Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
This bill amends the Clean Air Act to remove federal mandatory requirements for State motor vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) programs. It strikes multiple CAA provisions that required States to adopt, update, or implement I/M and enhanced I/M measures in State Implementation Plans, and removes related statutory text and cross-references.
Progressives emphasize public health and emissions risks.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clearly focused statutory repeal implemented by detailed textual amendments to the Clean Air Act.
This bill amends the Clean Air Act to remove federal mandatory requirements for State motor vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) programs.
It strikes multiple CAA provisions that required States to adopt, update, or implement I/M and enhanced I/M measures in State Implementation Plans, and removes related statutory text and cross-references.
Narrow scope helps prospects in one chamber, but controversy over air-quality rollbacks and need for concurrence in both chambers lowers overall chances.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clearly focused statutory repeal implemented by detailed textual amendments to the Clean Air Act. The legal edits are specific and technically precise, but the bill provides minimal implementation guidance beyond those edits.
Progressives emphasize public health and emissions risks.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize public health and emissions risks.
Likely opposed.
They will view repeal as weakening a proven emissions-control tool that protects air quality and public health, especially in disadvantaged communities.
They will be concerned about increased vehicle emissions and backsliding on attainment of NAAQS.
Mixed view.
Appreciates state flexibility and lower administrative costs but worries about emissions, NAAQS compliance, and legal/implementation gaps.
Would seek guardrails to prevent air-quality backsliding while allowing deregulatory relief.
Generally supportive.
Sees the bill as restoring state authority, reducing federal overreach, and removing costly requirements on drivers and state governments.
Prefers state-driven, market-based solutions over federal mandates.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Narrow scope helps prospects in one chamber, but controversy over air-quality rollbacks and need for concurrence in both chambers lowers overall chances.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize public health and emissions risks.
Narrow scope helps prospects in one chamber, but controversy over air-quality rollbacks and need for concurrence in both chambers lowers ov…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clearly focused statutory repeal implemented by detailed textual amendments to the Clean Air Act. The legal edits are specific and technically precise, but the b…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.