This joint resolution nullifies the Environmental Protection Agency rule titled Trichloroethylene (TCE); Regulation Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) (89 Fed. Reg. 102568) and published on December 17, 2024. Among other elements, the rule prohibits the manufacturing, import, processing, and distribution in commerce of trichloroethylene (TCE) for all uses (including consumer uses), and prohibits the industrial and commercial use of TCE.
The impact of SJR19, if passed, would be significant as it would invalidate the EPA's regulation of TCE, a chemical commonly used as an industrial solvent and recognized for its potential health risks. By disapproving this rule, Congress would effectively prevent the EPA from enforcing regulations that may be aimed at controlling emissions, usage, or the overall management of TCE, thereby influencing environmental protections concerning air and water quality. This action could have broader implications for public health and safety, particularly in communities near TCE usage sites, as it may permit continued exposure to this hazardous substance without the regulatory scrutiny proposed by the EPA.
SJR19 is a joint resolution introduced in the Senate which seeks to disapprove a rule proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regarding the regulation of Trichloroethylene (TCE) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The resolution indicates congressional action aimed at nullifying the mentioned regulation, which had been formally submitted by the EPA and is indexed in the Federal Register. This legislative move aligns with provisions allowing Congress to exercise oversight over EPA regulations, facilitating a mechanism for disapproval when they find agency rules objectionable or overreaching.
Notable points of contention surrounding SJR19 may involve debate over environmental policy, public safety, and economic implications. Proponents of the resolution may argue that the EPA's regulations impose undue burdens on industries that utilize TCE, potentially jeopardizing jobs and economic activity. Conversely, opponents, including environmental groups and public health advocates, are likely to express concerns over the long-term consequences of repealing regulations aimed at safeguarding against toxic exposure. The discussions are poised to reflect a divide between economic interests and the pursuit of environmental health standards.