[House Report 119-596]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
119th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session } { 119-596
======================================================================
REDUCING AND ELIMINATING DUPLICATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS ACT
_______
April 9, 2026.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Guthrie, from the Committee on Energy and Commerce, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
together with
MINORITY VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 6398]
The Committee on Energy and Commerce, to whom was referred
the bill (H.R. 6398) to amend the Clean Air Act relating to
review by the Environmental Protection Agency of proposed
legislation, having considered the same, reports favorably
thereon without amendment and recommends that the bill do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
Purpose and Summary.............................................. 2
Background and Need for Legislation.............................. 2
Committee Action................................................. 5
Committee Votes.................................................. 5
Oversight Findings and Recommendations........................... 7
New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditures 7
Congressional Budget Office Estimate............................. 7
Federal Mandates Statement....................................... 7
Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives............ 7
Duplication of Federal Programs.................................. 7
Related Committee and Subcommittee Hearings...................... 7
Committee Cost Estimate.......................................... 8
Earmark, Limited Tax Benefits, and Limited Tariff Benefits....... 8
Advisory Committee Statement..................................... 8
Applicability to Legislative Branch.............................. 8
Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation................... 8
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............ 9
Minority, Additional, or Dissenting Views........................ 10
Purpose and Summary
The purpose of H.R. 6398 is to amend the Clean Air Act
(CAA) Section 309 removing the duplicative requirement for the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to review and provide
written comments on federal construction projects or other
actions by a federal agency that are already subject to
environmental review under the National Environment Policy Act
(NEPA).
Background and Need for Legislation
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (NEPA)
In 1969, Congress passed the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) which established a ``national policy [to] encourage
productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his
environment,'' with the goal of reducing environmental impacts
to promote ``the understanding of the ecological systems and
naturalresources important to'' the United States.\1\ ``NEPA
itself does not mandate particular results'' in order to accomplish
these ends.\2\ Instead, NEPA sets forth procedural requirements for
federal agencies to ensure they consider the environmental effects of
proposed actions before making a decision.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Department of Transportation v. Public Citizen, 541 U.S. 752,
756, 124 S. Ct. 2204, 159 L. Ed. 2d 60 (2004) (quoting 42 U.S.C. Sec.
4321).
\2\Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 350
(1989).
\3\42 U.S.C. Sec. 4332(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEPA established the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)
to advise presidents on environmental policy, issue federal
regulations interpreting NEPA, assist Federal agencies in their
implementation of NEPA, and oversee the implementation of other
environmental initiatives.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\See 40 CFR Sec. 1500.3 (2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prior to 2023, NEPA directed federal agencies to include in
every recommendation or report on proposals for legislation and
other major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality
of the human environment, an environmental impact statement
(EIS) that included: (i) the environmental impact of the
proposed action, (ii) any adverse environmental effects which
cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented, (iii)
alternatives to the proposed action, (iv) the relationship
between local short-term uses of man's environment and the
maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and (v)
any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources
which would be involved in the proposed action should it be
implemented.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\42 U.S.C. Sec. 4332(2)(C). Sec. 102(2)(C), 83 Stat. 853, as
amended, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 4332(2)(C) (2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the time, CEQ regulations allowed an agency to prepare a
more limited document, an Environmental Assessment (EA) to
determine whether the action is ``major'' and whether it will
``significantly affect'' the environment.\6\ Prior to the 2023
amendments ``major action'' was defined to ``include actions
with effects that may be major and which are potentially
subject to Federal control and responsibility.''\7\ Effects was
defined as include: (a) direct effects, which are caused by the
action and occur at the same time and place,'' and ``(b)
indirect effects, which are caused by the action and are later
in time or farther removed in distance, but are still
reasonably foreseeable.''\8\ The EA led the agency to issue a
``finding of no significant impact'' (FONSI), or an EIS.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\40 C.F.R. Sec. 1501.3.
\7\40 CFR Sec. 1508.18 (2003).
\8\Sec. 1508.8.
\9\See 40 C.F.R. Sec. 1502.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In June of 2023, NEPA was amended by the Fiscal
Responsibility Act of 2023 (FRA). The FRA limited the scope of
major Federal action and the scope of the EIS. The FRA further
curtailed NEPA's requirements by creating page and time limits
for EAs and EISs.
NEPA, as amended by the FRA, requires action agencies to
prepare an EIS for proposed ``major Federal actions
significantly affecting the quality of the human
environment.''\10\ The EIS requirements were narrowed to
require the agency to address: (1) the reasonably foreseeable
environmental effects of the proposed agency action; (2) any
reasonably foreseeable adverse environmental effects that
cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented; (3) a
reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed agency action,
including an analysis of any negative environmental impacts of
not implementing the proposed agency action in the case of a no
action alternative, that are technically and economically
feasible, and meet the purpose and need of the proposal; (4)
the relationship between local short-term uses of man's
environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term
productivity; and (5) any irreversible and irretrievable
commitments of Federal resources which would be involved in the
proposed action should it be implemented.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C); Seven County, 145 S. Ct. 1507.
\11\42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued E.O. 14154,
Unleashing American Energy.\12\ The E.O. revoked E.O. 11991,
Relating to protection and enhancement of environmental
quality, which directed CEQ to issue regulations implementing
NEPA and required Federal agencies to comply with those
regulations.\13\ E.O. 14154 also directed CEQ to provide
guidance on implementing NEPA and proposed rescinding CEQ's
NEPA regulations.\14\ CEQ issued an interim final rule
rescinding CEQ's NEPA implementing regulations on February 25,
2025, effective April 11, 2025.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\90 FR 8353 (Jan. 29, 2025) (``E.O. 14154'').
\13\Exec. Order No. 14,154, 90 Fed. Reg. 8353 (Jan. 20, 2025).
\14\Id. at sec 5(a). The guidance and any resulting agency
implementing regulations must ``expedite permitting approvals and meet
deadlines established in the [FRA].'' Id. at sec 5(c).
\15\90 FR 10, 610 (Feb. 25, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 8, 2026, CEQ issued a final rule adopting the
interim final rule that repealed CEQ's existing NEPA
implementation regulations.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\See Removal of National Environmental Policy Act Implementing
Regulations (Jan 8, 2026) and Removal of National Environmental Policy
Act Implementing Regulations (Feb. 25, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SECTION 309
Section 309 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) provides for the
review of the action agency's EIS statements and for EPA
referrals to CEQ. A year after NEPA passed in 1970, Congress
added Section 309 of the CAA. Section 309 directs EPA to review
and comment on the adequacy of environmental impact analysis on
any: ``(1) legislation proposed by a Federal department or
agency, (2) newly authorized Federal projects for construction
and any major Federal action (other than a project for
construction) to which section [102(2)(C)] applies, and (3)
proposed regulations published by any department or agency of
the Federal Government.''\17\ Section 309 also directs EPA to
refer the matter to the CEQ if the action agency does not
adequately respond to EPA's comments in the final EIS.\18\ In
the thirty years since Congress passed Section 309 of the CAA,
action agencies developed their own specialists and expertise
preparing EISs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\42 U.S.C. Sec. 7609.
\18\42 U.S.C. Sec. 7609.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEVEN COUNTY
On May 29, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued Seven County
Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado. In the
decision, the Court was highly critical of the transformation
of NEPA from ``a modest procedural requirement,'' to a
``substantive roadblock'' that paralyzed agency
decisionmaking.\19\ The Court held that NEPA is fundamentally a
procedural statute designed to facilitate decision making of
the action agency: ``NEPA is a purely procedural statute that,
as relevant here, simply requires an agency to prepare an EIS--
in essence, a report. Importantly, NEPA does not require the
agency to weigh environmental consequences in any particular
way.''\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\145 S. Ct. 1497 (2025).
\20\Id. at 1513.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seven County gives the action agency wide discretion when
preparing and considering the EIS report as part of the NEPA
process. The Court recognized that action agencies are best
suited to answer questions such as: ``what are the likely
impacts'' of the project or proposed action; do they rise to
the level of significant? and ``what are potential
alternatives''; are they really feasible?''\21\ The Court held
that on those questions the action agency ``must have broad
latitude to draw a `manageable line.'''\22\ Therefore, courts
``should afford substantial deference and should not
micromanage those agency choices so long as they fall within
the broad zone of reasonableness.''\23\ The underlying
conclusion, central to the opinion, was that action agencies
are not only fully equipped, but also best equipped to evaluate
the environmental impacts of a proposed action. The Court's
discussion of the action agency's ability to address
environmental effects from a proposed action illustrates how
EPA's input under Section 309 is no longer necessary or
instructive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\Id.
\22\Id. (citation omitted).
\23\Id. at 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, EPA's input under 309 traditionally exceeds the
scope of NEPA as defined in Seven County. EPA has often used
its 309 authority to urge agencies to consider upstream and
downstream emissions. Historically, EPA has requested that
action agencies include life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions
analysis, including analysis of indirect greenhouse gas
effects. Requests for action agencies to consider these types
of emissions are no longer properly considered as part of NEPA,
as the Court held in Seven County.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\145 S. Ct. 1497 (2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 6398's amendment of Section 309 of the CAA is
necessary to prevent a duplicative and unnecessary secondary
review of an action agency's EIS by EPA. In the years since
Section 309 was originally enacted agencies have developed
substantial expertise preparing EIS statements and weighing
environmental impacts in their decision-making process, as
supported by the recent Seven County decision.
Committee Action
On September 16, 2025 the Subcommittee on Environment held
a hearing on H.R. 6398. The Subcommittee received testimony
from:
Clint Woods, Commissioner, Indiana
Department of Environmental Management;
Mark Gebbia, Vice President, Environmental
and Permitting, Williams;
Ashley Kunz, Senior Director, Environmental
Health and Safety, Micron;
Danny Seiden, President and CEO, Arizona
Chamber of Commerce and Industry;
Kerri Powell, Senior Attorney for Community
Health and Air Program Leader, Southern Environmental
Law Center;
Ali Mirzakhalili, Air Quality Division
Administrator, Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality.
On December 10, 2025, the Subcommittee on Environment met
in open markup session and forwarded H.R. 6398, without
amendment, to the full Committee by a record vote of 12 yeas
and 10 nays. On January 21, 2026, the full Committee on Energy
and Commerce met in open markup session and ordered H.R. 6398,
without amendment, favorably reported to the house by a
recorded vote of 23 yeas and 22 nays.
Committee Votes
Clause 3(b) of rule XIII requires the Committee to list the
record votes on the motion to report legislation and amendments
thereto. The following reflects the record votes taken during
the Committee consideration:
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Oversight Findings and Recommendations
Pursuant to clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of
rule XIII, the Committee held (a) hearing(s) and made findings
that are reflected in this report.
New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority,
and Tax Expenditures
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII, the Committee
finds that H.R. 6398 would result in no new or increased budget
authority, entitlement authority, or tax expenditures or
revenues.
Congressional Budget Office Estimate
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII, at the time this
report was filed, the cost estimate prepared by the Director of
the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 402 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 was not available.
Federal Mandates Statement
The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of Federal
mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act.
Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the general
performance goal or objective of this legislation is to remove
the requirement for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
to conduct a duplicative NEPA review under Section 309 of the
Clean Air Act (CAA).
Duplication of Federal Programs
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(5) of rule XIII, no provision of
H.R. 6398 is known to be duplicative of another Federal
program, including any program that was included in a report to
Congress pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139 or the
most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance.
Related Committee and Subcommittee Hearings
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(6) of rule XIII, the following
related hearing was used to develop or consider H.R. 6398:
On June 11, 2025, the Subcommittee on Environment held a
hearing on H.R. 6398. The title of the hearing was ``Short-
Circuiting Progress: How the Clean Air Act Impacts Building
Necessary Infrastructure and Onshoring American Innovation.''
The Subcommittee received testimony from:
James W. Boylan, Chief, Air Protection
Branch, Georgia Environmental Protection Division;
Chad Whiteman, Vice President, Environment
and Regulatory Affairs, U.S. Chamber of Commerce;
Paul Noe, Vice President, Public Policy,
American Forest & Paper Association;
John Walke, Director, Federal Clean Air &
Senior Attorney, National Resources Defense Council.
On September 16, 2025 the Subcommittee on Environment held
a hearing on H.R. 6398. The title of the hearing was ``From
Gridlock to Growth: Permitting Reform Under the Clean Air
Act.'' The Subcommittee received testimony from:
Clint Woods, Commissioner, Indiana
Department of Environmental Management;
Mark Gebbia, Vice President, Environmental
and Permitting, Williams;
Ashley Kunz, Senior Director, Environmental
Health and Safety, Micron;
Danny Seiden, President and CEO, Arizona
Chamber of Commerce and Industry;
John Walke, Director, Federal Clean Air &
Senior Attorney, National Resources Defense Council;
Kerri Powell, Senior Attorney for Community
Health and Air Program Leader, Southern Environmental
Law Center;
Ali Mirzakhalili, Air Quality Division
Administrator, Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality.
Committee Cost Estimate
Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII, the Committee
adopts as its own the cost estimate prepared by the Director of
the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 402 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974. At the time this report was
filed, the estimate was not available.
Earmark, Limited Tax Benefits, and Limited Tariff Benefits
Pursuant to clause 9(e), 9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI, the
Committee finds that H.R. 6398 contains no earmarks, limited
tax benefits or limited tariff benefits.
Advisory Committee Statement
No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b)
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by this
legislation.
Applicability to Legislative Branch
The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public
services or accommodations within the meaning of section
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act.
Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation
Section 1. Short title
Section 1 of H.R. 6398 contains the short title of the
legislation: ``Reducing and Eliminating Duplicative
Environmental Regulations Act'' or the ``RED Tape Act.''
Section 2. Policy review
Section 2 of H.R. 6398 contains three parts:
First, the section strikes the requirement contained in the
Clean Air Act section 309, under which EPA must review and
comment in writing on other agencies' environmental impact
statements for newly authorized Federal projects for
construction and any major Federal agency action to which
4332(2)(c) applies.
Second, the section eliminates the requirement contained in
the Clean Air Act Section 309 for EPA to assess and provide
feedback on other agencies' environmental impact statements for
proposed regulations published by a federal department or
agency.
Third, the section makes conforming changes that remove the
requirement for the EPA Administrator to refer agency action or
proposed regulations to the Council on Environmental Quality.
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new
matter is printed in italics, and existing law in which no
change is proposed is shown in roman):
CLEAN AIR ACT
* * * * * * *
TITLE III--GENERAL
* * * * * * *
policy review
Sec. 309. (a) The Administrator shall review [and comment in
writing], and comment in writing, on the environmental impact
of any matter relating to duties and responsibilities granted
pursuant to this Act or other provisions of the authority of
the [Administrator,] Administrator contained in any [(1)]
legislation proposed by any Federal department or agency[, (2)
newly authorized Federal projects for construction and any
major Federal agency action (other than a project for
construction) to which section 102(2)(C) of Public Law 91-190
applies, and (3) proposed regulations published by any
department or agency of the Federal Government]. Such written
comment shall be made public at the conclusion of any such
review.
(b) In the event the Administrator determines that any such
legislation[, action, or regulation] is unsatisfactory from the
standpoint of public health or welfare or environmental
quality, he shall publish his determination and the matter
shall be referred to the Council on Environmental Quality.
* * * * * * *
MINORITY VIEWS
We oppose H.R. 6398, the ``Reducing and Eliminating
Duplicative Environmental Regulations Act,'' which allows major
federal projects to be approved without consultation of the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and therefore without
consideration of public health and safety.
BACKGROUND
Section 309 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) authorizes EPA to
review and provide written comment on federal construction
projects or other major federal actions in accordance with the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Section 309 gives EPA
unique and specific authorities to comment in writing, to make
those comments publicly available, and to refer an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) should the Agency determine that an
EIS is unsatisfactory from the standpoint of public health or
welfare, or environmental quality. This ability is important
because the EPA has specific expertise as a public health
agency and offers critical guidance and foresight into
potential public health hazards and risks for major federal
projects.
Proponents of this bill claim Section 309 is duplicative of
NEPA. The majority's report notes that NEPA already requires
interagency review of projects. Even if you accept this
argument, it is contradicted by the Trump Administration's
multiple steps to roll back NEPA reviews and its regulations,
as confirmed by the majority's report.\1\ CAA Section 309
cannot be duplicative of something that no longer exists.
Therefore, this specific provision in the CAA is both unique
and critical for ensuring that the public health and
environmental impacts of a project are specifically considered
during NEPA reviews, with statutory language to support it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\House Committee on Energy and Commerce, H.R. 6398, Reducing and
Eliminating Duplicative Environmental Regulations Act Majority Report
(accessed Feb. 26, 2026).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY OF H.R. 6398
Section 2 amends Section 309 of the CAA to eliminate the
requirement for EPA to review and provide written comments on
major federal construction projects or actions. The bill only
preserves the EPA's Section 309 authority to produce an impact
assessment for legislation.
CONCLUSION
EPA's expertise in protecting the air we breathe, the water
we drink, and the land we live on, should not be sidelined.
This bill is yet another attempt to weaken EPA and NEPA, weaken
agency expertise, and eliminate due diligence at the expense of
public health and safety.
For the reasons stated above, we dissent from the views
contained in the Committee's report.
Frank Pallone, Jr.,
Ranking Member.
[all]