This joint resolution uses the Congressional Review Act (chapter 8 of title 5, U.S. Code) to disapprove the Environmental Protection Agency rule titled “New Source Performance Standards Review for Volatile Organic Liquid Storage Vessels (Including Petroleum Liquid Storage Vessels)” (89 Fed. Reg. 83296, Oct. 15, 2024).
The operative text declares that the identified EPA rule "shall have no force or effect."
The practical significance is immediate: if enacted, the resolution would revoke the 2024 NSPS review and remove the rule as a regulatory requirement for operators of volatile organic liquid (VOL) storage vessels, while also triggering the CRA’s bar on reissuing the same or a substantially similar rule without new statutory authority. That combination alters regulatory expectations for refineries, terminals, chemical storage facilities, state permitting agencies, and consultants who track NSPS compliance and permitting requirements.
At a Glance
What It Does
The resolution disapproves a single EPA rule (identified by Federal Register citation) and declares it void under the Congressional Review Act. By statute, CRA disapproval also restricts the agency from issuing a subsequent rule in "substantially the same" form unless Congress gives new authorization.
Who It Affects
Directly affected parties include owners and operators of petroleum and other volatile organic liquid storage vessels (terminals, refineries, bulk storage facilities), state environmental agencies that implement NSPS-based permits, and environmental compliance vendors. EPA’s regulatory toolkit for these sources would be reduced.
Why It Matters
This is a narrow but consequential use of the CRA: it removes a specific federal performance standard update and creates a statutory barrier to quickly restoring equivalent federal requirements. That shifts the choices about how VOC emissions from storage tanks are regulated — back to EPA through fresh rulemaking, to states, or to Congress.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The resolution is a single-clause Congressional Review Act measure that targets one EPA rule: the agency’s 2024 New Source Performance Standards review for volatile organic liquid storage vessels, including petroleum tanks. The bill’s operative language says Congress disapproves that rule and that it will have no force or effect.
That is the entire legal act in the text: identification of the rule by citation and a declaration of nullification.
Under the CRA, a disapproval resolution does more than simply cancel a rule; it also triggers a statutory constraint on the agency’s ability to reissue the same regulatory approach. Practically, that means EPA cannot promulgate a rule in "substantially the same" form without express statutory authorization from Congress — a legal standard that has been litigated and often becomes a disputed point in subsequent rulemaking.
For regulated parties, that lifts the immediate compliance obligation created by the 2024 NSPS review but creates uncertainty about long‑term standards.The resolution does not set alternative regulatory requirements. It does not amend the Clean Air Act or change EPA’s underlying statutory authority; it only nullifies the particular rulemaking submission it names.
Because it supplies no replacement standard, the practical regulatory landscape after passage would depend on whether EPA pursues a new, materially different rule, whether states adopt their own standards, or whether Congress legislates a different approach. Operators, permitting authorities, and stakeholders will face a period of legal and administrative uncertainty while future options are considered.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The resolution disapproves the EPA rule titled “New Source Performance Standards Review for Volatile Organic Liquid Storage Vessels (Including Petroleum Liquid Storage Vessels)” and identifies it by Federal Register citation (89 Fed. Reg. 83296, Oct. 15, 2024).
The single operative sentence declares that the named rule “shall have no force or effect,” which, if enacted, nullifies that specific EPA submission under the CRA.
By operation of the Congressional Review Act, the disapproval would bar EPA from issuing a rule that is "substantially the same" without new statutory authorization — creating a legal constraint on near-term reissuance of equivalent standards.
The resolution does not replace the rule or create alternative emission limits or work practices; it removes the 2024 regulatory update but leaves EPA’s underlying Clean Air Act authorities intact.
Because the text is narrowly framed, its passage would primarily create a regulatory gap that EPA, states, or Congress would need to fill through new rulemaking, state regulation, or legislation.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Disapproval and nullification of the identified EPA rule
This provision is the bill’s sole operative language: it identifies the EPA rule by title and Federal Register citation and states that Congress disapproves that rule and that it "shall have no force or effect." Practically, that means the 2024 NSPS review — as written and submitted — would be treated as if it never took effect for regulatory purposes once the resolution becomes law.
Action taken under chapter 8 of title 5 (Congressional Review Act)
Although the joint resolution is short, its invocation of chapter 8 of title 5 places it into the CRA framework. The CRA not only nullifies the specified rule but also triggers a statutory prohibition on agencies reissuing the same or a "substantially similar" rule without explicit congressional authorization. That downstream legal effect is not spelled out in the text but is intrinsic to the chosen statutory vehicle.
What the resolution does not do
The resolution does not amend the Clean Air Act, does not establish alternative NSPS requirements, and does not direct any enforcement or compliance steps. Its scope is limited to disapproving the identified rule; responsibility for filling the regulatory void remains with EPA, the states, or Congress, each of which would face different administrative or legislative processes to act next.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Environment across all five countries.
Explore Environment in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Petroleum and bulk storage operators — They avoid the compliance costs and permit changes that would have flowed from the 2024 NSPS review while the rule is nullified.
- Smaller tank owners and terminals — These operators typically face proportionally higher compliance burdens; nullification preserves their current regulatory baseline and delays any new technical or monitoring obligations.
- Industry trade associations and environmental compliance consultants serving those industries — In the short term, industry avoids new compliance mandates and potential capital expenditures tied to the 2024 rule.
Who Bears the Cost
- EPA — The agency loses an adopted regulatory update it developed and faces a statutory constraint on reissuing similar protections without new congressional action.
- Communities near storage facilities and public health advocates — These groups lose the prospective emission reductions and protective measures the 2024 NSPS review would have delivered until a replacement is adopted.
- State environmental agencies and permitting authorities — States may have anticipated federal standards to harmonize permitting; nullification forces them to choose whether to act alone, increasing administrative and regulatory workload.
- Companies that already invested in planning or early compliance — Firms that spent capital or changed operations in reliance on the 2024 rule could bear sunk costs or face stranded investments if the rule is nullified.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between immediate deregulation to avoid near‑term compliance costs and preserving an agency’s ability to set uniform federal standards that protect air quality; the CRA resolves the first at the expense of the second, using a procedural tool that cancels a rule without offering a substantive replacement or an agreed path forward.
The joint resolution is legally simple but programmatically disruptive. The CRA’s blunt statutory mechanism cancels a rule without resolving the underlying policy questions the EPA rule attempted to address — namely how to control VOC emissions from storage vessels under the Clean Air Act.
That creates a gap: regulated sources and permitting authorities lose a federal baseline, but the resolution offers no alternative path to the environmental outcomes the rule targeted.
A second practical problem is the ambiguity around the CRA’s prohibition on reissuing a "substantially the same" rule. That phrase produces litigation risk because determining whether a future EPA proposal is substantially the same turns on administrative record comparisons, often prompting court challenges.
The statutory bar therefore can chill EPA rulemaking or force reworkings that are costly and legally contestable. Finally, nullification creates operational uncertainty for regulated parties: some will have incurred planning or investment costs in anticipation of the rule, while others will now delay compliance planning — producing uneven industry behavior and potential stranded compliance efforts.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.