Recreation Permitting Improvement Act

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/hr/9248
Last Updated: July 7, 2026

Sponsored by

Rep. Hurd, Jeff [R-CO-3]

ID: H001100

Follow the money

The bill

Recreation Permitting Improvement Act

HR. 9248, 119th Congress — read as touching Construction & Engineering.

The sponsor

Rep. Hurd, Jeff [R-CO-3]

Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.

The money

$73,400 raised

26 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.

The alignment

70% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of the Interior" section, p. 572-574 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Subcommittee Hearings Held

June 30, 2026

Introduced

Committee Review

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill moves to the floor for full chamber debate and voting.

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed House

🏛️

Senate Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.

2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.

3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.

4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.

5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.

6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.

7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!

Bill Summary

**Summary of H.R. 9248: Recreation Permitting Improvement Act**

**1. Main Purpose & Objectives** The stated purpose of H.R. 9248 is to amend the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act to include “recreation” as a covered sector eligible for expedited federal permitting under the law’s Title 41 provisions. Ostensibly, this aims to streamline environmental and regulatory reviews for recreation-related infrastructure projects—think trail systems, campgrounds, boat launches, or visitor centers on federal lands—by treating them like highways, broadband, or energy projects under the FAST Act’s permitting improvement framework. The bill’s sponsors frame this as a common-sense efficiency move: if we can fast-track a pipeline, why not a pickleball court in a national forest?

But let’s diagnose the real illness here. This isn’t about helping hikers get permits faster—it’s about carving out another loophole for special interests to bypass meaningful environmental review under the guise of “outdoor recreation.” The FAST Act’s permitting improvements were already controversial, criticized for weakening NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) scrutiny in favor of speed. Now, we’re expanding that deregulatory impulse to recreation—because apparently, the real bottleneck to America’s great outdoors isn’t underfunded park services or climate-driven wildfires, but the *30-day comment period* on a proposed disc golf course.

**2. Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill makes a single, deceptively simple textual change: it inserts the word “recreation,” into Section 41001(6)(A) of the FAST Act (42 U.S.C. § 4370m(6)(A)), which defines “covered projects” eligible for federal permitting improvement. Currently, that list includes transportation, energy, broadband, water resources, and “any other sector.” By adding “recreation” explicitly, the bill ensures that recreation projects can qualify for the FAST Act’s accelerated review timelines, expanded interagency coordination, and reduced documentation requirements—effectively treating a new mountain bike trail with the same procedural urgency as a transcontinental pipeline.

There are no additional funding mechanisms, oversight provisions, or safeguards attached. It’s a pure procedural expansion—deregulation by stealth.

**3. Affected Parties & Stakeholders** - **Supporters:** Outdoor recreation industry lobbyists (e.g., Outdoor Recreation Roundtable), state tourism boards, motorized vehicle advocates (OHV groups), and developers eyeing public-private partnerships on federal lands. These groups have long chafed at NEPA delays and see this as a backdoor to faster approvals. - **Opponents:** Environmental NGOs (Sierra Club, NRDC), tribal nations concerned about cultural resource impacts, and public land purists who view any weakening of review as a threat to ecosystem integrity. - **Federal Agencies:** The Forest Service, NPS, BLM, and FWS now face pressure to prioritize speed over thoroughness in recreation project reviews—without additional staff or resources to handle the workload. - **The Public:** Outdoor enthusiasts may see quicker access to new facilities—but at the cost of diminished scrutiny over cumulative impacts, habitat fragmentation, or Indigenous sacred sites. In other words: you get your zip line faster, but maybe not the environmental impact statement that might’ve flagged the endangered bat colony underneath it.

**4. Potential Impact & Implications** This bill is a Trojan horse. By framing recreation as inherently benign and universally good, it smuggling in a broader erosion of environmental accountability. Not all recreation is equal: a paved ATV trail through sensitive wetlands has vastly different consequences than a footpath restoration project. Yet under this law, both could qualify for the same expedited track—no distinction made for scale, impact, or location.

The real impact? More projects, less review, and a precedent that any sector can lobby its way into the FAST Act’s fast lane if it slaps on a wholesome label. Today it’s recreation; tomorrow it’s “agritourism” or “wellness retreats.” We’re not improving permitting—we’re outsourcing environmental judgment to political convenience.

In

Related Topics

Water & Air Quality RegulationsWildlife & Endangered SpeciesTransportation & Infrastructure
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Hurd, Jeff [R-CO-3]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$73,400
26 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$5,700
Committees
$0
Individuals
$67,700

No PAC contributions found

1
OTERO COUNTY REPUBLICAN WOMEN
1 transaction
$2,000
2
GARY DOEHLING PC
1 transaction
$2,000
3
MESA COUNTY REPUBLICAN MEN'S CLUB
1 transaction
$500
4
DEARMAN CONSULTING LLC
1 transaction
$500
5
L BAR SLASH RANCH
1 transaction
$500
6
MONTEZUMA COUNTY REPUBLICAN CENTRAL COMMITTEE
1 transaction
$200

No committee contributions found

1
BENSON, BRUCE
1 transaction
$5,000
2
ABBOTT, DEBRA
1 transaction
$3,300
3
ABBOTT, SARAH
1 transaction
$3,300
4
ABBOTT, THOMAS
1 transaction
$3,300
5
ABBOTT, WESLEY
1 transaction
$3,300
6
ADAMS, SCARLETT
1 transaction
$3,300
7
ANDREWS, SHARON
1 transaction
$3,300
8
ARMSTRONG, KRISTY
1 transaction
$3,300
9
ARMSTRONG, WIL
1 transaction
$3,300
10
BANCROFT, CLARA
1 transaction
$3,300
11
BANCROFT, JOHN R.
1 transaction
$3,300
12
BANCROFT, MARGE
1 transaction
$3,300
13
BANCROFT, PAUL
1 transaction
$3,300
14
BRAUER, CAMILLA
1 transaction
$3,300
15
BRAUER, STEPHEN
1 transaction
$3,300
16
BROWN, ABBY
1 transaction
$3,300
17
BROWN, DON
1 transaction
$3,300
18
BROWN, PEGGY
1 transaction
$3,300
19
CAGLE, BILL
1 transaction
$3,300
20
CARTER, JOE
1 transaction
$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 1 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Deluzio, Christopher R. [D-PA-17]

ID: D000530

Top Contributors

22

1
FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA
OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA
$3,300
Mar 20, 2024
2
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationBANNING, CA
$1,000
Dec 15, 2023
3
SMYTH, NICHOLAS
IndividualPITTSBURGH, PA
$5,000
May 21, 2023
4
SMYTH, NICHOLAS
ST OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF THE ATTOR • ASST DIRECTOR FOR CONSUMER FINANCIAL P
IndividualPITTSBURGH, PA
$3,780
May 26, 2023
5
BALSON, ANDREW
COVE HILL PARTNERS • INVESTMENT SERVICES
IndividualWEST NEWTON, MA
$3,300
Dec 13, 2023
6
BALSON, ANDREW
COVE HILL PARTNERS • INVESTMENT SERVICES
IndividualWEST NEWTON, MA
$3,300
Dec 13, 2023
7
BEEUWKES, NANCY
NOT EMPLOYED • RETIRED
IndividualCONCORD, MA
$3,300
Nov 17, 2023
8
BEEUWKES, REINIER III
ISCHEMIX • CHIEF SCIENTIFIC OFFICER
IndividualCONCORD, MA
$3,300
Nov 17, 2023
9
BILLS, MICHAEL D
BLUESTEM ASSET MANAGEMENT • CEO
IndividualCHARLOTTESVILLE, VA
$3,300
Dec 20, 2023
10
BILLS, MICHAEL D
BLUESTEM ASSET MANAGEMENT • CEO
IndividualCHARLOTTESVILLE, VA
$3,300
Dec 20, 2023

Donor Network - Rep. Hurd, Jeff [R-CO-3]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.

Loading...

Showing 41 nodes and 44 connections

Total contributions: $44

Top Donors - Rep. Hurd, Jeff [R-CO-3]

Showing top 25 donors by contribution amount

6 Orgs20 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 1 helped.

  • Section 2 amends the FAST Act to include recreation activities as covered projects, which could lead to increased infrastructure development and construction projects, benefiting the construction and engineering industry.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Hurd, Jeff [R-CO-3])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022–present cycles. Donations are not proof of intent — they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.

Industries this bill HELPS

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.

Department of the Interior

Moderate
Vector: 63%
Pages: 572-574AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill aligns with Project 2025's emphasis on streamlining federal permitting processes, particularly through the FAST Act framework, which mirrors Interior Department orders aimed at expediting environmental reviews for infrastructure projects. While the bill applies this streamlining to recreation projects rather than energy or mineral leasing, it shares the core objective of reducing bureaucratic delays in federal permitting."

Key themes:permitting streamliningFAST Actexpedited environmental reviewfederal infrastructure coordination

— 540 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 24. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3354: Supporting and Improving the Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Program and Federal Solid Mineral Leasing Program, July 6, 2017, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/ files/uploads/so_-_3354_signed.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 25. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3355: Streamlining National Environmental Policy Reviews and Implementation of Executive Order 13807, “Establishing Discipline and Accountability in the Environmental Review and Permitting Process for Infrastructure Projects,” August 31, 2017, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/ files/elips/documents/3355_-_streamlining_national_environmental_policy_reviews_and_implementation_ of_executive_order_13807_establishing_discipline_and_accountability_in_the_environmental_review_ and_permitting_process_for.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 26. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3358: Executive Committee for Expedited Permitting,” October 25, 2017, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/documents/so_3358_executive_committee_for_ expedited_permitting_0.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 27. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3360: Rescinding Authorities Inconsistent with Secretary’s Order 3349, “American Energy Independence,” December 22, 2017, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/ documents/3360_-_rescinding_authorities_inconsistent_with_secretarys_order_3349_american_energy_ independence.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 28. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3380: Public Notice of the Costs Associated with Developing Department of the Interior Publications and Similar Documents,” March 10, 2020, https://www.doi.gov/sites/ doi.gov/files/elips/documents/so-3398-508_0.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 29. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3385: Enforcement Priorities,” September 14, 2020, https:// www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/documents/signed-so-3385-enforcement-priorities.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 30. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order 3389: Coordinating and Clarifying National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 Reviews,” September 14, 2020, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/documents/signed- so-3385-enforcement-priorities.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 31. Bureau of Land Management, “Updating Oil and Gas Leasing Reform: Land Use Planning and Lease Parcel Reviews,” IM 2018–034, January 31, 2018, https://www.blm.gov/policy/im-2018-034 (accessed March 16, 2023). 32. Lease Now Act, S. 4228, 117th Cong., 2nd Sess. (2022). 33. ONSHORE Act, S. 218, 116th Cong., 2nd Sess. (2019). https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate- bill/218/text (accessed March 18, 2023). 34. Federal Register, Vol. 87, No. 130 (July 8, 2022), pp. 40859–40863. 35. The Biden Administration’s 2023–2028 proposed program is fatally flawed. Katie Tubb, “Comment for the 2023–2028 National OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Proposed Program,” BOEM–2022–0031, October 6, 2022, http:// thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2022/Regulatory_Comments/BOEM%202023-2028%20lease%20plan%20 comment%20KTubb.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 36. See Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, Public Law No. 117–169, §§ 50261–50263. 37. Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, Public Law No. 115–97, § 20001, and U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3401: Comprehensive Analysis and Temporary Halt on All Activities in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Relating to the Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program,” June 1, 2021, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/ documents/so-3401-comprehensive-analysis-and-temporary-halt-on-all-activitives-in-the-arctic-national- wildlife-refuge-relating-to-the-coastal-plain-oil-and-gas-leasing-program.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 38. In 2016, Interior Secretary Sally Jewell instituted a moratorium on new coal leases while conducting a programmatic environmental impact statement under NEPA to address concerns about competition and inconsistency with the Obama Administration’s climate policy. In 2017, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke lifted the moratorium and ended development of a programmatic environmental impact statement. In April 2021, Interior Secretary Debra Haaland rescinded Zinke’s order and initiated a new review of the coal-leasing program. See U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3338: Discretionary Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement to Modernize the Federal Coal Program,” January 15, 2016, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi. gov/files/elips/documents/archived-3338_-discretionary_programmatic_environmental_impact_statement_ to_modernize_the_federal_coal_program.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023); U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3348”; U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3398”; and Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 159 (August 20, 2021), pp. 46873–46877. — 541 — Department of the Interior 39. Katie Tubb, “No More Standoffs: Protecting Federal Employees and Ending the Culture of Anti-Government Attacks and Abuse,” testimony before the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands, Committee on Natural Resources, U.S. House of Representatives, pp. 2–4, October 22, 2019, https://congress. gov/116/meeting/house/110104/witnesses/HHRG-116-II10-Wstate-TubbK-20191022.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 40. News release, “Secretary Haaland Announces Steps to Establish Protections for Culturally Significant Chaco Canyon Landscape,” U.S. Department of the Interior, November 15, 2021, https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/ secretary-haaland-announces-steps-establish-protections-culturally-significant-chaco (accessed March 16, 2023); News release, “Biden–Harris Administration Proposes Protections for Thompson Divide,” U.S. Department of the Interior, October 12, 2022, https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/biden-harris-administration- proposes-protections-thompson-divide (accessed March 16, 2023); News release, “Biden Administration Takes Action to Complete Study of Boundary Waters Area Watershed,” U.S. Department of the Interior, October 20, 2021, https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/biden-administration-takes-action-complete-study-boundary- waters-area-watershed (accessed March 16, 2023); and News release, “Interior Department Takes Action on Mineral Leases Improperly Renewed in the Watershed of the Boundary Waters Wilderness,” U.S. Department of the Interior, January 26, 2022, https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/interior-department-takes-action- mineral-leases-improperly-renewed-watershed-boundary (accessed March 16, 2023). 41. Endangered Species Act, Public Law 91–135, § 4(b)(2), and Federal Register, Vol. 85, No. 244 (December 18, 2020), pp. 82376–82389. 42. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, “Governing the Take of Migratory Birds Under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.” https://www.fws.gov/regulations/mbta (accessed March 16, 2023). 43. Dino Grandoni and Anna Phillips, “Biden Restores Climate Safeguards in Key Environmental Law, Reversing Trump,” Washington Post, April 19, 2022, https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate- environment/2022/04/19/biden-nepa-climate-trump/ (accessed March 16, 2023). 44. Donald Trump, “Executive Order on Creating Schedule F in the Accepted Service,” Executive Order 13957, October 21, 2020, https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-creating- schedule-f-excepted-service/ (accessed March 16, 2023). 45. Kathleen Masterson, “Nevada Wild Horse Population Skyrockets To New High,” KUNR Public Radio, July 22, 2019, https://www.kunr.org/energy-and-environment/2019-07-22/nevada-wild-horse-population-skyrockets- to-new-high (accessed March 20, 2023). 46. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, “Report to Congress: An Analysis of Achieving a Sustainable Horse and Burro Program,” Fact sheet, May 8, 2020, https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/ Final%20Fact%20Sheet%20WHB%20Report%20To%20Congress.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 47. Pendley, Sagebrush Rebel, pp. 45–47. 48. James D. Linxwiler, The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act At 35: Delivering on the Promise, Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Institute, Vol. 53, Chap. 12 (2007), § 12.03(1)(a)(iv), https://www.guessrudd.com/wp-content/ uploads/sites/1600422/2020/05/The-Alaska-Native-Claims-Settlement-Act-at-35.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 49. Ibid., § 12.03(1)(a)(vii). See generally Richard S. Jones, Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (Public Law 92–203): History And Analysis Together With Subsequent Amendments, Report No. 81–127 GOV, June 1, 1981, http://www.alaskool.org/PROJECTS/ANCSA/reports/rsjones1981/ANCSA_History71.htm (accessed March 16, 2023). 50. 43 U.S. Code, Ch. 33. ANCSA also created 12 Native-owned regional corporations and authorized $962 million in “seed money.” Linxwiler, The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act At 35, § 12.03(2)(e). 51. ANCSA provided that the withdrawal of the lands would expire in 1978 if Congress had not designated the lands as federal enclaves. John K. Norman Cole and Steven W. Silver, Alaska’s D-2 Lands, Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Institute, Vol. 6B, Ch. 5, September 1978, and Raymond A. Peck, Jr., And Then There Were None: Evolving Federal Restraints on the Availability of Public Lands for Mineral Development, Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Institute, Vol. 25, Ch. 3, 1979. 52. Andrus used purported authority under the FLPMA to withdraw 40 million acres, and Carter used purported authority under the Antiquities Act of to withdraw 56 million acres. James D. Linxwiler, The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act: The First Twenty Years, Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Institute, Vol. 38 Ch. 2, 1992 at 2.04(8)(c), https://ancsa.lbblawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/ANCSA-Paper-with-Table-of-Contents-1992.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023).

Environmental Protection Agency

Weak
Vector: 64%
Pages: 458-460AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on streamlining permitting for recreation infrastructure, while the Project 2025 EPA section emphasizes air quality, emissions regulation, and limiting EPA authority—there is minimal thematic overlap beyond a general interest in permitting efficiency."

Key themes:permitting reformregulatory efficiency

— 425 — Environmental Protection Agency are statutorily required, and remove any regulatory differences between attainment and maintenance that are not explicitly required by law. l Streamline the process for state and local governments to demonstrate that their federally funded highway projects will not interfere with NAAQS attainment. l Adopt policies to prevent abuse of EPA’s CAA “error correction” authority.20 EPA historically has used this to coerce states into adopting its favored policies on pain of imposition of a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP). l Limit EPA’s reliance on CAA § 30121 general rulemaking authority to ensure that it is not abused to issue regulations for which EPA lacks substantive authority elsewhere in the statute. l If possible, return the standard-setting role to Congress. Climate Change l Remove the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) for any source category that is not currently being regulated. The overall reporting program imposes significant burdens on small businesses and companies that are not being regulated. This is either a pointless burden or a sword-of- Damocles threat of future regulation, neither of which is appropriate. l Establish a system, with an appropriate deadline, to update the 2009 endangerment finding. l Establish a significant emissions rate (SER) for greenhouse gasses (GHGs). Regulating Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) Under the American Innovation and Manufacturing (AIM) Act22 l Repeal Biden Administration implementing regulations for the AIM Act that are unnecessarily stringent and costly. l Refrain from granting petitions from opportunistic manufacturers to add new restrictions that further skew the market toward costlier refrigerants and equipment. — 426 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Conduct realistic cost assessments that reflect actual consumer experiences instead of the current unrealistic ones claiming that the program is virtually cost-free. Mobile Source Regulation by the Office of Transportation and Air Quality l Establish GHG car standards under Department of Transportation (DOT) leadership that properly consider cost, choice, safety, and national security. l Review the existing “ramp rate” for car standards to ensure that it is actually achievable. l Include life cycle emissions of electric vehicles and consider all of their environmental impacts. l Restore the position that California’s waiver applies only to California- specific issues like ground-level ozone, not global climate issues. l Ensure that other states can adopt California’s standards only for traditional/criteria pollutants, not greenhouse gases. l Stop the use of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) to increase standards on airplanes. l Reconsider the Cleaner Trucks Initiative to balance the goal of driving down emissions without creating significant costs or complex burdens on the industry. Air Permitting Reforms for New Source Review (Pre-Construction Per- mits) and Title V (Operating Permits) l Develop reforms to ensure that when a facility improves efficiency within its production process, new permitting requirements are not triggered. l Restore the Trump EPA position on Once-In, Always-In (that major sources can convert to area sources when affiliated emissions standards are met). l Revisit permitting and enforcement assumptions that sources will operate 24 hours a day, 365 days a year; this artificially inflates a source’s potential to emit (PTE), which can result in more stringent permit terms.

Environmental Protection Agency

Weak
Vector: 63%
Pages: 458-460AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on streamlining permitting for recreation infrastructure, while the Project 2025 EPA section emphasizes reducing regulatory burdens related to air quality, greenhouse gas reporting, and HFC regulations—there is minimal thematic overlap between recreation permitting and the specific EPA air and climate policies outlined."

Key themes:streamliningregulatory efficiencyfederal permitting

— 425 — Environmental Protection Agency are statutorily required, and remove any regulatory differences between attainment and maintenance that are not explicitly required by law. l Streamline the process for state and local governments to demonstrate that their federally funded highway projects will not interfere with NAAQS attainment. l Adopt policies to prevent abuse of EPA’s CAA “error correction” authority.20 EPA historically has used this to coerce states into adopting its favored policies on pain of imposition of a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP). l Limit EPA’s reliance on CAA § 30121 general rulemaking authority to ensure that it is not abused to issue regulations for which EPA lacks substantive authority elsewhere in the statute. l If possible, return the standard-setting role to Congress. Climate Change l Remove the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) for any source category that is not currently being regulated. The overall reporting program imposes significant burdens on small businesses and companies that are not being regulated. This is either a pointless burden or a sword-of- Damocles threat of future regulation, neither of which is appropriate. l Establish a system, with an appropriate deadline, to update the 2009 endangerment finding. l Establish a significant emissions rate (SER) for greenhouse gasses (GHGs). Regulating Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) Under the American Innovation and Manufacturing (AIM) Act22 l Repeal Biden Administration implementing regulations for the AIM Act that are unnecessarily stringent and costly. l Refrain from granting petitions from opportunistic manufacturers to add new restrictions that further skew the market toward costlier refrigerants and equipment.

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.

Full Policy Text

Related Bills