The bill would disapprove the Environmental Protection Agency’s final rule regulating Trichloroethylene (TCE) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), published December 17, 2024 (89 Fed. Reg. 102568).
It uses the congressional disapproval mechanism under chapter 8 of title 5 to render the rule without force or effect. If enacted, the rule would be void, returning the pre-rule regulatory posture for TCE under TSCA and leaving the agency without the protections the rule would have imposed.
The bill does not replace the rule with an alternative standard or plan; it simply nullifies the EPA action and preserves Congress’s ability to revisit regulator risk management in the future through separate channels.
At a Glance
What It Does
Congress disapproves the EPA final TSCA rule on Trichloroethylene, declaring it as having no force or effect under the chapter 8 disapproval mechanism.
Who It Affects
EPA, TSCA program administrators, chemical manufacturers and users of TCE, and compliance professionals who rely on federal risk-management standards.
Why It Matters
This action foregrounds legislative control over federal environmental regulation and signals potential shifts in how health and safety risks from TCE are managed at the federal level.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill uses a classic Congressional disapproval device to strike down a specific EPA rule. By disapproving the final TCE regulation issued under TSCA, Congress would ensure that the rule cannot take effect if the measure is enacted.
There is no alternative rule or substitute standard provided in the bill; it simply prevents the EPA’s risk-management framework for Trichloroethylene from taking effect. Practically, this preserves the regulatory state prior to the final rule, which means industries that would have faced tighter controls, labeling, or testing standards would not have to comply with those requirements unless Congress or EPA acts again in the future.
The proposal thus shifts the locus of risk management back toward pre-rule conditions and maintains potential for future regulatory action separate from this disapproval.
For compliance professionals, the focus is on what changes procedurally: the EPA would not be enforcing the TSCA rule on TCE if Congress enacts the disapproval. Stakeholders should monitor for potential alternative legislative or regulatory approaches, but this measure does not establish new requirements or timelines by itself.
The resolution is narrowly scoped to the cited rule and does not address other TSCA actions or non-TCE environmental rules.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill disapproves EPA’s TSCA final rule on Trichloroethylene (TCE).
If enacted, the December 17, 2024 final rule would have no force or effect.
Sponsor: Rep. Diana Harshbarger; Co-sponsor: Rep. Miller-Meeks; introduced January 22, 2025 (119th Congress).
The bill does not propose an EPA replacement standard or policy alternative.
The mechanism is a CH8 disapproval under 5 U.S.C. Title 5, Section 801 et seq.
targeting a specific TSCA rule.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Disapproval and nullification of EPA TSCA TCE rule
This section states Congress disapproves the EPA final rule relating to Trichloroethylene (TCE) Regulation Under the Toxic Substances Control Act. Upon enactment, the rule shall have no force or effect. The provision is narrowly tailored to the cited TSCA rule and does not create a substitute standard, leaving pre-rule conditions in place unless Congress or EPA acts again through separate action.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Environment across all five countries.
Explore Environment in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Chemical manufacturers and suppliers of Trichloroethylene benefit from the absence of the tightened federal rule and the lower expected compliance costs.
- Industries that use TCE as a solvent or cleaning agent (e.g., precision cleaning, metal finishing) benefit from avoiding or delaying stricter risk-management requirements.
- Trade associations representing user industries benefit by reducing regulatory uncertainty and potential cost burdens for members.
Who Bears the Cost
- Public health and environmental justice communities near TCE-using facilities bear the risk that stricter federal safeguards are not implemented through this rule.
- State and local environmental agencies may face continued or increased uncertainty in regulating TCE in the absence of a federal TSCA standard.
- Workers in industries using TCE may face uncertain exposure controls if federal risk-management measures are rolled back or delayed.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is whether to prioritize legislative oversight and regulatory restraint over proactive health safeguards, recognizing that advancing stricter federal controls can entail higher short-term costs for industry and compliance, while prioritizing health protections may require more robust, timely federal action and risk-based regulation.
The bill’s narrow focus on disapproving one EPA rule highlights a fundamental policy tension: Congress asserting direct control over federal risk management versus EPA’s mandate to use the best available science to regulate hazardous substances. By terminating the specific TSCA rule, the measure preserves a status quo that could slow or halt the adoption of health-protective standards for TCE.
Implementation ambiguity arises if Congress contemplates future actions; without a replacement, states and regulated entities must navigate a potential gap in national guidance until a new rule is proposed and enacted. These tensions foreground questions about the balance between regulatory efficiency, industry costs, and health protections.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.