HJRES-89-119
Became Public Law No: 119-17.
Sponsored by Jay Obernolte (R-CA)
What it does
This law uses the Congressional Review Act to nullify an EPA notice published January 6, 2025, that granted California a waiver under the Clean Air Act. That waiver allowed California's Air Resources Board to enforce its "Omnibus Low NOX" regulations, which set stricter nitrogen oxide (NOX) emission limits for heavy-duty trucks and engines. By nullifying the waiver, the law blocks California from enforcing those stricter standards and prevents other states that had adopted California's rules from enforcing them as well.
Who benefits
Trucking companies and freight operators that would have faced compliance costs to meet California's stricter NOX limits. Heavy-duty truck and engine manufacturers who would have needed to redesign or retool products for the California market. Diesel fuel suppliers whose market may be preserved. States that had not adopted California's standards and whose interstate trucking industries would have faced a patchwork of rules. Consumers who may have otherwise seen higher freight costs passed through to goods prices.
Who is hurt
California residents and communities near freight corridors who would have benefited from reduced NOX pollution and associated health improvements. The roughly 17 states that had adopted or were considering adopting California's standards, which now lose the ability to enforce them. Environmental and public health organizations that supported the stricter rules. Clean-vehicle and zero-emission truck manufacturers who had positioned products to meet the California standard. Workers in those industries whose market opportunity may shrink.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that California's Omnibus Low NOX regulation imposed some of the most stringent heavy-duty engine standards in the world, creating enormous compliance costs for the trucking industry at a time when supply chains are already under pressure. They contend that allowing a single state to effectively set national standards — since manufacturers often build to the strictest applicable rule — undermines Congress's intent to have uniform federal emission standards, and that the EPA waiver process was used to grant California authority far beyond what the Clean Air Act contemplated for a state-level rule of this economic magnitude.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that California's authority to seek Clean Air Act waivers for stricter vehicle emission standards has been in place since 1967 and has been granted over 100 times, representing a well-established congressional design to allow California to serve as a laboratory for cleaner technology. They contend that NOX emissions from heavy-duty trucks are a documented contributor to smog and respiratory illness — particularly in communities near ports and freight corridors — and that nullifying the waiver removes a proven regulatory tool that has historically driven nationwide improvements in vehicle emission technology.
Constitutional context
The Clean Air Act's California waiver provision is grounded in Congress's Commerce Clause authority (Art. I, §8, cl. 3). Post-Loper Bright (2024), courts will independently assess whether the EPA's original waiver grant was within its statutory authority rather than deferring to the agency's interpretation. The major questions doctrine from West Virginia v. EPA (2022) is also relevant: if the waiver effectively authorized a rule of vast economic significance, challengers could argue EPA needed clearer congressional authorization — though here Congress itself is acting to revoke the waiver, which sidesteps that question.
Checks and balances
Congress gains authority by using the Congressional Review Act to override an executive agency decision; the EPA and California lose the ability to re-issue a substantially similar rule without new congressional authorization, and the President's signature completes the action with no further judicial pre-clearance required.
Historical precedent
The Congressional Review Act has been used to nullify EPA rules before — most notably in 2017 when Congress rescinded the Stream Protection Rule — but this is among the first uses of the CRA to nullify a Clean Air Act waiver granted to California, making it a novel application of that oversight tool.