A joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration relating to "Pipeline Safety: Editorial Change To Reflect the Name Change of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America".
- Sponsor
- Sen. Whitehouse, Sheldon [D-RI]
- Committees
- Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Aug 1, 2025
Bottom line
This resolution uses the Congressional Review Act to block a PHMSA rule that would have changed the official name of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America in pipeline safety regulations.
What it actually does
This joint resolution seeks to disapprove a specific rule issued by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) under the Congressional Review Act. The rule in question, published on May 20, 2025, concerned an "Editorial Change To Reflect the Name Change of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America" within pipeline safety regulations. If enacted, this resolution would nullify PHMSA's rule, preventing it from taking effect and maintaining the existing nomenclature.
Proponents argue
Supporters of this resolution argue that the PHMSA rule changing the name of the Gulf of Mexico is an inappropriate and potentially confusing administrative action that exceeds the agency's mandate or is a misuse of regulatory authority. They may contend that such a name change has no bearing on pipeline safety and could introduce unnecessary ambiguity into existing regulations and geographic references, warranting congressional disapproval.
Opponents contend
Opponents of this resolution (and thus proponents of the PHMSA rule) would argue that the rule is a necessary or appropriate editorial change, perhaps reflecting a broader governmental or societal shift in nomenclature, or that it is a minor administrative update with no substantive impact on safety. They might assert that Congress is overstepping by disapproving a routine or non-substantive agency action.
The bill is extremely short and can be read and understood in less than a minute, making it highly accessible for public review.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration relating to "Pipeline Safety: Editorial Change To Reflect the Name Change of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America" (90 Fed. Reg. 21434 (May 20, 2025)), and such rule shall have no force or effect.
Disapproval of PHMSA Rule on Gulf of Mexico Name Change
This provision explicitly states that Congress disapproves of the rule published by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) on May 20, 2025. This rule, titled "Pipeline Safety: Editorial Change To Reflect the Name Change of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America," would be nullified, meaning it would not take effect and the name "Gulf of Mexico" would remain unchanged in relevant pipeline safety regulations. This action is taken under the authority of the Congressional Review Act.
Supporters argue
Supporters of this provision argue that it is essential to prevent an unnecessary and potentially confusing change to a widely recognized geographic name within federal regulations. They contend that PHMSA's rule was an overreach or an inappropriate use of regulatory power for a matter unrelated to core pipeline safety, and that maintaining the established name avoids ambiguity and preserves historical and international conventions.
Critics contend
Opponents of this provision (i.e., those who supported the PHMSA rule) would argue that Congress is interfering with a minor, perhaps even symbolic, administrative update. They might contend that the name change was intended to reflect a new policy or cultural preference, and that disapproving it is an unnecessary use of legislative time and power, potentially hindering administrative efficiency.
Tradeoffs
The provision navigates the tension between administrative agency discretion to make editorial changes and congressional oversight of regulatory actions. It also highlights the balance between maintaining established geographic nomenclature for clarity and the potential for agencies to update terminology, weighing the practical implications of such changes.