Overview
Title
Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management relating to Protection of Marine Archaeological Resources.
ELI5 AI
H. J. RES. 62 wants to cancel a rule about protecting old items found in the ocean, saying the rule shouldn't be followed anymore. It's like stopping a new rule about taking care of treasures under the sea.
Summary AI
H. J. RES. 62 is a joint resolution that seeks to nullify a rule issued by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management concerning the "Protection of Marine Archaeological Resources." This rule, published in the Federal Register on September 3, 2024 (89 Fed. Reg. 71160), would lose its effectiveness if the resolution is passed. The resolution was introduced in the House of Representatives by Mr. Ezell and has been referred to the Committee on Natural Resources for further consideration.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
Summary of the Bill
House Joint Resolution 62 seeks to express congressional disapproval of a specific rule from the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. This rule pertains to the "Protection of Marine Archaeological Resources," which involves safeguarding underwater historical sites. The resolution, if passed, would nullify this rule, rendering it entirely ineffective.
Significant Issues
One prominent issue with this joint resolution is the apparent inconsistency in dates. The rule in question is referenced as being published in the Federal Register on September 3, 2024, which is a future date relative to the current year, 2025. This raises questions about the accuracy and appropriateness of the timeline for considering and implementing disapproval.
Furthermore, the resolution does not provide specific reasons for why Congress disapproves of the rule. The lack of transparency makes it challenging for the public and other stakeholders to comprehend the basis for this legislative action. Without revealing the rationale behind disapproval, the legislative process may seem opaque and puzzling to the public.
Additionally, the resolution simply nullifies the rule without offering any alternative approaches or modifications. By taking such a totalizing approach, it may appear that Congress is dismissing the initial intentions of the rule without assessing potential middle-ground solutions.
Impact on the Public
The nullification of the rule can have broad implications. By disapproving of protections for marine archaeological resources, there may be potential impacts on historical preservation and environmental stewardship. Such a decision could influence how marine archaeological sites are managed across the United States and might affect educational and cultural resources associated with these sites.
For the general public interested in cultural preservation, the resolution might be seen as a backward step. Many might feel concerned about a perceived lack of commitment towards maintaining and protecting valuable historical artifacts found underwater.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For environmental and historical preservation groups, this resolution could be perceived as a significant setback. These stakeholders often advocate for robust protections for archaeological resources, considering them crucial for cultural heritage and education. The nullification might require them to redirect their advocacy efforts towards pushing for new or revised regulations.
Conversely, industries involved in activities like underwater drilling or construction might view this legislative action favorably. Without the constraints imposed by the Bureau's original rule, such businesses might find it easier to proceed with operations without additional regulatory hurdles concerning archaeological site preservation.
In conclusion, while the immediate impact of this bill is the removal of protections for marine archaeology, the longer-term effects will depend on how quickly and effectively new rules or measures are developed to replace or enhance the original intentions of the disapproved rule.
Issues
The date mentioned in the bill, September 3, 2024, is in the future compared to the current context. This might indicate an inconsistency or error in referencing the federal register, which could lead to confusion about the timeline and applicability of the regulation. [Section: Text]
The bill text does not specify the reasons for disapproval of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. This lack of clarity makes it difficult for the public and stakeholders to understand the rationale behind Congress's disapproval and could be viewed as a lack of transparency or an oversight in legislative communication. [Section: Text]
The phrase 'shall have no force or effect' used in the bill indicates a complete nullification of the rule without suggesting alternative solutions or modifications. This could be perceived as a lack of a constructive approach to addressing the issues the rule intended to solve, which may have political and ethical implications. [Section: Text]
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 is expressing disapproval of a rule made by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management about protecting underwater historical sites, and as a result, this rule will not be in effect.