Passed
222 Yea205 Nay4 Not voting1/2 required
HR-6398-119
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Sponsored by John Joyce (R-PA)
What it does
This bill would remove the requirement that the EPA review and comment on newly authorized federal construction projects and other major federal agency actions that already undergo environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). It would also remove the EPA's requirement to review and comment on proposed federal regulations. In effect, it would eliminate a layer of Clean Air Act oversight that currently runs parallel to the NEPA process.
Who benefits
Federal agencies seeking faster approval of construction projects and major actions, as they would face one fewer review step. Private contractors and developers working on federally authorized projects, who could see shorter permitting timelines. State and local governments awaiting federal infrastructure approvals. Industries that frequently interact with federal permitting processes, such as energy, transportation, and construction. Taxpayers who fund federal agency operations may benefit if reduced review lowers administrative costs.
Who is hurt
Communities near federally approved construction projects that currently rely on EPA's Clean Air Act review as an additional check on air quality impacts. Environmental advocacy organizations that use EPA's review comments as a tool to challenge or modify projects. Public health researchers and agencies that use EPA's interagency comments to flag air pollution concerns. Federal EPA staff whose review responsibilities would be reduced or eliminated. Future litigants who currently use EPA review records as evidence in environmental challenges.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that requiring both a NEPA review and a separate EPA Clean Air Act review of the same federal action creates redundant bureaucratic steps that delay infrastructure projects without meaningfully improving environmental outcomes. They contend that NEPA already mandates comprehensive environmental analysis — including air quality impacts — and that duplicating this process through a parallel EPA comment requirement adds cost and time without adding substantive protection, slowing projects that communities depend on.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the EPA's Clean Air Act review serves a distinct legal and technical function from NEPA — specifically evaluating air quality impacts under binding statutory standards, not just procedural disclosure. They contend that eliminating this review removes a meaningful safeguard, particularly for communities already burdened by poor air quality, and that the two processes address different legal questions: NEPA asks whether impacts were considered, while the Clean Air Act asks whether air quality standards are actually met.
Constitutional context
The Clean Air Act rests on Congress's Commerce Clause authority (Art. I, §8, cl. 3), and this bill would modify an existing statutory requirement within that framework — a straightforward exercise of congressional power. Post-Loper Bright (2024), courts no longer defer to EPA's interpretation of its own statutory authority, meaning any future EPA attempt to reassert review authority beyond what Congress explicitly provides would face independent judicial scrutiny.
Checks and balances
Congress would reduce EPA's interagency review authority; NEPA review by the lead federal agency remains as the primary check, and courts retain jurisdiction to review whether remaining NEPA processes satisfy environmental disclosure requirements.
Historical precedent
The 1978 EPA "Section 309" review process under the Clean Air Act has been a standing interagency check since the early 1970s; prior legislative efforts to streamline NEPA and related reviews, such as the FAST-41 permitting reforms (2015), reduced timelines but did not eliminate EPA's statutory comment authority.
Passed