Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
This resolution uses the Congressional Review Act to overturn a federal agency rule by having Congress pass a joint disapproval resolution. If both chambers approve it and the President signs it (or Congress overrides a veto), the rule is nullified and has no force. The CRA also prevents the agency from issuing a substantially similar rule in the future without new law from Congress. The resolution specifically targets an EPA interim final rule on VOC limits for aerosol coatings.
The National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Aerosol Coatings: Interim Final Rule (90 Fed. Reg. 28904, July 2, 2025).
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
This is a CRA joint disapproval resolution that must be passed by both chambers and presented to the President; if signed it becomes law and voids the rule. In the Senate CRA disapproval resolutions are considered under expedited procedures that prevent filibusters and require only a simple majority for passage.
This joint resolution uses the Congressional Review Act to disapprove an Environmental Protection Agency rule titled “National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Aerosol Coatings: Interim Final Rule” (90 Fed.
Reg. 28904 (July 2, 2025)).
If enacted, the resolution states that the specified EPA rule "shall have no force or effect." The measure is a simple CRA disapproval: it nullifies the named interim final rule and would, under the CRA framework, bar the agency from issuing a new rule in "substantially the same" form without new statutory authorization.
On content alone this is a narrow, administratively simple CRA disapproval, which improves feasibility compared with sweeping legislation. But it targets an EPA environmental rule—a regionally and economically salient issue—without compromise mechanisms, so it will face organized stakeholder opposition and requires coordinated majorities in both chambers plus a favorable executive response to become law. Those combined hurdles reduce the likelihood relative to non-controversial technical fixes.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise Congressional Review Act disapproval resolution that clearly identifies the targeted EPA rule and declares it void; its brevity and limited implementation detail are consistent with the narrow substantive policy change it seeks.
Environmental/health protection vs. regulatory burden: progressives emphasize air-quality and public-health gains from the EPA rule; conservatives emphasize removing regulatory costs for industry.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Environmental/health protection vs. regulatory burden: progressives emphasize air-quality and public-health gains from the EPA rule; conservatives emphasize removing regulatory costs for industry.
A mainstream progressive would likely oppose this resolution because it undoes an EPA standard aimed at reducing volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from aerosol coatings, which are associated with ozone formation and air pollution.
They would view the disapproval as rolling back a public-health and environmental protection measure and undermining the agency’s ability to regulate pollution.
They would also be concerned about the use of the Congressional Review Act to nullify technical rulemaking without addressing the underlying statutory standards or public-health rationale.
A moderate / pragmatic observer would see this as a procedural Congressional Review Act move to overturn an EPA interim final rule.
They would weigh the public-health and environmental rationale for the rule against potential economic impacts on manufacturers and small businesses, and would want to know more about the rule’s technical requirements, projected emissions reductions, compliance costs, and the administrative record before deciding.
The centrist would be open to either retaining the rule if evidence supports net public benefits or disapproving it if the rule is poorly justified or imposes disproportionate costs without commensurate environmental gains.
A mainstream conservative would likely welcome this resolution as a check on regulatory overreach by the executive branch, especially if they view the EPA rule as burdensome to manufacturers or as issued without adequate consultation.
They would value reining in new regulatory mandates issued as interim rules and favor restoring legislative oversight.
If convinced the rule imposes significant costs relative to benefits, they would support disapproval as a way to protect businesses and economic freedom.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
On content alone this is a narrow, administratively simple CRA disapproval, which improves feasibility compared with sweeping legislation. But it targets an EPA environmental rule—a regionally and economically salient issue—without compromise mechanisms, so it will face organized stakeholder opposition and requires coordinated majorities in both chambers plus a favorable executive response to become law. Those combined hurdles reduce the likelihood relative to non-controversial technical fixes.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Environmental/health protection vs. regulatory burden: progressives emphasize air-quality and public-health gains from the EPA rule; conser…
On content alone this is a narrow, administratively simple CRA disapproval, which improves feasibility compared with sweeping legislation.…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise Congressional Review Act disapproval resolution that clearly identifies the targeted EPA rule and declares it void; its brevity and limited implementatio…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.