Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
This resolution uses the Congressional Review Act to block a recently submitted EPA rule. If enacted, it declares that the named EPA rule has no force or effect. Under the CRA, disapproval prevents the agency from enforcing the rule and generally bars the agency from issuing a substantially similar rule without new authorization from Congress. The disapproval must be passed by both chambers and sent to the President to become law.
Air Plan Approval; Ohio; Withdrawal of Technical Amendment (90 Fed. Reg. 6811, January 21, 2025).
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
CRA disapproval resolutions use an expedited process in the Senate that prevents filibusters and allows passage by a simple majority. As a joint resolution, it still must pass both the House and Senate and be signed by the President (or have any veto overridden) to take legal effect.
This joint resolution, under the Congressional Review Act, would disapprove and nullify an Environmental Protection Agency rule titled "Air Plan Approval; Ohio; Withdrawal of Technical Amendment" (90 Fed.
Reg. 6811, Jan 21, 2025).
If enacted, the resolution would prevent that specific EPA rule from having any force or effect.
Very narrow and low-cost but partisan regulatory subject and lacks compromise; Senate and executive approval remain key uncertainties.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a conventional and narrowly focused Congressional Review Act disapproval resolution that clearly identifies the targeted EPA rule and states the legal effect (nullification). It relies on the CRA statutory framework and contains the succinct operative language typical for this type of measure.
Progressives emphasize protecting EPA authority and public health
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize protecting EPA authority and public health
Likely opposes the resolution because it uses CRA to block an EPA action.
Concerned about weakening federal environmental authority and potential public-health impacts.
Views nullification as a risky precedent for constraining agency rulemaking.
Wants more information before taking a firm position.
Sees legitimate questions about EPA process and state rights, but also worries about public-health and precedent.
Likely to weigh administrative record and cost/benefit before supporting or opposing.
Likely supports the resolution as a way to limit EPA action and protect state prerogatives.
Views the EPA's withdrawal as federal overreach or an improper technical change, and favors congressional disapproval to restore regulatory stability for Ohio.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Very narrow and low-cost but partisan regulatory subject and lacks compromise; Senate and executive approval remain key uncertainties.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize protecting EPA authority and public health
Very narrow and low-cost but partisan regulatory subject and lacks compromise; Senate and executive approval remain key uncertainties.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a conventional and narrowly focused Congressional Review Act disapproval resolution that clearly identifies the targeted EPA rule and states the legal effect (null…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.