2 versions

CosmeticWhat changed in ENGROSSED IN HOUSEcompared with INTRODUCED IN HOUSE (Aug 10, 2026)

Technical corrections only. The changes between v1 and v2 reflect the procedural progression of the joint resolution, with v2 indicating passage by the House of Representatives and including associated clerical attestations. No substantive policy changes were made to the text of the resolution itself.

H.J.Res. 213119th CongressIntroduced Aug 10, 2026

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule issued by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to the "California State Nonroad Engine Pollution Control Standards; Commercial Harbor Craft Regulations; Notice of Decision".

Passed HouseEnvironmental ProtectionMajor

View bill text

Sponsor: Rep. Gallagher, James [R-CA-1]
Committees: Energy and Commerce Committee (primary)
Last action: Sep 17, 2026

This analysis was written for v1 (INTRODUCED IN HOUSE, Aug 10, 2026). ENGROSSED IN HOUSE changed too little to need its own, so it reuses that one rather than a rewrite. The differences between the two are summarized above. View v1

Bottom line

This resolution seeks to overturn an EPA decision that allowed California to implement specific pollution control standards for commercial harbor craft, effectively blocking California's ability to enforce those standards.

What it actually does

This joint resolution utilizes the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to disapprove a final rule issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The EPA rule in question relates to "California State Nonroad Engine Pollution Control Standards; Commercial Harbor Craft Regulations; Notice of Decision," which likely granted California a waiver or authorization to enforce its own emissions standards for harbor craft. If enacted, H.J. Res. 213 would nullify this EPA rule, preventing it from having any legal effect.

Proponents argue

Proponents argue that the EPA rule overreaches federal authority or imposes undue burdens on the commercial harbor craft industry, potentially increasing operational costs and hindering economic activity. They may also contend that national standards should apply uniformly, or that California's specific standards are technically or economically unfeasible for the industry, creating an unfair regulatory environment.

Opponents contend

Opponents of this resolution (and proponents of the EPA rule) would argue that California's standards are crucial for improving air quality in port communities, protecting public health, and addressing climate change. They would assert that the EPA's decision to allow California to set these standards is consistent with the Clean Air Act and necessary to address unique environmental challenges faced by California's densely populated coastal areas.

The bill text is extremely short and can be read in seconds, but understanding its implications requires knowledge of the underlying EPA rule and the Congressional Review Act.

Section 1

Congressional Disapproval of EPA Rule

prominently featuredstraightforward

This provision explicitly states that Congress disapproves of the EPA rule concerning "California State Nonroad Engine Pollution Control Standards; Commercial Harbor Craft Regulations; Notice of Decision" (90 Fed. Reg. 1998, January 10, 2025). It further declares that this rule "shall have no force or effect," effectively nullifying the EPA's action and preventing California from implementing the specific emissions standards authorized by that rule.

GroupImpactMechanismScale

GroupEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA)ImpactLoss of regulatory authority to approve or uphold California's specific emissions standards for harbor craft.MechanismCongressional disapproval under the Congressional Review Act (CRA).ScaleSpecific to one rule and its associated state-level regulatory framework.

GroupState of CaliforniaImpactInability to enforce specific nonroad engine pollution standards for commercial harbor craft, as the federal authorization would be withdrawn.MechanismFederal preemption via CRA.ScaleSignificant impact on state environmental policy, particularly for air quality in port regions.

GroupCommercial Harbor Craft Industry (operators, manufacturers)ImpactRelief from (or continued uncertainty regarding) California's specific pollution control standards, potentially avoiding compliance costs.MechanismRemoval of regulatory burden or prevention of new standards.ScalePotentially significant operational and investment impacts, depending on the stringency of the original EPA-approved standards.

GroupResidents of California port communitiesImpactContinued exposure to existing levels of air pollution from harbor craft, or delayed improvements in air quality.MechanismAbsence of stricter emissions controls.ScaleLocalized public health and environmental quality impacts, particularly for vulnerable populations near ports.

Supporters argue

Supporters of the resolution argue that the EPA rule, which allowed California to set its own standards, creates an inconsistent regulatory environment, burdens interstate commerce, and imposes costly requirements on the commercial harbor craft industry without sufficient justification. They contend that federal oversight should prevail or that the standards are overly stringent, leading to economic disadvantages for businesses.

Critics contend

Opponents of the resolution argue that the EPA rule was a necessary step to allow California to address unique and severe air quality challenges in its port regions. They assert that California's waiver authority under the Clean Air Act is critical for environmental protection and public health, and that overturning the rule would undermine state efforts to combat pollution and climate change, especially in highly impacted communities.

Tradeoffs

The provision navigates the tension between state autonomy in environmental regulation (specifically California's waiver authority under the Clean Air Act) and the desire for uniform national standards or reduced regulatory burdens on industry. It also highlights the conflict between environmental protection goals and potential economic impacts on specific industries, particularly those operating across state lines or in national waters.

FOUND

The resolution disapproves an EPA rule. Under the Congressional Review Act (CRA), if a resolution of disapproval is enacted, the agency may not reissue the rule in substantially the same form, nor may it issue a new rule that is substantially the same, unless specifically authorized by a subsequent law.

Section 1 (by reference to 5 U.S.C. Chapter 8)

Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for CRA resolutions; the CRA's effects are statutory and apply automatically upon enactment of a disapproval resolution. It's not evasive, but rather relies on existing law.

Case for: Proponents of the resolution would argue that this 'no substantially similar rule' clause is a key feature of the CRA, ensuring that Congress's disapproval is not easily circumvented by agencies. It provides a strong check on executive branch rulemaking and prevents agencies from simply re-issuing a slightly modified version of a disapproved rule.

Case against: Opponents might argue that this aspect of the CRA is overly restrictive, preventing agencies from adapting to new information or circumstances, or from addressing the underlying policy problem through alternative means, even if the original rule had flaws. It can stifle adaptive governance and make it difficult to respond to evolving environmental or public health needs.

Estimated impact: Prevents the EPA from re-issuing a substantially similar rule regarding California's commercial harbor craft regulations without new congressional authorization, potentially for an indefinite period, thereby locking in the policy outcome of the disapproval.

About this analysis. AI-Generated from the official bill text and available committee reports. Gaps in available data are noted explicitly. Verify important details with the official Congress.gov record.