SJRES-55-119
Held at the desk.
Sponsored by Shelley Capito (R-WV)
What it does
This joint resolution would use the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to nullify a rule issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) on January 17, 2025. That rule established federal motor vehicle safety standards for the fuel system integrity of hydrogen-powered vehicles, including compressed hydrogen storage systems, and incorporated certain technical standards by reference. If enacted, the rule would have no legal force or effect, and under the CRA, NHTSA would generally be prohibited from issuing a substantially similar rule without new congressional authorization.
Who benefits
Automakers and suppliers currently developing or selling hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, who would avoid compliance costs and design constraints imposed by the rule. Manufacturers of compressed hydrogen storage systems who would not need to meet the incorporated technical standards. Importers of hydrogen vehicles from countries with different safety standards. Potentially, consumers if compliance costs would have raised vehicle prices. Legislators and industry groups who prefer Congress or industry bodies — rather than NHTSA — to set technical safety standards.
Who is hurt
Consumers who purchase hydrogen-powered vehicles and would have been protected by the federal safety standards. First responders and bystanders who could be at risk from hydrogen fuel system failures in the absence of uniform federal standards. Domestic automakers and suppliers who had already begun investing in compliance with the rule. Safety advocacy organizations that supported the standards. State governments that may face pressure to fill the regulatory gap with a patchwork of differing state-level rules.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the NHTSA rule was finalized in the final days of the prior administration and that its technical standards — particularly the incorporation by reference of external documents — were not subject to adequate public scrutiny or congressional input. They contend that hydrogen vehicle technology is still rapidly evolving and that locking in specific standards prematurely could stifle innovation, disadvantage U.S. manufacturers competing globally, and impose compliance costs before the technology has matured enough to justify them.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that hydrogen vehicles store fuel at extremely high pressures — up to 700 bar — and that the absence of uniform federal safety standards creates real risks for vehicle occupants, other drivers, and emergency responders. They contend that NHTSA conducted years of technical development and public comment before finalizing the rule, and that blocking it leaves a dangerous regulatory vacuum in a growing vehicle segment, potentially forcing a slower and more fragmented state-by-state approach to safety.
Constitutional context
The Commerce Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 3) gives Congress broad authority to regulate motor vehicle safety as part of interstate commerce, well within the scope affirmed by Wickard v. Filburn (1942). The CRA is a straightforward exercise of Congress's power to oversee and reverse agency rulemaking, raising no significant constitutional tension. Post-Loper Bright (2024), courts would independently review any future NHTSA rule in this area rather than deferring to the agency's interpretation of its statutory authority.
Checks and balances
Congress gains authority by nullifying an executive agency rule; the check on this power is the presidential veto, and if enacted, NHTSA would be barred from issuing a substantially similar rule without new congressional authorization.
Historical precedent
Congress has used the Congressional Review Act to nullify dozens of agency rules since its enactment in 1996, including a 2017 resolution that blocked an OSHA workplace injury recordkeeping rule, establishing a pattern of CRA use to reverse late-term agency regulations.