CLEAR Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Carter, Earl L. "Buddy" [R-GA-1]
- Committees
- Energy and Commerce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jan 21, 2026
Bottom line
The CLEAR Act aims to provide states with greater flexibility and reduce federal oversight in meeting Clean Air Act requirements, potentially easing regulatory burdens but raising concerns about the pace and rigor of air quality improvements.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Clean Air Act to extend the review timeline for national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) from 5 to 10 years and allows the EPA Administrator to consider 'likely attainability' as a secondary factor when setting these standards. It grants states more time to correct deficiencies in their State Implementation Plans (SIPs) before federal intervention and exempts 'Extreme' ozone nonattainment areas from contingency measures. Furthermore, it incorporates 'economic feasibility' into technology requirements for pollution controls, expands the definition of 'exceptional events' to include wildfire mitigation actions, and provides exemptions from federal sanctions for states that fail to meet air quality standards due to emissions beyond their control.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill introduces much-needed realism and flexibility into the Clean Air Act, acknowledging the practical and economic challenges states face in achieving stringent air quality standards, especially when dealing with factors like wildfires or emissions from outside their jurisdiction. They contend it reduces administrative burdens, fosters economic advancement, and empowers states to develop tailored, achievable solutions without undue federal penalties.
Opponents contend
Opponents contend that the bill weakens critical public health and environmental protections by delaying standard reviews, allowing economic factors to override health considerations, and creating loopholes for states to avoid accountability for air pollution. They argue that these changes could lead to prolonged exposure to unhealthy air, particularly in vulnerable communities, and undermine the fundamental goals of the Clean Air Act.
The bill is concise and its provisions are clearly laid out, making it accessible for a quick but thorough review by an informed reader.
Section 2(a)
Extends National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) Review Intervals
This provision amends the Clean Air Act to change the required interval for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to review and, if necessary, revise National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) from every five years to every ten years. This effectively doubles the period between mandatory scientific and policy assessments of air quality standards.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue that extending the review timeline provides greater regulatory stability for states and industries, allowing for more consistent long-term planning and reducing the administrative burden on the EPA. They contend that five-year reviews are often too frequent to allow for full implementation and assessment of previous changes.
Critics contend
Opponents argue that less frequent reviews could delay the adoption of new, more protective air quality standards based on evolving scientific understanding, potentially jeopardizing public health and environmental quality. They assert that a ten-year interval is too long to respond to new research or emerging air pollution threats.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the desire for regulatory stability and reduced administrative burden against the need for timely updates to public health and environmental protections based on the latest scientific evidence.
Section 2(b)
Allows Consideration of Attainability for NAAQS
This provision amends the Clean Air Act to allow the EPA Administrator to consider the 'likely attainability' of a standard as a secondary factor when establishing or revising national primary ambient air quality standards. This consideration is permitted only if the Administrator, in consultation with the scientific review committee, finds that a range of air quality levels could protect public health with an adequate margin of safety.
Section 2(c)
Extends State Opportunity to Correct SIP Deficiencies Before FIP Promulgation
This provision amends the Clean Air Act to require the EPA Administrator to give a state at least one year to submit a plan or plan revision to correct a deficiency in its State Implementation Plan (SIP) before the Administrator can promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP). Additionally, if the state submits a plan, the EPA may take up to three years (instead of the current two-year deadline) to promulgate a FIP, providing more time for review and potential state action.
This provision strikes specific language from Section 182(e) of the Clean Air Act, which previously required certain reductions (less than 3 percent and less than 15 percent) for extreme ozone nonattainment areas. It also removes the Administrator's discretion to reject state demonstrations for such areas by striking the phrase 'if the State demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Administrator that--' and all that follows through the end of the paragraph.
Section 2(e)(3)(A) and (B)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for amending existing statutes, but the cumulative effect of striking multiple specific requirements and removing EPA discretion can be significant and is not immediately obvious without careful cross-referencing.
Case for: Proponents would argue that these deletions provide necessary flexibility for extreme ozone nonattainment areas, which face unique and often intractable challenges in meeting air quality standards. They contend that rigid, specific reduction requirements can be unrealistic and that removing EPA's discretionary rejection power empowers states to implement more practical plans.
Case against: Opponents would argue that removing these specific reduction requirements and EPA oversight weakens the accountability framework for the most polluted areas. They contend that these changes could lead to less ambitious plans and slower progress in improving air quality in areas that need it most, potentially harming public health.
Estimated impact: This change could significantly alter the regulatory burden and required pollution reduction efforts for states with extreme ozone nonattainment areas, potentially leading to less stringent controls and slower attainment of air quality standards in these regions.
This provision amends Section 319(b)(2)(A) of the Clean Air Act by striking 'March 1, 2006' and inserting '18 months after the date of enactment of the CLEAR Act' and inserting 'revisions to' before 'regulations'. This effectively mandates that the EPA revise its regulations for exceptional events within 18 months of the bill's enactment, rather than relying on regulations from 2006.
Section 3(a)(2)(A)
Why it matters:This is a standard technical amendment to ensure existing regulations are updated to reflect new statutory language. It's buried in the sense that it's a procedural detail rather than a direct policy change, but it's crucial for the implementation of the broader exceptional events reforms.
Case for: Proponents would argue that this ensures the EPA's regulations are current and consistent with the new statutory framework for exceptional events, including wildfire mitigation. It provides a clear timeline for the agency to adapt its rules, preventing delays in implementation.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against a mandate for regulatory updates to align with new law, though opponents of the underlying exceptional events changes would likely view this as facilitating a problematic policy shift.
Estimated impact: This provision ensures that the EPA's operational guidelines for exceptional events, including the new wildfire mitigation provisions, are updated promptly, thereby facilitating the implementation of the bill's changes to how air quality data from such events is handled.