CRA disapproval of PFAS TSCA rule

Full Title:
A joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to "Modification to the Start of the Submission Period for Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Reporting and Recordkeeping Under TSCA 8(a)(7)".

Summary#

This joint resolution would use the Congressional Review Act to nullify an Environmental Protection Agency (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)". If the resolution became law, the named EPA rule would have no force or effect. The measure was introduced in the Senate by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse.

  • Main change: the resolution disapproves (cancels) the EPA rule identified by the Federal Register citation 91 Fed. Reg. 18786 (April 13, 2026).
  • Policy goal: stop or reverse the EPA’s change to when PFAS reporting would begin under the rule named.
  • Status note: the Senate voted on proceeding to the measure and the motion failed 48–50. The resolution remains in progress.
  • What is unclear: the bill text and supplied material do not describe the substance of the EPA’s timing change beyond the rule’s title and citation, so the exact practical change being canceled is not stated here.

What it means for you#

  • Companies that make, import, process, or use PFAS (likely affected parties): This could change when you must submit reports or keep records under TSCA 8(a)(7). The resolution would block the EPA’s modification to the reporting start date, but the supplied material does not say whether that modification would have moved the start earlier or later.
  • EPA and federal agencies: If enacted, the EPA could not enforce the specific timing change named in the rule. The agency might need to rely on the previous schedule or make a new rule.
  • State agencies, researchers, and public-interest groups: This could affect the timing of PFAS data becoming available to regulators and scientists. Exactly how data timing would change is not specified in the material provided.
  • General public: Any change could affect when more complete PFAS reporting data are collected and published, but the supplied material does not state a clear effect on public information or health protections.

Expenses#

No publicly available information.

  • The bill text and supplied material do not include a fiscal note, budget estimate, or estimate of administrative costs.
  • It is not stated whether canceling the EPA rule would increase or reduce workload or costs for federal agencies, states, businesses, or others.

Proponents' View#

  • The bill appears intended to stop the EPA’s change to the start date for PFAS reporting under TSCA 8(a)(7).
  • Supporters may argue that cancelling the rule protects entities from an unwanted or harmful change in reporting timing.
  • Supporters may also view use of the Congressional Review Act as an appropriate way for Congress to review and overturn an agency rule that it disapproves.

Opponents' View#

  • One concern is that disapproving the EPA rule could limit the agency’s ability to set the reporting schedule it believes is best for collecting PFAS data.
  • The resolution does not explain whether canceling the rule would speed up or delay data collection; this uncertainty could create compliance questions for businesses and regulators.
  • Using the Congressional Review Act to nullify the rule would prevent the EPA from putting the same rule back in substantially the same form without new statutory authority, which could restrict the agency’s flexibility to adjust reporting timelines.