S.J. Res. 86 is a one‑paragraph joint resolution that disapproves and declares void the Environmental Protection Agency’s rule titled “Air Plan Approval; South Dakota; Regional Haze Plan for the Second Implementation Period” (90 Fed.
Reg. 41893, Aug. 28, 2025). The resolution invokes chapter 8 of title 5, U.S. Code (the Congressional Review Act) and says the specified EPA rule "shall have no force or effect."
If enacted, the resolution would remove the federal approval that makes South Dakota’s regional haze plan federally enforceable and would trigger the procedural consequences of the Congressional Review Act — including the practical prohibition on the agency issuing a substantially similar rule in the absence of subsequent congressional authorization. That change would affect how visibility protection obligations under the Clean Air Act are enforced in South Dakota and would create near‑term uncertainty for regulators, affected sources, and stakeholders in Class I areas (national parks and wilderness areas).
At a Glance
What It Does
The resolution disapproves EPA’s August 28, 2025 rule approving South Dakota’s Regional Haze Plan for the second implementation period and declares that rule void. It is framed as a Congressional Review Act disapproval resolution under chapter 8 of title 5, U.S.C.
Who It Affects
Directly affected parties include the Environmental Protection Agency, the State of South Dakota’s environmental agency and its approved SIP, stationary sources in South Dakota subject to regional haze/BART and other controls, and federal enforcement agencies responsible for Class I visibility protections.
Why It Matters
Nullifying a federal SIP approval removes the EPA’s vehicle for federal enforcement and invokes CRA limits on the agency reissuing the same approval; that combination can delay implementation of visibility controls, shift compliance and permitting uncertainty onto states and sources, and increase litigation or regulatory action to fill any enforcement gap.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
This joint resolution is short and targeted: it declares that EPA’s federal rule approving South Dakota’s regional haze plan for the second implementation period has no force or effect. In plain terms, the federal approval that made South Dakota’s plan part of the federally enforceable State Implementation Plan (SIP) would be erased if Congress enacts the resolution and the President allows it to become law.
Under the Congressional Review Act framework referenced in the resolution, disapproval does not itself write new emission or visibility standards; instead it annuls the agency’s action and prevents the agency from issuing a substantially similar rule in the future unless Congress authorizes it. Practically, that means EPA loses the legal basis tied to this particular approval for federal enforcement tied to the state plan, and the agency faces a statutory barrier to reissuing the same approval in the same form.Operationally, the result is a legal gap.
The Clean Air Act still requires states and EPA to meet regional haze requirements and protect visibility in Class I areas, but the mechanism that made South Dakota’s plan federally enforceable would be gone. That gap can produce several follow‑on paths: EPA could pursue a different approach (a revised approval that is not “substantially the same”), impose a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP), or enter negotiations with the state for a new submittal — each path carries timing, litigation, and administrative costs.
For regulated sources, the immediate effect is regulatory uncertainty about which obligations are federally enforceable and which remain purely state commitments.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The resolution targets EPA’s rule published at 90 Fed. Reg. 41893 (Aug. 28, 2025) titled “Air Plan Approval; South Dakota; Regional Haze Plan for the Second Implementation Period.”, Its single operative sentence states that Congress disapproves the rule and that the rule "shall have no force or effect.", The resolution invokes chapter 8 of title 5, U.S. Code — the Congressional Review Act — meaning disapproval would also trigger the CRA’s bar on reissuing a 'substantially similar' rule absent subsequent statutory authorization.
The bill text shows the committee was discharged by petition under 5 U.S.C. 802(c) before being placed on the Senate calendar, indicating Congress is using CRA fast‑track procedures for review.
The joint resolution does not replace the EPA approval with an alternative federal standard or a Federal Implementation Plan; it only nullifies the existing approval, leaving follow‑up action to EPA, the state, or Congress.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Standard joint resolution format and references
The front matter establishes this as a joint resolution of the 119th Congress and cites chapter 8 of title 5, U.S. Code (the Congressional Review Act). That framing is important because it determines the legal regime — and consequences — that apply when Congress disapproves an agency rule (for example, the procedural path for presentment and the CRA’s post‑disapproval limitations). The header also reproduces the Federal Register citation for the targeted EPA rule.
Congressional disapproval and nullification of EPA rule
This single operative sentence does two things: (1) it declares that Congress disapproves EPA’s specified rule, and (2) it states the rule "shall have no force or effect." Practically, if enacted, the agency rule ceases to be a valid federal regulation. That removes the federal approval that incorporated South Dakota’s regional haze plan into the SIP framework, with immediate legal and enforcement implications.
Committee discharge under CRA petition procedure
The bill text records that the Committee on Environment and Public Works was discharged by petition pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 802(c) before placement on the calendar. That item documents use of the CRA’s expedited review mechanics — a procedural detail that reflects how CRA disapproval resolutions can reach the floor without the usual committee report 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
- Major stationary sources in South Dakota (e.g., power plants and large industrial facilities): they avoid the immediate effect of a federally enforceable SIP approval tied to specific regional haze controls or timelines, reducing the risk of near‑term federal enforcement tied to this particular EPA action.
- South Dakota state regulators and policymakers who prefer state control over visibility planning: nullification preserves the state’s room to revise its plan or pursue alternate approaches without the constraints of the current federal approval.
- Industry and trade groups that opposed the EPA approval: they gain a legislative remedy that can eliminate an agency action they viewed as unfavorable, potentially buying time to seek a different regulatory outcome or negotiate changes at the state level.
Who Bears the Cost
- The Environmental Protection Agency: a disapproval strips a concluded agency action from the rulebook and invokes the CRA restriction on reissuing substantially similar rules, complicating the agency’s ability to deliver a prompt replacement approval.
- Residents and stakeholders in Class I areas (national parks and wilderness areas affected by haze): they face delayed or uncertain progress toward visibility improvement goals because the federal approval underpinning current controls would be removed.
- The State of South Dakota: losing a federal approval can force the state to revisit and revise its SIP or to cope with potential federal fallback action (a FIP) and related litigation and administrative costs.
- Regulated sources and permitting authorities: ambiguity about which measures are federally enforceable could complicate permitting, compliance planning, and capital investments tied to expected regional haze controls.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between congressional oversight that reverses an agency technical decision and the practical need to maintain continuous, enforceable pollution controls: canceling an EPA SIP approval can check perceived agency error or policy disagreement, but it also removes a legal mechanism for protecting visibility and can delay or complicate pollution control outcomes that the Clean Air Act aims to secure.
The resolution’s legal effect is narrow but disruptive: it wipes away a specific federal approval without prescribing what should replace it. That creates a policy and enforcement gap.
The Clean Air Act continues to require states and EPA to satisfy regional haze obligations, but the path to do so is no longer the one embodied in the vacated approval. In practice, EPA could respond by adopting a different rule, issuing a Federal Implementation Plan, or negotiating a revised SIP with South Dakota — each choice raises timing, legal, and resource tradeoffs.
There is also an implementation ambiguity tied to the Congressional Review Act’s practical constraints. CRA disapproval bars the agency from issuing a "substantially the same" rule unless Congress authorizes it, but it does not prevent EPA from pursuing functionally similar outcomes through different legal forms or from reengaging with the state on a materially different submission.
That line between "substantially the same" and a permissible redesign will almost certainly be litigated if EPA tries to advance comparable controls by another procedural route. Finally, nullification transfers decision pressure from a technical agency process to the political branches, increasing uncertainty for regulated entities and for communities expecting visibility improvements.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.