This joint resolution uses the Congressional Review Act (chapter 8 of title 5, U.S. Code) to declare that the Environmental Protection Agency’s rule approving Indiana’s Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the Second Implementation Period (published at 91 Fed. Reg. 3057, Jan. 26, 2026) “shall have no force or effect.” The resolution is a concise statutory nullification rather than a technical amendment to the Clean Air Act or the SIP itself.
The move matters because EPA approval makes state SIP revisions federally enforceable and integrates state control measures into national compliance and permitting systems. Voiding that approval could strip federal backing from the Indiana plan, unsettle permitting and compliance expectations for affected emitters (notably power plants and large industrial sources), and leave open questions about whether EPA must step in under the Clean Air Act to fill any resulting regulatory gap.
The resolution also triggers the CRA’s bar on issuing a “substantially similar” rule without new congressional authorization, which may complicate EPA’s options for correction or replacement.
At a Glance
What It Does
The resolution invokes 5 U.S.C. chapter 8 to disapprove and nullify EPA’s final rule approving Indiana’s regional haze SIP revision for the Second Implementation Period (91 Fed. Reg. 3057). By operation of the CRA, the disapproval renders the specified Federal Register action void and prevents the agency from issuing a substantially similar rule unless Congress later authorizes it.
Who It Affects
Directly affected parties include the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM), stationary sources in Indiana regulated under the regional haze plan (power plants, large industrial boilers, and cement/steel facilities), EPA’s regional compliance and permitting staff, and downwind jurisdictions and protected visibility areas (national parks and wilderness areas) that rely on the SIP for emissions controls.
Why It Matters
The resolution interrupts the cooperative-federalism model of the Clean Air Act by removing federal approval for a state plan without specifying remedial steps. That creates legal and administrative friction: federal enforceability of state measures may vanish, EPA could face a statutory obligation or political pressure to adopt a federal implementation plan (FIP), and regulated entities face uncertainty about applicable standards and permit conditions.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Regional haze plans are state-prepared SIP revisions that identify emission controls needed to make reasonable progress toward improving visibility in designated national parks and wilderness areas. EPA’s approval of a SIP revision incorporates the state’s commitments into the federally enforceable Clean Air Act framework; once approved, the SIP governs permits, source obligations, and enforcement actions.
SJR122 does not change the Clean Air Act text; instead it uses the Congressional Review Act to nullify EPA’s administrative act of approval that appeared in the Federal Register (91 Fed. Reg. 3057).
That nullification means the specific Federal Register action no longer exists as a federal rule. Practically, the approval’s federal endorsement of Indiana’s Second Implementation Period measures would disappear, raising immediate questions about which emission limits and control measures are federally enforceable in Indiana.The CRA contains a collateral restriction: after disapproval, the agency cannot issue a “substantially similar” rule unless a later law authorizes it.
That clause matters here because if the EPA wants to fix defects in the original approval or reapprove a corrected SIP submission, it may be constrained by the CRA’s ban unless Congress acts. The resolution text itself does not instruct EPA to promulgate a federal implementation plan (FIP) or set deadlines for remedial action, so whether and how the federal government fills any enforcement gap depends on separate Clean Air Act procedures and agency discretion.For regulated sources and permitting authorities the immediate effect is practical uncertainty.
Permits that relied on provisions in the now-voided approval, ongoing compliance schedules tied to the SIP revision, and enforcement expectations could all be up for reassessment. Downwind states and visibility protection stakeholders may press EPA to adopt stronger measures via FIP or to compel Indiana to resubmit an approvable SIP, but those are separate processes with their own legal constraints and timelines.Finally, the resolution’s brevity leaves key implementation questions unanswered: how courts will treat prior enforcement actions taken under the approval; whether state-enforced measures remain effective at the state level absent federal approval; and how EPA will balance obligations under the Clean Air Act against the limitations the CRA imposes on rulemaking options.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The resolution targets EPA’s final action published at 91 Fed. Reg. 3057 (January 26, 2026), which approved Indiana’s Regional Haze Plan for the Second Implementation Period.
It relies on chapter 8 of title 5, U.S. Code (the Congressional Review Act) to disapprove the specified rule and declares that the rule “shall have no force or effect.”, Under the Congressional Review Act, disapproval also bars EPA from issuing a ‘substantially similar’ rule in the future unless Congress enacts new authorization — a constraint that could block straightforward corrective rulemaking.
The resolution does not specify remedial measures such as requiring EPA to promulgate a federal implementation plan (FIP) or directing Indiana to submit a revised SIP, leaving legal and administrative follow-up unresolved.
Nullifying the approval removes the federal endorsement that makes SIP measures federally enforceable, creating immediate uncertainty for permits, compliance schedules, and enforcement actions tied to the now-voided approval.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Identification of the targeted EPA rule
The opening lines identify the specific EPA action being challenged — the Federal Register entry approving Indiana's Regional Haze Plan (Second Implementation Period). That citation is the operative hook: CRA resolutions must specify the rule they disapprove, and this bill does so by reference to the 91 Fed. Reg. 3057 notice. The practical consequence is the resolution is narrowly tethered to that federal action rather than to the underlying state law or Clean Air Act provisions.
Disapproval and nullification
The single substantive provision declares congressional disapproval of the cited EPA rule and states that the rule shall have no force or effect. Functionally, the resolution attempts to vacate the federal rule under the CRA — removing the EPA’s approval from the body of federal rules. This provision is terse and does not itself amend the Clean Air Act or instruct EPA how to proceed after nullification; it simply eliminates the Federal Register action.
Collateral consequences under chapter 8 of title 5
By operating under 5 U.S.C. chapter 8, the resolution triggers collateral impacts: namely, the CRA’s prohibition on reissuing a substantially similar rule absent new legislation. Although the resolution text does not restate that prohibition, it is an automatic legal effect of CRA disapproval. Practically, that constraint can limit EPA’s options for correcting the approval or replacing it with a remedial action without fresh congressional authorization.
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
- Downwind states and visibility protection stakeholders — National parks, wilderness areas, and states that depend on tighter regional controls may benefit if nullification prompts EPA to seek stronger controls or force a revised SIP with more stringent measures.
- Environmental advocacy organizations — Groups that concluded the original Indiana SIP approval was insufficient gain leverage because nullification reopens the policy space and can be used to demand stricter emissions reductions.
- Federal policymakers who prioritize stricter oversight of state SIP approvals — Members of Congress or federal officials seeking to limit state flexibility over regional haze controls obtain an effective check on that particular EPA approval.
Who Bears the Cost
- Indiana state government (IDEM) — Loss of federal approval removes the SIP’s federal enforceability, undermining the state’s regulatory plan and potentially requiring additional submissions, revisions, or federal interventions.
- Regulated stationary sources in Indiana — Power plants, large boilers, industrial facilities and others face legal and operational uncertainty about applicable limits, permitting conditions, and compliance schedules that had been premised on the now-voided approval.
- U.S. EPA and regional staff — EPA inherits administrative and legal burdens from the nullification: deciding whether to promulgate a FIP, defend litigation, or pursue alternative approval pathways while constrained by the CRA’s limitations.
- Downstream market participants and utilities — If replacement measures or FIPs impose different control cost profiles, utilities and customers may face altered compliance costs and shifting reliability or price effects.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between congressional oversight of federal rulemaking (using the CRA to nullify what Congress deems problematic) and the Clean Air Act’s cooperative-federalism framework that relies on stable, federally approved state plans to provide predictable, enforceable environmental controls; solving one—reining in an EPA approval—risks undermining the predictable, enforceable regulatory baseline that the Clean Air Act was built to provide.
The resolution is legally straightforward but administratively disruptive. The CRA is designed to overturn federal rules, but using it to erase an EPA approval of a state SIP raises awkward intersections with the Clean Air Act’s cooperative-federalism architecture.
The joint resolution voids the federal action without prescribing the next steps under the Clean Air Act: it does not order a federal implementation plan, set deadlines, or identify which provisions of the state's prior SIP remain operative. Those gaps create immediate ambiguity about enforceability and future regulatory responsibility.
Implementation will likely spawn litigation and administrative friction. Courts may be asked whether CRA disapproval can retroactively affect permits issued or enforcement actions taken under the approval, or whether state-level measures remain enforceable at the state level despite loss of federal approval.
Separately, the CRA’s bar on reissuing “substantially similar” rules constrains EPA’s capacity to correct any procedural or substantive defect in the original approval without further congressional action, raising the prospect that EPA would need to pursue more elaborate legal workarounds (e.g., new notice-and-comment rulemaking on different grounds) or default to a FIP, each with their own legal risks and political costs.
Finally, the resolution transfers uncertainty to regulated entities and downstream stakeholders. Businesses and permitting authorities depend on stable, predictable standards; the sudden erasure of federal approval could stall permitting, complicate compliance schedules, and shift bargaining dynamics between the state and EPA.
Those practical effects matter on the ground even though the resolution is short and narrowly worded: the absence of a clear remedial path is itself a policy problem that actors will need to solve through litigation, rulemaking, or additional legislation.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.