HJRES-213-119
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Sponsored by James Gallagher (R-CA)
What it does
This joint resolution would use the Congressional Review Act to overturn an EPA decision that granted California a waiver to enforce its own emission standards for commercial harbor craft (like tugboats, ferries, and fishing vessels) with nonroad engines. If enacted, the EPA's approval would have no legal effect, and the agency would be barred from issuing a substantially similar rule without new congressional authorization.
Who benefits
Operators of commercial harbor craft in California who would avoid costs of upgrading or retrofitting engines to meet stricter state emission standards; marine engine manufacturers who produce older, less-expensive engine models; businesses in shipping, fishing, and towing industries facing lower compliance costs.
Who is hurt
Residents of California port communities (such as Los Angeles, Long Beach, and Oakland) who may experience continued higher levels of diesel particulate and nitrogen oxide pollution from harbor craft; public health advocates and environmental groups that supported the stricter standards; California's ability to set state-specific environmental standards under its Clean Air Act waiver authority.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that California's harbor craft rule imposes costly engine replacement or retrofit mandates on vessel operators that could reach tens of thousands of dollars per engine, threatening the viability of small maritime businesses and fishing operations. They contend that EPA's waiver approval oversteps reasonable limits by allowing California to set standards that function as de facto national requirements given the state's market size, and that Congress should reassert control over environmental policy affecting interstate commerce.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that California's harbor craft rule addresses documented public health harms from diesel emissions in densely populated port communities, where residents face elevated rates of asthma and other respiratory illness. They contend that the Clean Air Act explicitly authorizes California to seek waivers for stricter standards given its unique air quality challenges, and that blocking this waiver would undermine a decades-old legal framework that has reduced pollution in the state.
Constitutional context
This resolution relies on Congress's authority under the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. Chapter 8) to nullify agency rules through expedited procedures, and touches on the Clean Air Act's waiver provision allowing California to set stricter vehicle and engine emission standards than federal law, a scheme upheld against Commerce Clause and preemption challenges in prior litigation. The dispute here is statutory and administrative rather than a novel constitutional question, though it intersects with ongoing debates over the scope of agency authority following Loper Bright v. Raimondo (2024).
Checks and balances
Congress would exercise its legislative check on executive rulemaking by nullifying an EPA administrative decision, with no judicial review typically available for CRA disapproval resolutions themselves, though the underlying waiver framework remains subject to ordinary court challenge.
Historical precedent
Congress has previously used the Congressional Review Act to overturn EPA rules, including a 2025 resolution disapproving a separate California Clean Air Act waiver for zero-emission vehicle mandates.