At-berth vessel standards disapproval

Full Title:
Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to "California State Nonroad Engine Pollution Control Standards; Ocean-Going Vessels At-Berth; Notice of Decision".

Summary#

This joint resolution would nullify an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) action titled “California State Nonroad Engine Pollution Control Standards; Ocean-Going Vessels At-Berth; Notice of Decision” (88 Fed. Reg. 72461, Oct. 20, 2023). The resolution uses chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code (the Congressional Review Act), to disapprove that EPA rule so it “shall have no force or effect.” The stated goal is to reverse the EPA action listed in the resolution.

  • Main change: It would cancel the EPA rule named in the resolution and declare it void.
  • Legal effect under the Congressional Review Act: If enacted, the disapproval would treat the rule as if it never had force and would generally block the agency from issuing a substantially similar rule in the future unless Congress allows it.
  • What the rule concerns: California pollution-control standards for nonroad engines on ocean-going vessels when they are at berth (docked).
  • Current status: The resolution was introduced in the House and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

What it means for you#

  • Ports and shipping companies: This could mean the EPA action that affected California’s at-berth vessel standards would be canceled. If the EPA action had required changes or compliance steps, those requirements would be removed. The bill does not spell out what specific compliance duties would follow from disapproval.
  • California state government and regulators: California would lose the federal action that the rule provided. The bill does not say whether California could still enforce its own standards under state law.
  • Vessel owners and operators (including foreign and domestic ocean-going vessels): This could affect whether they must meet the standards at issue if those standards depended on the EPA decision for federal recognition or enforcement.
  • Communities near ports and environmental groups: The local air-quality and public-health effects depend on what the EPA action had required. If the rule would have supported stricter controls, canceling it could reduce the federal backing for those controls.
  • Federal agencies: EPA would be prevented, under the Congressional Review Act, from issuing a new rule that is the same or substantially the same unless Congress specifically authorizes it.

What is unclear:

  • The resolution does not describe the contents of the EPA decision in detail. It only names the rule and says it is disapproved.
  • It is not clear how state enforcement, existing permits, or other laws would interact with this disapproval.

Expenses#

No publicly available information.

  • The resolution and its text do not include a fiscal note or estimate of costs or savings.
  • Potential administrative or compliance costs for governments or industry are not described in the available material.
  • Whether cancelling the EPA action would increase or decrease costs for ports, vessel operators, or state agencies is not stated in the bill text.

Proponents' View#

The bill text itself does not include arguments. Based on the action taken, a possible case in favor is:

  • The bill appears intended to undo EPA’s decision about California’s at-berth vessel standards. Supporters may argue this would reduce or remove federal backing for those standards.
  • Supporters may view this as a way to prevent what they consider extra regulatory burden on ports, shipping companies, or interstate commerce.
  • Using the Congressional Review Act provides a direct legal route to reverse an agency action and stop a similar federal rule from being reissued without express congressional approval.

Opponents' View#

The bill text does not include criticisms. Reasonable concerns that follow from the bill’s effect include:

  • One concern is that cancelling the EPA action could weaken federal recognition of stricter pollution controls for ships at berth, with potential negative effects on local air quality and public health near ports.
  • The resolution does not explain how California’s own enforcement or local air-protection measures would be affected, leaving uncertainty about environmental protections.
  • Blocking an agency action via the Congressional Review Act can prevent regulators from reissuing similar protections in the future without congressional approval, which may limit administrative flexibility to address pollution problems.