Technical corrections only. v5 updates the document status from an enrolled bill (v4) to Public Law 119-13, incorporating the approval date of May 23, 2025, and legislative history details. The operative text of the resolution, disapproving the National Park Service rule on motor vehicles in Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, remains identical in both versions, indicating no substantive policy change.
Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the National Park Service relating to "Glen Canyon National Recreation Area: Motor Vehicles".
- Sponsor
- Rep. Maloy, Celeste [R-UT-2]
- Committees
- Natural Resources Committee (primary)
- Last action
- May 23, 2025
Bottom line
Congress has used the Congressional Review Act to nullify a National Park Service rule regarding motor vehicle use in Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, preventing it from taking effect and restricting future similar rulemaking.
What it actually does
This joint resolution utilizes the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to formally disapprove a specific rule issued by the National Park Service (NPS) concerning the use of motor vehicles within the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. By enacting this disapproval, the NPS rule (90 Fed. Reg. 2621) is prevented from taking effect and is rendered without legal force. Furthermore, the CRA prohibits the NPS from issuing any future rule that is substantially similar to the disapproved rule, unless specifically authorized by a subsequent act of Congress.
Proponents argue
Supporters of this resolution argue that the National Park Service rule was an example of federal overreach, imposing unnecessary restrictions or burdens on visitors, local communities, or specific types of recreational access within the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. They contend that the rule was inconsistent with the area's designation or created undue administrative complexities, and its disapproval restores a more appropriate balance for public land use.
Opponents contend
Opponents of the resolution, who supported the original NPS rule, contend that the rule was a necessary measure for effective resource management, environmental protection, or public safety within the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. They argue that the rule aimed to mitigate adverse impacts from motor vehicle use, ensure sustainable recreation, or reduce conflicts among different user groups, and its disapproval may lead to increased environmental degradation or management challenges.
The bill text is exceptionally brief and straightforward, allowing for immediate comprehension and ample time for a thorough evaluation of its implications.
Section 1
Congressional Disapproval of NPS Motor Vehicle Rule for Glen Canyon National Recreation Area
This section explicitly states that Congress disapproves of the rule submitted by the National Park Service of the Department of the Interior, specifically the rule titled "Glen Canyon National Recreation Area: Motor Vehicles" (published at 90 Fed. Reg. 2621). As a direct consequence of this congressional disapproval, the mentioned rule will not take effect and will have no legal force. This action is taken under the authority of chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, commonly known as the Congressional Review Act, which also carries the implication that the agency cannot issue a substantially similar rule in the future without new congressional authorization.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that this provision is essential for reining in executive agency overreach and ensuring that regulations reflect congressional intent or public sentiment. They contend that the specific rule was burdensome or unnecessary, and its nullification protects individual freedoms or economic activities associated with motor vehicle use in the recreation area.
Critics contend
Opponents argue that this provision undermines the expert judgment of the National Park Service, which is tasked with managing public lands for conservation and recreation. They assert that the rule was developed to address specific challenges or protect sensitive resources, and its disapproval leaves the area vulnerable to adverse impacts or creates management difficulties.
Tradeoffs
This provision highlights the inherent tension between congressional oversight and the administrative discretion of federal agencies in managing public resources. It balances the desire for regulatory stability and accountability against the need for agencies to adapt to evolving environmental conditions or recreational demands through expert rulemaking.
The resolution's invocation of "chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code" (the Congressional Review Act) means that not only is the specific rule nullified, but the National Park Service is also prohibited from issuing any "substantially similar" rule in the future without specific statutory authorization from Congress.
Section 1 (by reference to "chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code")
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice when invoking the CRA; the full implications are understood by reference to existing law rather than being restated in every resolution. It is not evasive, but relies on legal expertise.
Case for: Proponents argue that this permanent prohibition prevents agencies from simply reissuing disapproved rules under a different guise, ensuring that Congress's intent to nullify a regulation is respected and durable. This provides regulatory certainty and prevents agencies from circumventing congressional will.
Case against: Critics argue that this provision can unduly tie the hands of expert agencies, preventing them from adapting to new information, scientific findings, or changing circumstances without a new act of Congress. This could lead to regulatory paralysis on specific issues, hindering effective public land management.
Estimated impact: This provision has a significant long-term impact on the National Park Service's ability to regulate motor vehicles in Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, effectively freezing the regulatory landscape on this specific issue unless Congress acts again. It shifts significant power from the agency to Congress for this particular policy area.