A joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to "Air Plan Approval; Ohio; Withdrawal of Technical Amendment".
- Sponsor
- Sen. Husted, Jon [R-OH]
- Committees
- Environment and Public Works Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Mar 3, 2025
Bottom line
This resolution uses the Congressional Review Act to overturn an EPA rule concerning air plan approval in Ohio, effectively reinstating the status quo prior to the EPA's action.
What it actually does
This joint resolution, introduced under the Congressional Review Act (CRA), expresses congressional disapproval of a specific rule issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The rule in question is titled "Air Plan Approval; Ohio; Withdrawal of Technical Amendment" (90 Fed. Reg. 6811, January 21, 2025). If enacted, this resolution would nullify the EPA rule, preventing it from taking effect or continuing to have legal force.
Proponents argue
Supporters of this resolution argue that the EPA's rule, which is being disapproved, represents an overreach of federal authority or imposes unnecessary burdens on Ohio's air quality management. They contend that the withdrawal of the technical amendment by EPA was detrimental or inconsistent with state interests, and that Congress should use its oversight power to correct such administrative actions, ensuring that environmental regulations are appropriate and do not unduly hinder economic activity or state flexibility.
Opponents contend
Opponents of this resolution would likely argue that the EPA's rule was a necessary and proper action to protect public health and the environment in Ohio, or to ensure compliance with federal clean air standards. They would contend that overturning the rule would undermine the EPA's ability to effectively regulate air quality, potentially leading to adverse environmental outcomes or creating regulatory uncertainty. They might also argue that the EPA's original action was based on sound scientific or legal reasoning.
The bill text is extremely short and can be read in under a minute, but understanding its full implications requires external knowledge of the EPA rule it targets.
Section 1
Congressional Disapproval of EPA Rule
This provision explicitly states that Congress disapproves of the Environmental Protection Agency's rule titled "Air Plan Approval; Ohio; Withdrawal of Technical Amendment," which was published in the Federal Register on January 21, 2025, at 90 Fed. Reg. 6811. By disapproving the rule, the resolution mandates that the EPA's rule will have no legal effect, essentially nullifying it.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that nullifying the EPA's rule restores appropriate regulatory balance and prevents federal overreach in state-specific environmental matters. They may contend that the EPA's "Withdrawal of Technical Amendment" was an unnecessary or burdensome action that complicated Ohio's ability to manage its air quality effectively, and that congressional disapproval ensures state flexibility and economic competitiveness.
Critics contend
Opponents would argue that the EPA's rule was a necessary technical correction or update to ensure Ohio's air plan adequately protects public health and meets federal standards. They would contend that disapproving this rule undermines the EPA's expert judgment and its mandate to enforce the Clean Air Act, potentially leading to weaker environmental protections or non-compliance with federal requirements, which could harm Ohio residents.
Tradeoffs
The provision highlights the tension between federal regulatory authority and state autonomy in environmental policy. It also involves a tradeoff between potentially streamlined state-level environmental management (as proponents might argue) and the consistent application of federal environmental standards and protections (as opponents might argue).
The bill references the specific EPA rule by its Federal Register citation: "90 Fed. Reg. 6811 (January 21, 2025)".
Section 1
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for CRA resolutions, which target specific administrative actions by reference rather than re-litigating the details within the resolution text. It is not evasive, but assumes external knowledge.
Case for: Supporters would argue that referencing the Federal Register citation is the most precise and legally sound way to identify the specific rule being targeted, avoiding ambiguity.
Case against: Critics might argue that by not including a summary of the EPA rule, the resolution makes it less accessible to the general public, who may not easily be able to look up and understand the technical details of the original regulation.
Estimated impact: The impact is entirely dependent on the specific content of the EPA rule "Air Plan Approval; Ohio; Withdrawal of Technical Amendment." Without that context, the impact cannot be fully assessed from the bill text alone.