Overview
Title
Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to Waste Emissions Charge for Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems: Procedures for Facilitating Compliance, Including Netting and Exemptions.
ELI5 AI
Congress is voting on a plan to cancel a rule that tells oil and gas companies how to handle pollution fees, and they want to make sure everyone knows they don't agree with it. This means the rule wouldn't be used anymore if the plan goes through.
Summary AI
H. J. RES. 35 is a joint resolution that expresses Congress's disapproval of a rule established by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This rule, concerning the "Waste Emissions Charge for Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems," includes guidelines for compliance, netting, and exemptions. By passing this resolution, Congress aims to nullify the EPA's rule, meaning it will no longer have any legal force or effect. The resolution has already been passed by the House of Representatives and is currently under consideration in the Senate.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
House Joint Resolution 35 (H. J. RES. 35) is a legislative proposal currently being reviewed by the Senate of the United States. This resolution aims to express Congress's disapproval of a specific rule established by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The rule in question, outlined in the Federal Register, pertains to waste emissions charges for petroleum and natural gas systems. This includes procedures intended to facilitate compliance with environmental standards, incorporating aspects such as netting and exemptions. Essentially, the resolution seeks to nullify the EPA rule, thereby rendering it non-enforceable.
Summary of Significant Issues
One of the primary issues with H. J. RES. 35 is the lack of a clear rationale or detailed explanation for disapproving the EPA's rule. The resolution merely states the intention to disapprove, without providing a substantive argument or evidence supporting why this rule should not be applied. This absence of clarity may lead to confusion regarding Congress's motivations, potentially undermining trust in legislative processes.
Additionally, there are no outlined alternative measures or procedures presented to replace the disapproved rule. This omission may lead to uncertainty for industries that are impacted by these regulations, as it remains unclear how compliance will be structured or enforced in the absence of the now-disapproved rule.
The reference to the Federal Register citation ('89 Fed. Reg. 91094') is another concern, as it may not be readily understood by individuals without legal or governmental knowledge. The use of technical jargon can alienate the general public from understanding the implications of the resolution.
Impact on the General Public
For the general public, the resolution could introduce a level of ambiguity in how environmental regulations are enforced. Individuals concerned about environmental protection may view the removal of these compliance procedures with apprehension, questioning the future effectiveness of emissions management within the petroleum and natural gas sectors. Without an explanation for this disapproval, it may be challenging for the public to gauge the potential environmental impacts fully.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For stakeholders in the petroleum and natural gas industries, the bill presents a double-edged sword. On one hand, disapproval of the EPA rule could alleviate some regulatory burdens, potentially reducing operational costs. On the other hand, the lack of clear replacement guidelines could lead to uncertainty in how companies should proceed with compliance efforts. This uncertainty could have financial implications, as businesses may need to navigate shifting regulatory expectations without a clear framework.
Environmental advocacy groups may view this resolution with concern, perceiving it as a step back in environmental regulation and emissions control. The absence of explained rationale or alternative measures could further fuel apprehensions about the government's commitment to environmental protection and sustainable regulatory practices.
In conclusion, H. J. RES. 35 poses significant implications for regulatory practices in the petroleum and natural gas sectors, impacting both the public's understanding and the operational realities for industry stakeholders.
Issues
The lack of rationale or detailed explanation in the text for disapproving the EPA rule could create ambiguity and confusion about the reasons for this decision, impacting trust and understanding among the general public and stakeholders. (Section: Relevant to all issues)
The absence of any outlined alternative measures or actions to replace the disapproved rule may lead to uncertainty in regulatory compliance for petroleum and natural gas industries, which could have financial and operational implications. (Section: Relevant to all issues)
The disapproval and revocation of the rule, without explanation of its implications, may prevent a comprehensive evaluation of its environmental impact or its effects on stakeholders involved in the petroleum and natural gas sectors. (Section: Relevant to all issues)
The reference to '89 Fed. Reg. 91094' without sufficient explanation could be perceived as complex legal jargon, which may not be easily understood by a lay audience seeking to comprehend the document's contents. (Section: Relevant to all issues)
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Congress disapproves of the Environmental Protection Agency's rule about waste emissions charges for petroleum and natural gas systems, and they say that this rule should not be enforced.