This joint resolution uses the Congressional Review Act (chapter 8 of title 5, U.S.C.) to disapprove the Environmental Protection Agency's rule titled "Air Plan Disapproval; Colorado; Regional Haze Plan for the Second Implementation Period" (91 Fed. Reg. 3048, Jan. 26, 2026).
If enacted, the resolution declares that EPA rule "shall have no force or effect," effectively nullifying the federal determination that Colorado's SIP is inadequate for the second regional haze implementation period.
The practical significance is immediate: a successful disapproval would remove the specific federal finding that triggered potential federal intervention (including steps to impose a federal implementation plan or other federal actions tied to that disapproval) and invokes the CRA prohibition on reissuing a "substantially the same" rule absent new statutory authority. That combination changes the near-term enforcement and regulatory landscape for Colorado's visibility program, regulated sources in the State, and stakeholders focused on air quality in Class I areas downwind of Colorado sources.
At a Glance
What It Does
The resolution disapproves a specific EPA rule published at 91 Fed. Reg. 3048 (Jan. 26, 2026) that found Colorado's regional haze SIP deficient for the second implementation period, and states the rule "shall have no force or effect." It operates under the Congressional Review Act and, if enacted, triggers the CRA's bar on agencies issuing a "substantially the same" rule without an act of Congress.
Who It Affects
Directly affected parties include the EPA (whose rulemaking is nullified), the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission and state agencies responsible for the SIP, stationary sources in Colorado subject to regional haze controls (power plants, industrial facilities), and federal land managers and downwind states concerned with visibility. Environmental NGOs and litigants in related Clean Air Act cases also face changed legal footing.
Why It Matters
This is more than a single rule reversal: it invokes a statutory mechanism that can preclude the agency from revisiting the same regulatory approach, reshaping how the Clean Air Act's visibility obligations are enforced in Colorado. For compliance officers and regulated entities, it converts a likely federal imposition into a window of regulatory uncertainty, with implications for permit terms, control investments, and litigation strategy.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The joint resolution targets one discrete agency action: EPA's January 26, 2026 rule disapproving Colorado's Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the second implementation period. Under the Clean Air Act, states submit SIPs to address regional haze and protect visibility in Class I areas; EPA reviews those SIPs and may approve, partially approve, or disapprove them.
EPA's 2026 rule concluded Colorado's SIP did not meet federal requirements for this second period, a determination that typically opens the door to a federal implementation plan (FIP) or other federal steps to ensure reasonable progress toward visibility goals.
This resolution does not rewrite the Clean Air Act or directly amend Colorado's SIP. Instead, it invokes the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to disapprove the EPA's rule itself.
If Congress enacts the resolution and the President signs it, the EPA rule specified in the resolution would be voided: it would be treated as if it had never taken effect. Critically, the CRA also forbids the agency from issuing a new rule that is "substantially the same" as the disapproved rule unless Congress separately authorizes that action.
Practically, that bars EPA from relying on the same reasoning and regulatory text to achieve the same result without new legislation.On the ground, the immediate effect is that EPA's formal finding of SIP inadequacy—the trigger for many federal enforcement and planning steps—would disappear for this discrete rule. That changes the enforcement posture: EPA could not rely on the disapproved rule as the legal basis for federal actions tied to that finding.
But the Clean Air Act itself still requires states to make reasonable progress toward visibility goals, and EPA retains other statutory tools (for example, SIP calls or different rulemaking approaches) that could be deployed to address deficiencies—subject to the CRA constraint about substantially similar rules. The resolution therefore replaces a clear federal determination with legal and regulatory uncertainty: state regulators and covered sources avoid the immediate effects of EPA's disapproval, but the underlying compliance obligations and potential for new federal action remain unsettled.Finally, the resolution's use of the CRA matters beyond Colorado.
The CRA's bar on reissuing substantially similar rules is deliberately broad and has been applied to a range of agency actions. Using the CRA here creates a legal hurdle for EPA if it seeks to address the same visibility problems through a subsequently similar rule, and it signals how Congress can shape the trajectory of environmental enforcement without changing the underlying statute.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The resolution specifically targets and disapproves the EPA rule published at 91 Fed. Reg. 3048 on January 26, 2026, which had disapproved Colorado's regional haze SIP for the second implementation period.
If enacted, the text declares that the specified EPA rule "shall have no force or effect," effectively nullifying that agency determination.
The resolution relies on the Congressional Review Act (chapter 8 of title 5, U.S.C.), which also prevents the agency from issuing a "substantially the same" rule without an intervening act of Congress.
The joint resolution does not amend the Clean Air Act or directly alter Colorado's SIP content; it removes a federal finding and the immediate regulatory consequences tied to that finding.
Nullifying the disapproval removes the specific federal legal basis for steps such as a federal implementation plan tied to that disapproval, but EPA may have alternative statutory pathways to address SIP shortcomings—subject to CRA constraints and litigation risk.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Congressional disapproval of a named EPA rule
This single operative clause identifies the targeted EPA rule by title ("Air Plan Disapproval; Colorado; Regional Haze Plan for the Second Implementation Period") and declares that Congress disapproves it. The practical effect is textual: the joint resolution operates as a CRA disapproval, voiding that discrete rule rather than amending statutory environmental obligations. For practitioners, this is a narrow, surgical use of legislative power that focuses on a specific Federal Register entry rather than larger Clean Air Act policy.
Rule "shall have no force or effect"
By declaring the rule has "no force or effect," the resolution aims to strip the EPA finding of legal efficacy. That phrase is standard CRA language and means the agency action cannot be relied upon as precedent or enforcement authority going forward. Compliance teams should note that any permits, enforcement letters, or FIP-related activities premised solely on that rule would lose their legal underpinning if the resolution becomes law.
Use of chapter 8 of title 5 (the Congressional Review Act)
Although the bill text does not recite the entire CRA mechanism, it explicitly invokes congressional disapproval "under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code." That triggers not only nullification but also the CRA's separate provision that bars the agency from issuing a rule that is "substantially the same" without a subsequent statute authorizing it. The consequence is a higher barrier for EPA to return to the same remedy and an invitation for alternative legal paths or fresh rulemaking approaches that differ materially from the disapproved text.
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
- Colorado state regulators (Air Quality Control Division): Avoids an immediate federal determination of SIP inadequacy and the administrative and political consequences tied to that finding, preserving state primacy in negotiating corrective measures.
- Regulated stationary sources in Colorado (e.g., power plants, large industrial facilities): Removes the specific federal legal basis for EPA-imposed controls or a federal implementation plan linked to the disapproval, reducing the near-term risk of unilateral federal compliance obligations.
- State elected officials and local governments in Colorado: Gains time to craft state-led fixes or negotiate with EPA rather than confront immediate federal intervention or mandated FIP measures.
- Trade associations and industry advocates: Receives a reprieve from a clear federal enforcement pathway and the associated compliance costs tied to the disapproved rule.
- Members of Congress who prefer state-led solutions: Secure use of the CRA as a tool to block an agency action viewed as overreaching without changing the underlying statute.
Who Bears the Cost
- Environmental and public-health advocacy groups: Lose an immediate, administrable federal finding that could be a basis for expedited federal action to reduce haze and protect visibility in Class I areas.
- Downwind Class I area managers and communities (e.g., national parks and tribal lands): Face delayed or uncertain progress on visibility improvements if the disapproval would have accelerated federal interventions.
- EPA enforcement and rulemaking staff: Confront constrained options—legal and procedural—because the CRA bar complicates returning to a similar regulatory approach and could shift resource demands toward alternative pathways.
- Federal courts and litigants: May see new rounds of litigation challenging any alternate EPA action or arguing over what counts as a "substantially the same" rule, increasing litigation costs and uncertainty.
- Potential future taxpayers or ratepayers: If the result is delayed pollution controls, eventual corrective measures could be more abrupt or costly than an earlier, planned compliance path.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is whether Congress should use the Congressional Review Act to nullify an agency's technical determination about SIP adequacy—protecting state regulatory discretion and regulated entities from immediate federal intervention—or whether doing so undermines the Clean Air Act's national visibility goals by removing a tool EPA uses to ensure reasonable progress in Class I areas, thereby trading short-term regulatory relief for long-term uncertainty and potential environmental delay.
The resolution creates a legal and practical tension between the CRA’s blunt statutory power and the Clean Air Act’s substantive obligations. Voiding a specific EPA disapproval does not erase the underlying factual or technical deficiencies EPA identified in Colorado’s SIP; it only removes one legal vehicle for federal correction.
That raises the question of whether EPA can, or will, pursue alternative statutory routes—such as a SIP call or a materially different FIP—and how courts will treat those subsequent actions in light of the CRA prohibition against "substantially the same" rules.
A second implementation problem is the ambiguous scope of the CRA bar. The statute forbids a subsequent rule that is "substantially the same," but agencies and courts disagree about how similar is too similar.
EPA could attempt a distinct regulatory approach or reframe its reasoning to achieve the same environmental end, which could trigger fresh litigation testing the limits of the CRA. Meanwhile, stakeholders face real-world compliance and permitting decisions under uncertainty: regulated sources must decide whether to delay control investments; states must weigh negotiating a revised SIP against political and technical constraints.
Finally, there is a governance trade-off: the resolution preserves state autonomy in the short run but may prolong exposure to cross-border visibility impacts and postpone corrective emissions reductions. For regulators and compliance officers, the bill replaces a clear federal instruction with procedural and legal ambiguity—an environment where negotiated fixes, new rulemaking, or protracted litigation are all plausible outcomes.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.