This joint resolution disapproves the Environmental Protection Agency’s rule published at 90 Fed. Reg. 29737 (July 7, 2025) that approved West Virginia’s Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the second implementation period.
The resolution, enacted under chapter 8 of title 5, U.S. Code, declares that the EPA rule "shall have no force or effect," effectively nullifying the federal approval.
That legal nullification matters because EPA approval makes a state SIP federally enforceable and shapes what emission controls and compliance obligations apply to affected sources. Removing federal approval reopens questions about who must comply with what standards, whether EPA will impose a federal implementation plan (FIP), and whether West Virginia will revise and resubmit the SIP.
The resolution also carries the statutory consequences of a congressional disapproval under the Congressional Review Act framework, including limits on reissuing a substantially similar rule without new statutory authorization.
At a Glance
What It Does
The resolution, invoking chapter 8 of title 5, disapproves and strips legal effect from EPA’s July 7, 2025 rule that approved West Virginia’s Regional Haze SIP for the second implementation period (90 Fed. Reg. 29737). By designating the rule as having "no force or effect," it removes the federal approval that made the SIP federally enforceable.
Who It Affects
Directly affected parties include the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP), sources covered by the regional haze SIP such as power plants and large industrial facilities, federal land managers responsible for Class I visibility areas, and the EPA regional office that administered the approval. Downwind states and tribal entities with visibility interests will also feel the impact.
Why It Matters
Nullifying federal approval changes the baseline for enforcement and compliance, can trigger EPA action to ensure visibility goals (including potential FIPs), and creates legal and operational uncertainty for regulated facilities and state regulators. It also exercises a statutory tool that blocks the agency from reissuing a substantially similar rule absent further legislative action.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The joint resolution is narrowly framed: it targets a single EPA rule — the agency’s July 7, 2025 approval of West Virginia’s Regional Haze State Implementation Plan for the second implementation period — and declares that approval void. Under the Clean Air Act, state SIP approvals by EPA make the state plan federally enforceable and can set the compliance obligations that large stationary sources must meet to protect visibility in designated Class I areas.
This resolution removes that federal imprimatur.
Removing EPA approval does not itself rewrite West Virginia law or create a new federal standard. Instead, it changes the legal status of the SIP: provisions that were federally approved are no longer backed by that federal approval, which can change enforcement options available to EPA and private litigants.
Practically that means the EPA could choose to rely on state enforcement only, could work with West Virginia to revise and resubmit a SIP, or could promulgate a federal implementation plan to fill any gaps — each pathway has different timelines, costs, and legal risks.The resolution is passed under chapter 8 of title 5, which is the mechanism Congress uses to disapprove agency rules. That statutory framework carries consequences beyond simply removing approval: it constrains the agency’s ability to turn around and issue a substantially similar rule in the future without new legislative authorization.
For regulated parties and regulators alike, that statutory lockbox changes strategic calculations about whether to litigate, negotiate SIP revisions, or prepare for possible EPA FIP action.Because the text of the resolution only annuls the approval and does not specify alternative emissions requirements or deadlines, it leaves the next steps operationally unresolved. West Virginia and EPA will need to decide whether to revise the SIP to address whatever issues prompted congressional disapproval, whether EPA will promulgate a FIP, or whether enforcement will proceed under preexisting state or federal authorities until those choices are made.
Those implementation decisions — not the resolution text — will determine whether visibility protections are maintained, strengthened, or delayed.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The resolution explicitly disapproves EPA’s rule approving West Virginia’s Regional Haze SIP for the second implementation period and declares that rule to have "no force or effect.", It invokes chapter 8 of title 5, U.S. Code — the Congressional Review Act framework — which not only nullifies the rule but also limits the agency’s ability to adopt a later rule that is substantially the same without new authorization.
Nullifying EPA approval removes federal backing for whatever controls and compliance schedules were included in the approved SIP, shifting the enforceability landscape for sources covered by the plan.
The resolution does not set replacement emissions standards or require a specific federal or state follow-up; it leaves open whether EPA will issue a federal implementation plan (FIP) or whether West Virginia will revise and resubmit its SIP.
Affected sources (power plants, industrial boilers, large stationary emitters) and state regulators face immediate legal and operational uncertainty about which obligations are federally enforceable and what compliance steps they should take next.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Operative disapproval of the EPA rule
This clause states the central action: Congress disapproves the EPA rule titled "Air Plan Approval; West Virginia; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan for the Second Implementation Period" as published at 90 Fed. Reg. 29737 (July 7, 2025). The practical effect is to remove the federal approval the rule conveyed. For implementers, this is not a modification of the SIP text but a removal of EPA's formal endorsement and the federal enforceability tied to that endorsement.
Declares the rule has no force or effect
The resolution contains an explicit legal-effect clause: the disapproved rule "shall have no force or effect." That phrasing mirrors the remedy Congress typically uses under the Congressional Review Act to nullify an agency action. The clause creates a clear statutory posture: the specific EPA action is treated as though it were not a valid federal rule, which affects enforcement rights and agency discretion going forward.
Action taken under chapter 8 of title 5 (Congressional Review Act)
By referencing chapter 8 of title 5, the resolution uses the CRA’s mechanism for disapproval resolutions. That choice matters because it triggers CRA-related consequences — notably restrictions on the agency later issuing a substantially similar rule — and it places the action within a well-defined but blunt oversight tool, rather than using the Clean Air Act’s more technical corrective pathways (like a statutory SIP disapproval process).
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, federal land managers, and visibility advocates — They may benefit because disapproval can force a new review that leads to stronger or more enforceable measures to protect visibility in Class I areas.
- Organizations or parties that challenged the EPA approval — Disapproval vindicates those challenges procedurally and can reset the administrative record in a way that favors further regulatory or legal action.
- West Virginia regulators seeking to revise the SIP — WVDEP gains an opportunity to revise the plan without the constraints of the now-voided federal approval, allowing negotiation of a different compliance pathway (though at the cost of interim uncertainty).
Who Bears the Cost
- Regulated sources in West Virginia (power plants, large industrial facilities) — They face uncertainty about which requirements are federally enforceable and the risk of new controls under a future FIP or a revised SIP, prompting compliance, legal, and capital-planning costs.
- West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection — The agency must decide whether to revise and resubmit the SIP and will bear administrative and technical costs to address the deficiencies that prompted disapproval.
- EPA (Region 3 and national offices) — EPA may need to allocate staff and resources to fill enforcement gaps, consider FIP development, and respond to litigation and interstate concerns generated by the disapproval.
- Class I area managers and stakeholders — Temporary removal of federal approval can delay clarity about which measures will protect visibility, complicating management and funding decisions for parks and wilderness areas.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between Congress’s authority to rescind a federal approval (reasserting political oversight) and the need for technical, administrable, and predictable implementation of the Clean Air Act: a legal nullification fixes a perceived policy or legal error quickly but substitutes political judgment for detailed technical remedies, creating uncertainty that can delay or dilute the environmental protections the law seeks to deliver.
The resolution uses the Congressional Review Act’s blunt remedy: void the approval and constrain future agency action. That bluntness creates two practical implementation problems.
First, nullifying approval does not itself prescribe a replacement regulatory path; the parties most affected — EPA, West Virginia, regulated sources, and stakeholders — must negotiate the next steps under existing Clean Air Act authorities. The absence of an immediate alternative can produce regulatory limbo: regulated entities may not know whether to comply with state requirements, anticipate federal enforcement, or invest in control technology.
Second, the CRA’s bar on reissuing a "substantially the same" rule raises difficult legal and practical questions about what counts as "substantially the same." Agencies normally rely on iterative rulemaking and incremental fixes; the CRA creates a statutory barrier to that familiar administrative approach. That barrier can protect Congress’s oversight role, but it also risks prolonging disputes or incentivizing litigation over semantics rather than resolving the underlying air quality or technical issues.
Finally, because the resolution supplies no technical findings about the sufficiency of West Virginia’s SIP, the record about why Congress acted will be thinner than a formal Clean Air Act SIP disapproval proceeding, which could complicate judicial review and administrative action.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.