PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Committee on Environment and Public Works. Hearings held. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 114-47.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Mar 3, 2015
Ozone Regulatory Delay and Extension of Assessment Length Act of 2015 or the ORDEAL Act of 2015
This bill amends the Clean Air Act to lengthen from 5 years to 10 years the intervals at which the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is required to review and revise air quality criteria and primary and secondary national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). This bill eliminates the EPA's authority to review and revise criteria or promulgate new standards for ozone concentrations earlier or more frequently than required. The EPA may not review and revise NAAQS for ozone concentrations before February 1, 2018. The EPA must complete a thorough review of the NAAQS for ozone concentrations and make revisions no later December 31, 2018.
The intervals at which an independent scientific review committee is required to review air quality criteria and NAAQS and recommend any new standards or revisions to existing criteria and standards are lengthened from 5 years to 10 years. The bill delays the review by an independent scientific review committee of NAAQS for ozone concentrations until February 1, 2018.
People & committees
Sen. Flake, Jeff [R-AZ] · R–AZ
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Committee on Environment and Public Works. Hearings held. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 114-47.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 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 S.640 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 S.640 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 S.640 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 S.640 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.