Dan Sullivan (R-AK)
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".
A Republican resolution with 6 Republican cosponsors · See all 6 cosponsors
Last activity — Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- 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
- Scored +5
Would business owners be better off under this?
The resolution benefits maritime and shipping industries by removing the compliance costs of the EPA rule.
- Scored +3
Does this leave more decisions to the states?
The resolution curbs federal oversight, which aligns with a push for greater state-level autonomy in environmental matters.
The opposite· 3 of 6
- Scored -5
Does this cut the pollution that drives climate change?
The resolution overturns EPA standards designed to control pollution from ocean-going vessels, which likely reduces carbon emission mitigation efforts.
- Scored -5
Does this better protect air, water and wildlife?
By striking down the EPA rule on nonroad engine pollution, the resolution weakens existing environmental protection standards for maritime vessels.
- Scored -3
Would people in cities be better off under this?
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. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — By striking down the EPA rule on nonroad engine pollution, the resolution weakens existing environmental protection standards for maritime vessels. Does this cut the pollution that drives climate change? — The resolution overturns EPA standards designed to control pollution from ocean-going vessels, which likely reduces carbon emission mitigation efforts.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would business owners be better off under this? — The resolution benefits maritime and shipping industries by removing the compliance costs of the EPA rule. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Urban residents near ports may face increased exposure to engine pollution due to the overturned standards. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Potential negative health impacts from pollution may affect urban and minority communities near major maritime hubs. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Reduced environmental regulations can disproportionately affect public health in low-income areas near ports.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this leave more decisions to the states? — The resolution curbs federal oversight, which aligns with a push for greater state-level autonomy in environmental matters. Does this give the federal government more power? — The resolution reduces federal regulatory power by overturning an EPA rule.
- 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