Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
This resolution uses the Congressional Review Act to reject a federal rule issued by an agency. If both chambers approve the joint resolution and the President signs it, the targeted rule would have no force or effect and the agency could not reissue a substantially similar rule without new legislation. The CRA also provides a fast, limited process in the Senate for considering these disapproval measures.
Phasedown of Hydrofluorocarbons: Management of Certain Hydrofluorocarbons and Substitutes Under the American Innovation and Manufacturing Act of 2020 (89 Fed. Reg. 82682 (October 11, 2024)).
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Under the Congressional Review Act, the Senate uses expedited consideration for disapproval resolutions and they are not subject to filibuster, so a simple majority is sufficient there; if both chambers pass the joint resolution it must be presented to the President for signature or veto.
This joint resolution invokes the Congressional Review Act to disapprove and nullify the Environmental Protection Agency rule titled "Phasedown of Hydrofluorocarbons: Management of Certain Hydrofluorocarbons and Substitutes Under the American Innovation and Manufacturing Act of 2020" (89 Fed.
Reg. 82682, Oct 11, 2024).
If enacted, the resolution would render that specific EPA rule without force or effect.
Narrow regulatory rollback with notable stakeholder opposition; must clear both chambers and executive approval, creating significant barriers.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrow, procedurally-focused substantive change that cleanly invokes the Congressional Review Act to nullify a specific EPA rule. It succeeds at precisely identifying the target and the legal vehicle for disapproval but provides minimal explanatory, fiscal, transitional, or oversight detail.
Liberal sees bill as climate rollback; conservatives see regulatory relief.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Liberal sees bill as climate rollback; conservatives see regulatory relief.
Likely opposes the resolution because it cancels an EPA rule implementing the AIM Act phasedown of high‑GWP HFCs.
Views the rule as climate and public‑health policy; sees congressional disapproval as a rollback of emissions reductions.
Mixed reaction: accepts congressional oversight but worries full disapproval may create regulatory and market uncertainty.
Would favor targeted fixes, clearer cost‑benefit analysis, or implementation adjustments instead of total nullification.
Likely supports the resolution as a check on perceived EPA overreach and to prevent new regulatory costs.
Views disapproval as protecting industry, consumers, and state flexibility from federal mandates.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Narrow regulatory rollback with notable stakeholder opposition; must clear both chambers and executive approval, creating significant barriers.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Liberal sees bill as climate rollback; conservatives see regulatory relief.
Narrow regulatory rollback with notable stakeholder opposition; must clear both chambers and executive approval, creating significant barri…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrow, procedurally-focused substantive change that cleanly invokes the Congressional Review Act to nullify a specific EPA rule. It succeeds at precisely identi…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.