Joint Resolution to Disapprove EPA Waiver

Full Title:
Providing congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to "California State Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Standards; Notice of Decision Granting a Waiver of Clean Air Act Preemption for California's 2009 and Subsequent Model Year Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards for New Motor Vehicles".

Summary#

This joint resolution would use the Congressional Review Act (chapter 8 of title 5, U.S. Code) to overturn an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) decision. The rule being disapproved is the EPA’s 2009 waiver that allowed California to set greenhouse gas (GHG) emission standards for new motor vehicles beginning with the 2009 model year. The apparent policy goal is to remove federal recognition of that waiver so it “has no force or effect.”

  • Main change: It declares the EPA’s July 2009 waiver decision invalid and says that decision would have no force or effect.
  • Target rule: The action refers to the EPA rule published at 74 Fed. Reg. 32744 (July 8, 2009).
  • Authority used: The resolution is framed under the Congressional Review Act (a law that lets Congress pass a joint resolution to disapprove a recent federal rule).
  • Scope implied: The change would affect the federal legal status of the EPA’s waiver decision. The bill text does not itself lay out steps for state or industry compliance.

What it means for you#

  • California and other states: This would likely prevent the EPA’s 2009 decision from legally supporting California’s separate GHG vehicle standards. It could also affect other states that adopted California’s standards (those states may lose the ability to follow California’s rules under the Clean Air Act waiver framework).
  • Auto manufacturers: This could change which state-level vehicle emission standards are recognized federally. Manufacturers that design cars to meet California-style GHG standards might face legal uncertainty about whether those state standards are enforceable.
  • Vehicle buyers and owners: If the waiver’s federal recognition were removed, state rules on vehicle emissions could change. That might affect the kinds of vehicles sold or available in some states over time. The bill itself does not set new vehicle standards or directly change consumer taxes or fees.
  • EPA and federal agencies: EPA would lose the legal effect of its 2009 waiver decision. The resolution does not say whether EPA could start a new waiver process or how EPA should proceed afterward.
  • Federal–state relations: This would reduce federal recognition of a state-level exception under the Clean Air Act, which could shift how much authority California (and states that follow it) have over vehicle GHG rules.

What is unclear:

  • The bill text does not say whether the disapproval is legally timely under the Congressional Review Act’s time limits.
  • The text does not explain how state enforcement of California standards would be handled day-to-day if the waiver is disapproved.
  • The resolution does not state what happens to any vehicle rules already in effect, contracts, or compliance deadlines.

Expenses#

No publicly available information.

  • The bill text and supplied material do not include a fiscal note, cost estimate, or explanation of implementation costs.
  • It is unclear whether overturning the waiver would create administrative or legal costs for federal or state agencies, or for businesses.

Proponents' View#

A possible argument for the bill is:

  • The bill appears intended to remove federal approval of California’s separate GHG vehicle standards. Supporters may see this as restoring a single, uniform federal approach to vehicle emissions or limiting state-level variations that affect automakers.
  • It could be framed as reducing regulatory complexity for manufacturers that must meet multiple state standards.
  • The resolution uses the Congressional Review Act to directly nullify a past EPA decision rather than changing the Clean Air Act itself.

Opponents' View#

One concern is that the bill raises legal and practical questions:

  • The bill does not clearly explain how states that adopted California’s standards would be affected in practice, or whether those states would immediately lose enforcement power.
  • It is unclear whether the Congressional Review Act can be used long after the original rulemaking to overturn a rule without creating legal challenges about timing and retroactivity.
  • Overturning a waiver could reduce or delay state-level greenhouse gas protections that some see as important for air quality and climate goals.
  • The resolution does not address how EPA or states should handle existing compliance, enforcement, or contracts tied to the now-disapproved waiver.