Overview
Title
Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to Updates to New Chemicals Regulations Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
ELI5 AI
H. J. RES. 76 is a plan to stop a new rule made by the Environmental Protection Agency about chemicals, but it doesn't say why it wants to do this and doesn't offer any new plans.
Summary AI
H. J. RES. 76 is a proposal introduced in the 119th Congress that seeks to block a specific rule created by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The rule in question deals with updates to the New Chemicals Regulations under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). If passed, this resolution would prevent the EPA's rule, published in the Federal Register on December 18, 2024, from taking effect. This joint resolution was submitted by Mr. Higgins of Louisiana and Mr. Timmons, and it has been referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce for further action.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
The joint resolution H. J. RES. 76, introduced during the 119th Congress, proposes to disapprove a specific rule issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This rule pertains to updates regarding New Chemicals Regulations under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). If enacted, the resolution would render the EPA's modifications powerless, meaning they would not be implemented or enforced. This bill reflects a congressional mechanism to reject federal agency regulations that Congress finds unfavorable using the powers granted under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code.
Summary of Significant Issues
Several issues arise from this legislative action. Firstly, the bill provides no clear rationale or detailed explanation for disapproving the EPA's rule, leaving stakeholders unclear about the specific concerns or reasons behind this decision. Furthermore, it lacks an assessment of the potential fiscal or regulatory impacts of disapproving the rule, omitting crucial information about the broader implications for environmental regulation and industry compliance.
Additionally, the resolution references a Federal Register notice but does not elaborate on the specific changes or updates addressed, contributing to ambiguity. Without this information, stakeholders—such as industries regulated by the TSCA or environmental advocacy groups—may be left unsure of the consequences of the disapproval.
Finally, the text does not propose alternative regulations or actions to replace the disapproved rule, potentially leading to uncertainty about future regulatory enforcement.
Impact on the Public
The broader implications of this legislative action may vary. On a general level, stopping the rule's implementation could impact environmental safety standards related to new chemical substances. This could affect public health and safety if such standards are necessary for managing potential environmental or human health risks associated with chemical production and use.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For various stakeholders, the impacts could be manifold. Industries involved in chemical manufacturing and regulation might view this disapproval as beneficial, reducing regulatory burdens or costs associated with compliance to new rules. However, environmental groups and public health advocates might express concern about the potential rollback of regulations designed to ensure safe chemical practices and protect the environment.
By not providing an alternative to the disapproved regulation, this resolution may leave a regulatory gap, potentially affecting the oversight necessary to ensure the safe introduction and management of new chemical substances into the market. Such gaps can lead to uncertainty and risk, both for the environment and public health.
In summary, disapproving the EPA's rule through this resolution could have mixed outcomes, emphasizing the need for clear communication regarding its rationale and potential impacts.
Issues
The bill disapproves of an EPA rule without providing a rationale or detailed explanation, which might be unclear and concerning to stakeholders interested in the rule's implications. This lack of explanation can create confusion and uncertainty about the reasons for nullifying the rule. (Section: The text disapproves a rule without providing a rationale or detailed explanation...)
The bill lacks an assessment of the fiscal or regulatory implications of disapproving the rule. This omission is crucial for understanding the broader impact on environmental regulation and industry compliance. It also leaves Congress and the public in the dark regarding potential costs or economic effects. (Section: There is no assessment provided as to whether disapproving the rule has any fiscal or regulatory implications.)
The reference to the Federal Register notice does not provide sufficient detail about the specific changes or updates addressed, leading to ambiguity. Such ambiguity makes it difficult for stakeholders to assess the consequences of the disapproval or to understand if specific sections of the rule are problematic. (Section: The reference to the Federal Register notice does not provide sufficient detail...)
The text does not specify alternative actions or regulations to replace the disapproved rule, resulting in uncertainty in regulatory enforcement. This could create a gap in regulation and oversight, potentially impacting environmental safety and public health. (Section: The text does not specify alternative actions or regulations that might replace the disapproved rule...)
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Congress expressed their disapproval of a specific rule from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regarding updates to New Chemicals Regulations under the Toxic Substances Control Act, effectively rendering the rule powerless and without effect.