Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 364.
This resolution uses a special congressional disapproval process to overturn a recent EPA rule. If both chambers pass it and the President signs it (or Congress overrides a veto), the named EPA rule would have no force or effect. The process also bars the agency from issuing a new rule that is substantially the same unless Congress enacts new law. The measure is a joint resolution that must be approved by both the House and Senate and presented to the President.
Air Plan Disapproval; Colorado; Regional Haze Plan for the Second Implementation Period (91 Fed. Reg. 3048, January 26, 2026).
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Under the disapproval process, the Senate uses an expedited procedure with limited debate that prevents a filibuster, so the measure can be approved by a simple majority; it still must pass both chambers and be presented to the President for signature or veto. These disapproval measures must be brought within the time window set by the disapproval process (after the rule was submitted).
This joint resolution under the Congressional Review Act would nullify the Environmental Protection Agency’s final rule titled “Air Plan Disapproval; Colorado; Regional Haze Plan for the Second Implementation Period” (91 Fed.
Reg. 3048, Jan 26, 2026).
If enacted, the EPA rule would be declared to have no force or effect, effectively overturning the agency’s disapproval of Colorado’s regional haze implementation plan.
Narrow and procedurally advantaged under the CRA, but politically contentious and requires congressional majorities plus executive approval.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this joint resolution is succinct and well-constructed: it clearly identifies the targeted EPA rule, cites the relevant statutory vehicle (chapter 8 of title 5), and provides the standard disapproval remedy. It omits fiscal discussion, contingency/transition language, and oversight provisions, but those elements are not typically expected for a single-rule CRA disapproval.
Progressives emphasize environmental and public-health risks
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize environmental and public-health risks
Likely opposes the resolution because it overturns an EPA disapproval of a state regional haze plan, which liberals view as an enforcement tool to protect air quality and public health.
They will see Congress nullifying EPA action as weakening federal environmental safeguards and harming affected communities.
Ambivalent: the centrists see tradeoffs between state primacy and the need for federal oversight to meet regional haze goals.
They would seek more information on EPA’s technical reasons and concrete air-quality impacts before deciding support.
Likely supports the resolution because it blocks an EPA disapproval and defends state prerogative against federal overreach.
Conservatives will view this as protecting local control and reducing regulatory burdens on industry and state governments.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Narrow and procedurally advantaged under the CRA, but politically contentious and requires congressional majorities plus executive approval.
The Senate declined to take up this bill. It cannot be debated or voted on unless the motion is tried again.
Progressives emphasize environmental and public-health risks
Narrow and procedurally advantaged under the CRA, but politically contentious and requires congressional majorities plus executive approval.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this joint resolution is succinct and well-constructed: it clearly identifies the targeted EPA rule, cites the relevant statutory vehicle (chapter 8 of title 5), and provides t…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.