This joint resolution invokes the Congressional Review Act (chapter 8 of title 5, U.S. Code) to disapprove the Environmental Protection Agency’s rule titled “Air Plan Approval; Montana; Regional Haze Plan for the Second Implementation Period” (90 Fed. Reg. 54586, Nov. 28, 2025).
If enacted, the resolution states that the specified EPA rule “shall have no force or effect.”
The resolution’s practical significance lies in the CRA’s downstream effects: a successful disapproval not only nullifies the identified federal action but also generally prevents the agency from issuing a substantially identical rule in the future without clear congressional authorization. That legal bar creates uncertainty for state regulators, regulated sources in Montana, and stakeholders who rely on EPA’s federal approval status for enforcement and planning under the Clean Air Act’s SIP architecture.
At a Glance
What It Does
The resolution formally disapproves a named EPA rule under the Congressional Review Act, declaring the rule void and without force. By using the CRA, it invokes the statute’s collateral prohibition that normally bars agencies from reissuing substantially the same rule absent new congressional authorization.
Who It Affects
Primary targets are the EPA and the State of Montana’s environmental agency (the SIP submitter); regulated stationary sources in Montana (e.g., power plants and industrial facilities) and interstate downwind receptors also face consequences through changes to federal approval status. Environmental organizations and tribal governments with visibility interests in Class I areas would also be affected because the federal approval underpins enforcement and long-term planning.
Why It Matters
This is a procedural but powerful check on agency action: the CRA route cancels a technical EPA determination approving a state plan and creates a legal barrier to redoing the same approval. For compliance officers and counsel it moves a technical air-program decision into a clear-cut statutory nullification with operational and regulatory ripple effects.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The joint resolution contains a single operative directive: Congress declares that the EPA rule approving Montana’s regional haze plan for the second implementation period is disapproved and ‘‘shall have no force or effect.’’ Because the resolution is framed under chapter 8 of title 5, it proceeds under the mechanics of the Congressional Review Act (CRA), which provides Congress a fast-track mechanism to void recently issued federal rules.
The immediate legal consequence of enactment would be that the EPA’s published action loses its federal validity. That matters because EPA approval of a State Implementation Plan (SIP) entry typically confers federal enforceability on state commitments and satisfies federal Clean Air Act obligations tied to visibility (regional haze) requirements.
Removing federal approval does not automatically rewrite Montana law, but it removes the federal imprimatur and can trigger separate Clean Air Act duties — for example, EPA could face obligations to take further action under the CAA if a federally approvable SIP is absent.A second and practical consequence follows from the CRA: the statute generally bars agencies from issuing a new rule that is ‘‘substantially the same’’ as the disapproved rule unless Congress authorizes it. In practice, this means EPA could not reissue the identical approval of Montana’s plan in the near term without either new statutory direction or a materially different rulemaking, creating uncertainty for state agencies and regulated entities planning compliance and investments tied to the approved SIP timeline.Finally, while the resolution addresses a narrow technical EPA decision, its use of the CRA raises broader administrative questions.
Disapproval is not a technical correction; it is a political override of an agency’s administrative determination. That can change enforcement posture, reopening the administrative record and potentially prompting litigation over the underlying Clean Air Act obligations and visibility protections.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The resolution names the specific EPA action it disapproves: “Air Plan Approval; Montana; Regional Haze Plan for the Second Implementation Period” (90 Fed. Reg. 54586; Nov. 28, 2025).
It invokes the Congressional Review Act (chapter 8 of title 5, U.S.C.) as the statutory vehicle for disapproval.
The operative text states the identified EPA rule “shall have no force or effect,” which nullifies the federal approval.
Under the CRA’s ordinary effect, EPA would be barred from reissuing a substantially similar rule absent new congressional authorization.
The measure is a joint resolution — the form of congressional action required by the CRA to overturn a federal agency rule.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Congressional disapproval of the specified EPA rule
The single operative clause declares that Congress disapproves EPA’s action approving Montana’s regional haze plan for the second implementation period. Practically, that declaration is the congressional pronouncement required by the Congressional Review Act to nullify an agency rule; the text identifies the rule by title and Federal Register citation, which is the statutory method for targeting a discrete agency action.
Use of chapter 8 of title 5 (the Congressional Review Act)
The resolution explicitly ties the disapproval to chapter 8 of title 5, signaling that CRA procedures and consequences apply. That linkage does more than provide form: it triggers the CRA’s fast-track procedures for consideration and creates the statute’s collateral consequences (notably the prohibition against reissuing substantially the same rule).
Rule ‘‘shall have no force or effect’’ — immediate nullification
By declaring the rule void, the resolution removes the federal approval from the administrative record and, if enacted, strips the EPA action of legal validity. This is a blunt, categorical remedy; the resolution does not recite remedial steps for state implementation, enforcement transfers, or how agencies should handle any gaps created by the nullification, leaving those downstream questions to agencies, courts, or subsequent legislation.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Environment across all five countries.
Explore Environment in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Certain regulated sources in Montana (power plants, industrial emitters): they gain relief from immediate federal approval-related obligations that could have triggered new federally enforceable measures or planning timelines, giving them more time or leverage in compliance planning.
- State of Montana officials and policymakers: nullification preserves more state discretion over visibility plans by removing the specific federal approval they may have contested.
- Trade associations or industry groups that opposed elements of the approved SIP: they benefit from the removal of the federal approval and the CRA bar on reissuance, which can delay or block federal enforcement tied to that approval.
Who Bears the Cost
- EPA: implementation of the disapproval diverts agency resources to administrative and legal responses, and the CRA bar may constrain EPA’s ability to correct or refine its prior approval in the short term.
- Environmental and public-health organizations and stakeholders who sought the EPA approval: they lose a federal enforcement lever and may face delayed visibility or emissions improvements tied to the approved plan.
- Downwind states, Tribal nations, and Class I area managers concerned with visibility protections: they may face increased uncertainty about the durability of emissions controls that affect regional visibility.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is this: the resolution offers Congress a fast, decisive tool to reverse an agency’s technical approval, which can protect political and policy priorities, but that same tool undermines technical agency processes and cooperative federalism under the Clean Air Act — producing regulatory uncertainty for states and regulated entities while potentially delaying the very environmental outcomes the Clean Air Act seeks.
Two practical implementation questions loom once you strip the technical language from the resolution. First, nullifying an EPA SIP approval removes the federal status that gives state commitments their federal enforceability, but it does not by itself prescribe the next administrative step: EPA could be obligated under the Clean Air Act to act again (for example, to promulgate a federal implementation plan), or states may be expected to resubmit a materially different SIP.
The resolution does not address those downstream processes, so enactment would likely spawn follow-on agency actions and litigation over what compliance path replaces the now-disapproved approval.
Second, the CRA’s bar on reissuing a ‘substantially the same’ rule is blunt and legally unclear in its margins. What counts as “substantially the same” can be litigated; agencies may be forced to undertake a more extensive rulemaking record or craft materially distinct approvals to get back into the same regulatory space.
That raises costs and delays for both regulators and regulated parties and can interrupt the cooperative federalism that the Clean Air Act envisions. Finally, using the CRA to overturn a technical SIP approval substitutes a political judgment for an administrative determination based on technical record — a trade-off that shifts the dispute from administrative law standards to political and statutory strategy, and therefore increases the likelihood of litigation testing the scope and application of both the CRA and the Clean Air Act in this context.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.