Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
This resolution uses the Congressional Review Act to overturn a rule the Environmental Protection Agency issued on emission standards for coke ovens. If both chambers of Congress approve the resolution and the President signs it, the rule is void and cannot take effect. The law also bars the agency from issuing a substantially similar rule in the future unless Congress passes new legislation authorizing it.
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks, and Coke Oven Batteries; Residual Risk and Technology Review, and Periodic Technology Review (90 Fed. Reg. 29997 (July 8, 2025)).
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Under the Congressional Review Act, the Senate may consider this disapproval resolution under expedited procedures that limit debate and prevent a filibuster, allowing passage by a simple majority; the House also needs a simple majority. If both chambers pass the resolution and the President signs it, the rule is invalidated; a presidential veto could be overridden only with a two-thirds vote in both chambers.
This joint resolution uses the Congressional Review Act (chapter 8 of title 5, U.S. Code) to disapprove and nullify an Environmental Protection Agency rule titled "National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks, and Coke Oven Batteries; Residual Risk and Technology Review, and Periodic Technology Review" (90 Fed.
Reg. 29997 (July 8, 2025)).
If enacted, the resolution declares that the specified EPA rule "shall have no force or effect." The text does not amend the underlying statutory authority but instead seeks to block the listed rule through a CRA joint resolution of disapproval.
The resolution's narrow, single-rule focus and limited fiscal implications make it procedurally feasible relative to large or costly legislation, which increases its chance compared with sweeping bills. However, it targets an environmental health regulation and therefore is likely to provoke organized opposition from environmental and public-health advocates while receiving strong support from regulated industries—making passage politically contentious. Because it lacks compromise features and simply nullifies an agency rule, final enactment depends heavily on political alignments and external factors not present in the text.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly focused Congressional Review Act disapproval that clearly identifies the rule to be nullified and states the operative outcome. It is concise and relies on the existing CRA statutory framework for procedural and legal effects.
Progressives emphasize public-health and environmental harms from nullifying an EPA hazardous-air-pollutant rule; conservatives emphasize regulatory relief and limits on agency power.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize public-health and environmental harms from nullifying an EPA hazardous-air-pollutant rule; conservatives emphasize regulatory relief and limits on agency power.
A mainstream liberal/left-leaning observer would likely oppose this resolution.
They would view it as a congressional override of an EPA air toxics standard intended to protect communities, workers, and the environment from hazardous emissions from coke oven operations.
They would also see it as a dangerous precedent weakening agency ability to update standards based on science.
A centrist/moderate would approach this resolution pragmatically and focus on substance and process.
They would want to know whether the EPA rule contains technical errors, excessive compliance costs, or insufficient justification for its standards before supporting disapproval.
They would also weigh public-health benefits against economic impacts on coke oven operators and associated jobs.
A mainstream conservative would likely view this resolution favorably as a means to limit regulatory burdens and reassert congressional authority over significant agency actions.
They would emphasize the economic costs and compliance burdens the EPA rule could impose on coke oven operators, and appreciate using the Congressional Review Act to block rules perceived as overreach.
They would also highlight protecting jobs and competitiveness in heavy industry.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
The resolution's narrow, single-rule focus and limited fiscal implications make it procedurally feasible relative to large or costly legislation, which increases its chance compared with sweeping bills. However, it targets an environmental health regulation and therefore is likely to provoke organized opposition from environmental and public-health advocates while receiving strong support from regulated industries—making passage politically contentious. Because it lacks compromise features and simply nullifies an agency rule, final enactment depends heavily on political alignments and external factors not present in the text.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize public-health and environmental harms from nullifying an EPA hazardous-air-pollutant rule; conservatives emphasize r…
The resolution's narrow, single-rule focus and limited fiscal implications make it procedurally feasible relative to large or costly legisl…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly focused Congressional Review Act disapproval that clearly identifies the rule to be nullified and states the operative outcome. It is concise and relies…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.