Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
This resolution uses the Congressional Review Act to try to nullify a federal agency rule by passing a joint resolution of disapproval. If enacted, the rule would be legally void and the agency would be restricted from issuing a substantially similar rule without new law. The joint resolution must be passed by both chambers of Congress and presented to the President for signature or veto.
Decabromodiphenyl Ether and Phenol, Isopropylated Phosphate (3:1); Revision to the Regulation of Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic Chemicals Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) (89 Fed. Reg. 91486, Nov. 19, 2024).
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Under the Congressional Review Act, disapproval resolutions get expedited consideration in the Senate and are not subject to a filibuster, so they can pass by a simple majority; after passage in both chambers the resolution is sent to the President for signature or veto.
This joint resolution seeks congressional disapproval, under the Congressional Review Act, of an Environmental Protection Agency rule titled “Decabromodiphenyl Ether and Phenol, Isopropylated Phosphate (3:1); Revision to the Regulation of Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic Chemicals Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).” If enacted, the resolution would nullify the EPA rule (89 Fed.
Reg. 91486, Nov. 19, 2024) and prevent the agency from issuing the same rule in substantially identical form.
The measure was referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Simple statutory mechanism but politically charged regulatory rollback; must clear both chambers and be signed, increasing hurdles.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly focused Congressional Review Act disapproval that clearly identifies the target rule and provides the minimal, specific operative language needed to render the rule without force or effect.
Progressives emphasize health and environmental protection losses.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize health and environmental protection losses.
Likely opposed: views disapproval as a rollback of chemical safety protections and EPA authority.
Sees the resolution as harmful to public health, environmental justice, and communities exposed to persistent toxic chemicals.
Mixed view: wants to balance chemical safety with economic impacts and rulemaking quality.
Would evaluate scientific basis, cost-benefit analysis, and administrative procedure before taking a firm position.
Likely supportive: views disapproval as curbing EPA overreach and preventing costly, burdensome federal regulation.
Emphasizes economic and federalism arguments and skepticism of aggressive administrative rulemaking.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Simple statutory mechanism but politically charged regulatory rollback; must clear both chambers and be signed, increasing hurdles.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize health and environmental protection losses.
Simple statutory mechanism but politically charged regulatory rollback; must clear both chambers and be signed, increasing hurdles.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly focused Congressional Review Act disapproval that clearly identifies the target rule and provides the minimal, specific operative language needed to ren…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.