PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Nov 3, 2011
Prohibits the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from rejecting a state implementation plan (SIP) or determining it to be inadequate, or from requiring compliance with a federal implementation plan for national primary and secondary ambient air quality standards, in any case in which the Administrator has not provided the state submitting the SIP at least two years after the date of promulgation of any final rule establishing an applicable standard intended to reduce the interstate transport of fine particulate matter and ozone to develop and submit an SIP.
Prohibits the Administrator from rejecting a SIP during such two-year development period if, as a result of such a rejection, the state would be required to comply with such rule by not later than a year after the date of submission of the SIP.
Requires the Administrator to provide in a timely manner to a requesting state any reasonable technical support, clarification, guidance, or data (including integrated planning models and other modeling) regarding the content of any final rule or regulation material to an SIP.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Prohibits: (1) the proposed rule entitled "Federal Implementation Plans To Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone" from being or becoming effective until at least 18 months after this Act's enactment, or (2) requiring compliance with any standard or requirement under such rule or further regulatory action triggered by such rule until the final rule becomes effective.
Requires the Administrator to continue to implement the final rule commonly known as the "Clean Air Interstate Rule'" and the rule establishing federal implementation plans for that rule as promulgated and modified by the Administrator until final action with respect to any federal regulatory mandate becomes effective in accordance with this Act.
People & committees
Sen. Johanns, Mike [R-NE] · R–NE
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S7135-7136)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.1805 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.1805 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.1805 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.1805 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.