HR-9185-119
Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Sponsored by Salud Carbajal (D-CA)
What it does
This bill would direct NOAA's Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere to create the Blue Whales and Blue Skies Program, a voluntary initiative encouraging large vessels (300 gross tons or more) to slow to 10 knots or below while transiting designated marine areas along the U.S. West Coast. Participating shipping companies would be eligible for annual Excellence Awards and an official logo they could display in marketing materials. The bill explicitly prohibits mandatory participation, financial incentives, and any action affecting navigation safety, and requires NOAA to report within four years on the feasibility of expanding the program along the entire U.S. Pacific coast.
Who benefits
Blue whale and other whale populations along the West Coast that face fatal ship strikes and harmful underwater noise. Coastal communities and beachgoers who benefit from healthier marine ecosystems. Air quality beneficiaries in port-adjacent communities, particularly in Southern California, who would see reduced ship emissions from slower vessels. Shipping companies that voluntarily participate and gain reputational and marketing value from the award logo. Environmental nonprofits and California air quality management districts already running the existing voluntary program, which would gain federal recognition and institutional support. Researchers and marine scientists who would benefit from expanded data on vessel speed compliance.
Who is hurt
Shipping companies and cargo operators for whom slower transit speeds increase voyage time and operational costs, even on a voluntary basis — competitive pressure may disadvantage early adopters relative to non-participants. Port-dependent industries (importers, exporters, logistics firms) that could face longer delivery timelines if carriers broadly adopt slower speeds. Shipping company employees whose schedules and labor arrangements may be affected by longer voyages. Fishing and recreational boating interests that could face increased vessel traffic congestion in certain corridors if large ships slow significantly. Taxpayers bear the administrative cost of establishing and running the federal program, though the bill does not authorize appropriations for financial incentives.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that blue whales and other endangered species face documented, preventable mortality from ship strikes along the California coast, and that slower vessel speeds have been shown to reduce both strike risk and underwater noise that disrupts whale feeding and communication. They contend the existing California-based voluntary program has demonstrated measurable participation from major shipping lines without regulatory mandates, and that federal recognition through NOAA would expand reach, standardize data collection, and provide a reputational incentive structure that the state program lacks. Supporters also argue that slower ships burn less fuel per mile, producing co-benefits in reduced greenhouse gas and particulate emissions in communities near busy shipping lanes.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that a purely voluntary, award-based program with no financial incentives and no enforcement mechanism is unlikely to achieve meaningful or consistent participation beyond companies already engaged in the existing California program, making the federal administrative cost difficult to justify. They contend that slower vessel speeds impose real competitive costs on participating carriers — longer voyage times, higher crew costs, and reduced fleet utilization — creating a structural disadvantage relative to non-participants that may actually discourage adoption over time. Opponents may further argue that if the environmental problem is serious enough to warrant federal action, a voluntary recognition program is an inadequate response, while those skeptical of federal expansion contend this duplicates existing state and nonprofit efforts without adding substantive new tools.
Constitutional context
The bill directs a federal agency (NOAA) to administer a voluntary program affecting maritime commerce, which falls squarely within Congress's Commerce Clause authority (Art. I, §8, cl. 3) over navigable waters and interstate shipping. Because the program is entirely voluntary and creates no binding regulations, it is unlikely to raise major questions doctrine concerns under West Virginia v. EPA (2022) or face heightened post-Loper Bright scrutiny, as no agency is being asked to interpret ambiguous statutory authority to impose sweeping obligations.
Checks and balances
The Executive Branch (NOAA) gains administrative authority to design and run the program; Congress retains oversight through required reporting to the House Transportation and Infrastructure, House Natural Resources, and Senate Commerce committees, and the bill's explicit prohibition on mandatory participation limits NOAA's discretionary reach.
Historical precedent
The existing Protecting Blue Whales and Blue Skies Vessel Speed Reduction Program, administered by California air quality districts and marine sanctuary foundations since 2014, is the direct predecessor this bill would federalize and expand.