessary to add denatonium benzoate to automotive products: 

The first law mandating addition of DB was never necessary, as unintentional EG [ethylene glycol] or MeOH 

[methanol] exposures in preschool age children did not 

cause measurable toxicity. The mandatory addition of DB 

to automotive products has produced no measurable reduction in unintentional pediatric toxic alcohol exposures in 

Oregon. There is no compelling reason to consider similar 

legislation in other jurisdictions. (Mullins, Michael E. and 

B. Zane Horowitz, Veterinary and Human Toxicology, June 

2004, p. 46.) 

Unfortunately, we have no other information from any of the 

three States that have passed laws as to whether they are effective 

in preventing unwanted ingestion of antifreeze since the States are 

not collecting or recording such data. 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMRPT
24 

Nationally, we are aware that without an aversive agent, a review of U.S. poison center fatality data for the 18-year period between 1985–2002 did not find any suspected suicides or deaths 

from ethylene glycol reported in children under the age of 12 years. 

(American Association of Poison Control Centers report in Journal 

of Clinical Toxicology (2005).) 

Until this year’s version of the legislation, H.R. 2567, provided 

the antifreeze industry with broad liability immunity and preempted all State laws, the industry opposed the inclusion of the 

bitterant denatonium benzoate in antifreeze, stating that ‘‘there is 

no demonstrated scientific basis for these State and local requirements.’’ (Letter dated July 16, 2004, from the Consumer Specialty 

Product Association to Macfarlan Smith Limited.) 

H.R. 2567 would not allow a State to enact and enforce a requirement that manufacturers of antifreeze use an ‘‘aversive agent’’ in 

antifreeze rather than a bittering agent. The Federal Government 

should not enact legislation that strips away the ability of a State 

to better protect the health and safety of its citizens. 

We believe that we should follow a normal and responsible legislative process and obtain the facts first, so as to resolve the serious 

questions about the environmental risks and effectiveness of 

denatonium benzoate before nationally mandating it or another 

equally effective aversive agent in antifreeze. H.R. 2567 as reported 

is a deeply-flawed piece of legislation and does not merit support. 

JOHN D. DINGELL. 

HENRY A. WAXMAN. 

EDWARD J. MARKEY. 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS. 

FRANK PALLONE, Jr. 

ANNA G. ESHOO. 

BART STUPAK. 

GENE GREEN. 

DIANA DEGETTE. 

LOIS CAPPS. 

TOM ALLEN. 

JAN SCHAKOWSKY. 

HILDA L. SOLIS. 

JAY INSLEE. 

TAMMY BALDWIN. 

Æ 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMRPT