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".
- Sponsor
- Rep. Fong, Vince [R-CA-20]
- Committees
- Energy and Commerce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 16, 2026
Bottom line
This resolution uses the CRA to overturn an EPA decision that allowed California to enforce its own air pollution standards for ocean-going vessels docked at its ports.
What it actually does
This joint resolution, introduced under the Congressional Review Act (CRA), seeks to nullify a final rule issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on October 20, 2023. The EPA rule pertains to "California State Nonroad Engine Pollution Control Standards; Ocean-Going Vessels At-Berth; Notice of Decision," which likely granted California a waiver or authorization to implement its own emissions standards for certain ocean-going vessels while docked. If enacted, H.J. Res. 210 would prevent this EPA rule from taking effect, thereby blocking California's specific pollution control standards for at-berth ocean-going vessels.
Proponents argue
Proponents of H.J. Res. 210 argue that the EPA's decision to allow California to set its own standards for ocean-going vessels creates an inconsistent regulatory patchwork that burdens the maritime industry, increases operational costs for shipping companies, and could disrupt national supply chains. They may also contend that federal standards should preempt state-specific regulations to ensure uniformity and prevent competitive disadvantages for ports in other states.
Opponents contend
Opponents of H.J. Res. 210, including environmental advocates and potentially the state of California, would argue that the EPA rule is crucial for addressing air pollution in port communities, which often suffer from disproportionately high rates of respiratory illnesses due to emissions from ships. They would assert that California's standards are necessary to protect public health and the environment, and that overturning the EPA's decision would undermine states' rights to implement more stringent environmental protections.
The bill text is extremely short and straightforward, requiring minimal time to read. However, understanding its implications requires knowledge of the underlying EPA rule and the Congressional Review Act.
Section 1
Disapproval of EPA Rule on California Ocean-Going Vessel Emissions
This provision explicitly states that Congress disapproves the EPA rule published on October 20, 2023, concerning "California State Nonroad Engine Pollution Control Standards; Ocean-Going Vessels At-Berth; Notice of Decision." By disapproving this rule, the joint resolution aims to nullify the EPA's action, which likely granted California the authority to implement its own specific pollution control standards for ocean-going vessels while they are docked at port. Consequently, if this resolution passes, California would be prevented from enforcing these particular state-level emissions regulations.
Supporters argue
Supporters of this provision argue that it restores regulatory consistency across the nation by preventing a single state from imposing unique and potentially burdensome environmental standards on a federally regulated industry like maritime shipping. They contend that a uniform federal approach is more efficient for interstate and international commerce, reducing compliance costs and administrative complexity for shipping companies.
Critics contend
Opponents assert that this provision undermines states' rights to protect their citizens from pollution, especially in areas where federal standards are deemed insufficient to address local environmental and public health concerns. They argue that California's specific standards are a necessary response to the severe air quality issues faced by its port communities and that nullifying the EPA's approval would harm public health and environmental protection efforts.
Tradeoffs
The provision highlights the tension between the desire for national regulatory uniformity to ease industry compliance and the ability of individual states to implement more stringent environmental protections tailored to local needs. It also reflects a balance between economic considerations for the shipping industry and public health concerns in communities impacted by port emissions.
The resolution, if enacted, not only nullifies the specific EPA rule but also prevents the EPA from issuing any "substantially similar" rule in the future without explicit congressional authorization.
Section 1
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for CRA resolutions, as the broader legal implications are codified in the underlying statute (5 U.S.C. Chapter 8) rather than reiterated in each resolution. It's not evasive, but it requires external legal knowledge.
Case for: Proponents of this CRA feature argue it provides a strong check on agency overreach, ensuring that once Congress disapproves a rule, agencies cannot simply re-issue it with minor modifications. This promotes legislative supremacy in rulemaking.
Case against: Critics argue this "substantially similar" clause can be overly broad and stifle legitimate agency efforts to address evolving issues or respond to new data, even if a future rule is genuinely different in its approach or scope but addresses the same subject matter. It can create a regulatory "chill."
Estimated impact: This provision has a significant long-term impact on the EPA's ability to regulate nonroad engine pollution standards for ocean-going vessels at berth, particularly concerning California's authority.