House Lists California Vessel-Emissions Resolutions for Possible Action

House floor materials list two resolutions targeting Environmental Protection Agency decisions tied to California maritime-emissions programs among the measures that may be considered during the week beginning September 14, 2026.

H.J. Res. 210 would disapprove EPA‘s decision concerning California’s standards for ocean-going vessels at berth. H.J. Res. 213 would target EPA’s decision concerning California commercial harbor craft regulations. The House added both measures on September 10, and the page was last updated September 11.

The listing is a procedural step, not a House vote. It does not repeal, suspend or immediately change California’s vessel-emissions requirements.

What the two resolutions target

H.J. Res. 210 concerns California requirements for ocean-going vessels while they are at berth in California ports. EPA’s waiver and authorization index identifies the underlying action as the agency’s October 2023 notice of decision on California’s nonroad engine pollution-control standards for ocean-going vessels at berth.

H.J. Res. 213 concerns California’s commercial harbor craft program. EPA’s decision document covers categories including ferries, excursion vessels, tugboats, towboats, push boats and other commercial craft operating in regulated California waters. EPA granted authorization for parts of California’s 2022 amendments but did not act on some provisions.

The resolutions invoke the Congressional Review Act, which provides an expedited process for Congress to disapprove certain agency rules. The House page places both measures under the heading “Items that may be considered pursuant to a rule.” That language indicates possible consideration under a House procedure; it does not establish that either resolution will receive a vote or pass.

Why EPA sent the decisions to Congress

EPA said in July that it had transmitted the two waiver or authorization decisions to Congress. The agency’s position was that prior administrations should have submitted the decisions for Congressional Review Act consideration and that EPA was treating them as rules covered by the statute.

That characterization is disputed in ongoing litigation. The broader dispute concerns whether EPA can reclassify Clean Air Act waiver orders as CRA-covered rules after the agency issued them. Independent specialist reporting has described the maritime submissions as opening another route for congressional efforts to nullify the California programs.

No repeal has taken effect

The reviewed records do not show a final House vote, Senate approval, presidential signature or enactment of H.J. Res. 210 or H.J. Res. 213. A CRA disapproval resolution generally must pass both chambers and go through the presidential process before it can become law.

Until that happens, the House listing by itself does not change compliance obligations for ports, vessel owners, harbor-craft operators or businesses planning maritime infrastructure. The reviewed records also do not document an immediate change in shipping costs, consumer prices, port operations or emissions.

Court fight adds uncertainty

On September 2, a judge in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted California’s motion for a preliminary injunction in a separate lawsuit over EPA’s reclassification strategy. The order barred EPA from taking further action to reclassify California Clean Air Act waiver orders as rules and directed the agency to restore the prior status quo for four waiver orders at issue in that case.

The order is preliminary and does not amount to a final ruling on H.J. Res. 210 or H.J. Res. 213. It also does not by itself determine how the two maritime resolutions will proceed. The litigation nevertheless creates legal uncertainty around EPA’s broader theory that the waiver or authorization decisions can be treated as CRA-covered rules.

What to watch next

Port operators, vessel owners, commercial harbor-craft fleets and supply-chain planners should watch for an actual House rule, floor action, Senate consideration and any presidential action. Further court filings or orders may also clarify the legal status of EPA’s reclassification approach.

Sources

Look for updates to this story

Discover more from Interactive News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.