Bill · S.J.Res. 209· Senate(119-SJRES-209)
A joint resolution 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".
- Introduced
- 8/6/2026
- Last activity
- 8/6/2026 — Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
- Sponsored by
- Dan Sullivan
- Cosponsors
- - 6 - 0
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
This joint resolution seeks to overturn a specific rule issued by the Environmental Protection Agency. The rule in question concerns the "California State Nonroad Engine Pollution Control Standards; Ocean-Going Vessels At-Berth; Notice of Decision." If passed, this resolution would ensure that the EPA rule has no force or effect. It is intended to provide for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code.
Yes
Would business owners be better off under this?+5
The resolution benefits maritime and shipping industries by removing the compliance costs of the EPA rule.
Does this leave more decisions to the states?+3
The resolution curbs federal oversight, which aligns with a push for greater state-level autonomy in environmental matters.
The opposite· 3 of 6
Does this cut the pollution that drives climate change?-5
The resolution overturns EPA standards designed to control pollution from ocean-going vessels, which likely reduces carbon emission mitigation efforts.
Does this better protect air, water and wildlife?-5
By striking down the EPA rule on nonroad engine pollution, the resolution weakens existing environmental protection standards for maritime vessels.
Would people in cities be better off under this?-3
Urban residents near ports may face increased exposure to engine pollution due to the overturned standards.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
- No specific positive impacts or benefits for individuals or groups are mentioned in the provided text.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- No specific negative impacts or burdens for individuals or groups are mentioned in the provided text.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Improves Environmental Protections-5Reduces Carbon Emissions-5
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Good For Business Owners+5Good For Urban Residents-3Good For African Americans-2Good For Low Income Households-2
- Governance And Ideology
- Increase States Rights+3Increases Federal Power-3
- 9/15/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 8/6/2026
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
- 5 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in Senate
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
John BarrassoRepublican · Wyoming
Katie BrittRepublican · Alabama
Ted CruzRepublican · Texas
Cynthia LummisRepublican · Wyoming
Roger MarshallRepublican · Kansas
Pete RickettsRepublican · Nebraska