PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 542.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 3, 2025
New Source Review Permitting Improvement Act
This bill modifies terminology for purposes of the New Source Review (NSR) permitting program of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
In order for a change to a stationary source to be a modification (a change to a stationary source that increases the air pollutant emissions or results in new pollutants) for purposes of the NSR permitting program, the maximum hourly emission rate achievable by such source must be higher than the maximum hourly rate achievable by such source during any hour in the 10-year period preceding the change.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
A change at a stationary source is not considered to be a modification under the bill if it is designed to (1) reduce the amount of any air pollutant emitted; or (2) restore, maintain, or improve the reliability of operations at, or safety of, the source. However, such changes are not excepted if the EPA determines the increase in the maximum achievable hourly emission rate from such change would cause an adverse effect on human health or the environment.
Construction, in connection with a major emitting facility (a type of stationary source), does not include a change at such a facility that does not result in a significant emissions increase or a significant net emissions increase.
In relation to major emitting facilities in nonattainment areas, the terms modifications and modified do not include changes at such facilities that do not result in a significant emissions increase or a significant net emissions increase.
People & committees
Rep. Griffith, H. Morgan [R-VA-9] · R–VA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 542.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. H. Rept. 119-625.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. H. Rept. 119-625.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 28 - 23.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee by the Yeas and Nays: 12 - 11.
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Environment.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Sep 19, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.161 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.161 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.161 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.161 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.