S.J. Res. 31 is a short joint resolution that declares congressional disapproval, under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the Environmental Protection Agency rule titled "Review of Final Rule Reclassification of Major Sources as Area Sources Under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act" (89 Fed.
Reg. 73293 (Sept. 10, 2024)). The resolution states that the referenced EPA rule "shall have no force or effect."
Why this matters: the rule at issue changed which industrial sources are treated as "major" versus "area" sources for purposes of Section 112 of the Clean Air Act — a classification that determines applicability of source-specific hazardous-air-pollutant standards and related compliance obligations. Nullifying that reclassification restores the pre-rule regulatory baseline for affected sources, with immediate consequences for permitting, emissions standards, enforcement exposure, and markets for control technologies.
Because the resolution invokes chapter 8 (the Congressional Review Act), it also carries the statutory limitation that the agency may not issue a "substantially the same" rule again without new congressional authorization.
At a Glance
What It Does
The resolution disapproves the EPA rule published at 89 Fed. Reg. 73293 and states the rule "shall have no force or effect." It does this by invoking the congressional disapproval process set out in chapter 8 of title 5 (the Congressional Review Act).
Who It Affects
Owners and operators of industrial sources that the EPA had reclassified from "major" to "area" under CAA §112 (for example, certain chemical plants, refineries, and other facilities subject to NESHAPs). State permitting authorities, EPA regional offices, and vendors of emissions-control equipment will also see immediate practical impacts on permitting and compliance planning.
Why It Matters
Nullifying the reclassification revives the pre-rule regulatory status for affected sources, which can change which National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) apply and how permits are written and enforced. It also demonstrates Congress using the CRA to reverse an EPA regulatory reinterpretation — a precedent with programmatic and procedural implications for future agency rulemaking.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The resolution is narrowly focused: it names the EPA rule (the September 10, 2024 Federal Register notice) that reviewed and reclassified certain sources under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act, and it declares congressional disapproval so that the rule has no legal effect. It does not itself rewrite the Clean Air Act or prescribe new emission limits; it operates by nullifying an agency action.
Because the resolution invokes chapter 8 of title 5, its practical effect goes beyond simple disapproval. Under the Congressional Review Act, a successful disapproval both removes the particular rule from the regulatory landscape and restricts the agency's ability to promulgate a "substantially the same" rule in the future without new statutory authorization.
That means EPA cannot simply reissue the same reclassification in a slightly altered form and expect it to stand on the same administrative footing.On the ground, the immediate consequence is regulatory reversion: entities that the EPA had treated as "area" sources would again be treated as "major" sources for purposes of CAA §112 until EPA promulgates a legally distinct rule or Congress changes the statute. That affects which NESHAPs apply, what emission-control technologies may be required, and how inspectors and permitting authorities enforce compliance.
The resolution is silent on transitional arrangements or retroactivity, which raises practical questions about permits issued, compliance actions already taken under the now-disapproved rule, and ongoing enforcement matters.Finally, because the resolution only nullifies an agency rule and does not amend statutory provisions, the long-term allocation of regulatory obligations remains governed by the Clean Air Act and by future EPA rulemaking or Congressional action. Affected parties should expect a period of regulatory and legal uncertainty while agencies, regulated entities, and possibly the courts sort out immediate administrative and enforcement consequences.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The resolution specifically targets the EPA rule published at 89 Fed. Reg. 73293 (Sept. 10, 2024), titled "Review of Final Rule Reclassification of Major Sources as Area Sources Under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act.", It declares that the referenced EPA rule "shall have no force or effect," effectively nullifying that Federal Register action if the resolution becomes law.
The resolution invokes chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code (the Congressional Review Act), which both disapproves the rule and limits the agency from issuing a "substantially the same" rule without a new act of Congress.
The text contains no amendment to the Clean Air Act itself and does not include transition, savings, or retroactivity provisions addressing permits or compliance steps already taken under the EPA rule.
The resolution is a single, narrowly framed congressional instrument: it identifies the rule by citation and title and contains an explicit no-force-or-effect clause rather than directing EPA to take corrective administrative steps.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Legislative caption and context
The opening text follows standard joint-resolution form and identifies the session of Congress and the rule under review by name. Practically, the preamble locates the action within the Congressional Review Act framework by referencing the rule and providing the formal legislative posture required for a CRA disapproval resolution.
Congressional disapproval of the specified EPA rule
This clause is the operative heart of the resolution: it states Congress disapproves the named EPA rule and that the rule "shall have no force or effect." That language is the statutory trigger for nullification of an agency rule under the CRA; it does not contain conditional language or carve-outs. For regulated parties, this clause is the legal basis for treating the rule as if it were not a binding federal regulation.
Invocation of the Congressional Review Act mechanism
By placing the disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, the resolution relies on the CRA's statutory mechanics rather than creating a new enforcement or remedy scheme. The practical implication is twofold: the resolution nullifies the rule itself, and it triggers the CRA's limitation on issuing rules that are "substantially the same" as the disapproved rule without new legislation.
Formal enactment language and officers
The closing lines identify the officers and standard enacting formula for a joint resolution. While ministerial, these lines indicate the instrument is formatted to produce the legal effect required by the CRA upon enactment and signature and to enable official publication of the resolution's text in the Congressional Record and other official sources.
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
- Communities near affected facilities and public-health advocates — preserving the "major" classification keeps stricter Section 112 controls in place, which can translate into lower hazardous-air-pollutant exposures in fenceline communities.
- State and local air agencies that prefer retaining existing NESHAP coverage — nullification avoids the need for states to adjust permits or enforcement approaches based on the reclassification.
- Manufacturers and suppliers of emissions-control equipment and service providers — continued applicability of MACT-level controls preserves demand for emission-control technologies and related compliance services.
- Environmental NGOs and litigation partners — the resolution removes an administrative change they opposed, preserving regulatory leverage to seek stricter enforcement under existing standards.
Who Bears the Cost
- Industrial owners and operators (e.g., chemical plants, refineries, manufacturers) that stood to gain reduced obligations from the EPA reclassification — they may face restored compliance obligations, increased capital and operating costs, and possible permit revisions.
- State permitting authorities and permitting staff — agencies must reassess permits and compliance schedules, increasing administrative workload without corresponding federal funding.
- EPA regional offices and counsel — the agency will need to provide guidance, manage legal risk, and enforce the pre-rule regime while navigating CRA restrictions on reissuance.
- Companies that adjusted business plans or supply chains based on the reclassification — downstream contractual or investment decisions may face disruption if the regulatory baseline reverts.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is whether Congress should use the CRA to nullify a technically driven agency reclassification — protecting stricter regulatory coverage and immediate public-health protections — at the cost of curtailing agency flexibility and creating legal and administrative uncertainty about permits, enforcement, and the agency's ability to refine rules in light of technical evidence.
The resolution is concise to the point of leaving implementation questions unanswered. It nullifies the specified Federal Register action but does not address whether actions already taken under the now-disapproved rule (such as permits issued, compliance plans implemented, or enforcement decisions) remain valid or must be revisited.
That silence creates litigation and administrative risk: regulated entities may challenge retroactive enforcement, while regulators must decide whether to grandfather prior actions or reopen them.
Another tension arises from the CRA's bar on issuing a "substantially the same" rule. That provision protects Congress's oversight role but is nebulous in application: agencies and courts will have to litigate or define what counts as "substantially the same," which can chill iterative rulemaking or force agencies into more drastic rewrites even when technical changes would have been sufficient.
The resolution resolves a policy dispute by legislative fiat rather than by amending the underlying statute, which leaves the substantive legal framework for source classification unchanged and may require either future EPA rulemaking or a statutory change to settle the matter permanently.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.