A joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to "Air Plan Approval; Montana; Regional Haze Plan for the Second Implementation Period".
- Sponsor
- Sen. Whitehouse, Sheldon [D-RI]
- Committees
- Environment and Public Works Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Mar 9, 2026
Bottom line
This resolution seeks to overturn an EPA rule regarding air quality standards in Montana, effectively blocking federal implementation of regional haze requirements for the state.
What it actually does
This joint resolution, if enacted, would nullify a specific rule issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on November 28, 2025, concerning Montana's Regional Haze Plan for the second implementation period. Utilizing the Congressional Review Act (CRA), it would prevent the EPA rule from taking effect and prohibit the agency from reissuing a substantially similar rule in the future without specific congressional authorization.
Proponents argue
Supporters of the resolution argue that the EPA's rule imposes overly burdensome or inappropriate regulations on Montana, potentially hindering economic development or exceeding the state's preferred approach to managing regional haze. They may contend that the state is better equipped to manage its own air quality plans without federal overreach, or that the EPA's specific requirements are not cost-effective.
Opponents contend
Opponents of the resolution would assert that the EPA's rule is necessary to protect public health and visibility in national parks and wilderness areas, as mandated by the Clean Air Act. They would argue that disapproving the rule undermines environmental protections, potentially leading to increased air pollution and reduced visibility, and that the EPA's action was a proper exercise of its authority to ensure states meet federal air quality standards.
The bill text is extremely short and can be read in seconds, allowing ample time for evaluation of its implications.
Section 1
Congressional Disapproval of EPA Rule
This provision states that Congress disapproves of the Environmental Protection Agency's rule titled "Air Plan Approval; Montana; Regional Haze Plan for the Second Implementation Period," which was published in the Federal Register on November 28, 2025. As a result of this disapproval, the EPA rule would be rendered null and void, meaning it would have no legal effect.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that disapproving the rule restores state autonomy over environmental policy, allowing Montana to pursue a more flexible or economically favorable approach to regional haze without federal mandates that may be seen as excessive or misaligned with local priorities.
Critics contend
Opponents contend that nullifying the rule would undermine federal efforts to protect air quality and visibility, potentially leading to adverse health impacts and degradation of scenic views in protected areas, and that the EPA's rule was a necessary step to ensure Montana meets its Clean Air Act obligations.
Tradeoffs
The provision highlights the tension between federal environmental oversight and state-level control over regulatory policy, balancing economic considerations for regulated industries against public health and environmental protection goals.
The resolution, by invoking the Congressional Review Act (CRA), not only nullifies the specific EPA rule but also prohibits the Environmental Protection Agency from reissuing a rule that is "substantially similar" to the disapproved rule in the future, unless specifically authorized by a subsequent act of Congress.
Section 1 (implied by reference to Chapter 8 of Title 5, United States Code)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for CRA resolutions, as the "substantially similar" prohibition is a feature of the underlying statute, not something that needs to be reiterated in each resolution. It is not an attempt at evasion.
Case for: Supporters of the CRA's "substantially similar" clause argue it provides a strong check on agency overreach, preventing agencies from simply re-issuing a disapproved rule with minor changes. It ensures that congressional disapproval has lasting effect.
Case against: Critics argue that the "substantially similar" clause is overly broad and can stifle legitimate regulatory updates or responses to new information, effectively creating a permanent ban on certain types of agency action without a full legislative process.
Estimated impact: This provision creates a long-term regulatory vacuum or a permanent barrier to federal action on Montana's regional haze plan, forcing any future federal intervention to come through new legislation.