Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 532.
This resolution uses the Congressional Review Act to disapprove a specific federal rule issued by the Environmental Protection Agency. If Congress approves the joint resolution and the President signs it (or a veto is overridden), the named EPA rule is nullified and has no force. The Act also prevents the agency from issuing a new rule that is substantially the same without new legislation from Congress.
The rule titled "Modification to the Start of the Submission Period for Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Reporting and Recordkeeping Under TSCA 8(a)(7)" published at 91 Fed. Reg. 18786 (April 13, 2026).
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Under the Congressional Review Act, disapproval joint resolutions receive expedited consideration in Congress; in the Senate a motion to proceed and limited debate make the measure subject to a simple majority vote rather than a filibuster. If both chambers pass the resolution it is presented to the President for signature or veto.
This joint resolution uses the Congressional Review Act to disapprove and nullify an EPA rule titled “Modification to the Start of the Submission Period for Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Reporting and Recordkeeping Under TSCA 8(a)(7)” (91 Fed.
Reg. 18786, April 13, 2026).
If enacted, the resolution would strip that specific EPA rule of legal effect.
Narrow, low-cost resolution is procedurally simple but politically contested; Senate procedural hurdles and stakeholder opposition lower odds.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly scoped Congressional Review Act disapproval that is clear and sufficiently specific to accomplish its primary legal function (vacating a named EPA rule), while relying on the existing CRA framework for implementation.
Progressives emphasize public-health data and transparency versus conservative emphasizing regulatory relief.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize public-health data and transparency versus conservative emphasizing regulatory relief.
Likely opposes the resolution because it blocks an EPA action intended to govern PFAS reporting.
Views the EPA rule as necessary for transparency and public health information about PFAS contamination.
Mixed view: recognizes need for PFAS information but also concerned about regulatory timing and compliance costs.
Would weigh public-health gains against burdens and prefer negotiated adjustments.
Likely supports the resolution as regulatory relief limiting EPA timing or overreach.
Views disapproval as protecting businesses from rushed or burdensome reporting mandates.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Narrow, low-cost resolution is procedurally simple but politically contested; Senate procedural hurdles and stakeholder opposition lower odds.
The Senate declined to take up this bill. It cannot be debated or voted on unless the motion is tried again.
Progressives emphasize public-health data and transparency versus conservative emphasizing regulatory relief.
Narrow, low-cost resolution is procedurally simple but politically contested; Senate procedural hurdles and stakeholder opposition lower od…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly scoped Congressional Review Act disapproval that is clear and sufficiently specific to accomplish its primary legal function (vacating a named EPA rule)…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.