A joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration relating to "Pipeline Safety: Editorial Change To Reflect the Name Change of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America".
- Bill Number
- S.J.Res. 74
- Origin Chamber
- Senate
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 1
- Policy Area
- Transportation and Public Works
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2025-08-01: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
- Last Updated
- 2025-09-12T14:55:11Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose
This joint resolution (S.J. Res. 74) aims to disapprove a specific administrative rule issued by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), a federal agency under the Department of Transportation. The rule in question makes an editorial update to replace "Gulf of Mexico" with "Gulf of America" in pipeline safety regulations. By disapproving the rule, Congress seeks to prevent this change from taking effect, using the Congressional Review Act (CRA)—a law that allows Congress to overturn certain agency rules.
Key Provisions
- Disapproval of the Rule: The resolution explicitly states that Congress disapproves the PHMSA rule titled "Pipeline Safety: Editorial Change To Reflect the Name Change of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America," published in the Federal Register on May 20, 2025 (90 Fed. Reg. 21434).
- Nullification: Once enacted, the rule would have no legal force or effect, meaning the original terminology ("Gulf of Mexico") remains in PHMSA's pipeline safety documents.
- Procedural Path: Introduced in the Senate on August 1, 2025, by Senator Whitehouse, it was referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation for review. If passed by both chambers of Congress and signed by the President (or overridden if vetoed), it becomes law.
Significant Changes to Existing Law
- This resolution does not amend broader statutes but invokes the CRA to reverse a narrow, editorial agency action. It effectively blocks the implementation of the rule without altering the underlying Pipeline Safety laws (such as those under the Pipeline Safety Act).
- No new laws are created; instead, it restores the status quo by invalidating the agency's update, ensuring consistency with pre-existing regulatory language.
Potential Impacts
- On Government Agencies: PHMSA would be required to revert to using "Gulf of Mexico" in its regulations, potentially affecting administrative efficiency for minor document updates. Other agencies referencing the Gulf in safety or environmental rules might face indirect pressure to maintain standard nomenclature.
- On Citizens: Minimal direct impact, as this is a symbolic editorial change unrelated to public safety or daily life. It could indirectly affect industries like oil, gas, and shipping that operate in the Gulf region, by preserving familiar terminology in federal guidelines.
- On International Relations: The rule's attempted name change could have strained relations with Mexico and other nations that officially recognize the "Gulf of Mexico." Disapproval avoids potential diplomatic friction, upholding international conventions on geographic naming.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- Federal Agencies: Primarily PHMSA, which proposed the rule; secondarily, the Department of Transportation and other bodies involved in maritime or energy regulation.
- Congress: Senators and Representatives, particularly those on the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, who oversee agency rulemaking.
- Industry and Businesses: Pipeline operators, energy companies, and maritime entities in the Gulf region, who rely on clear, consistent federal terminology for compliance.
- International Entities: Governments of Mexico, Cuba, and others bordering the Gulf, as well as international organizations like the United Nations that use standardized geographic names.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal: Demonstrates the CRA's role as a check on executive branch agencies, allowing Congress to review and nullify rules submitted within 60 legislative days. If enacted, it sets a precedent for using the CRA on non-substantive, editorial rules.
- Constitutional: Reinforces the separation of powers by asserting Congress's oversight of administrative actions, without raising major constitutional challenges.
- Political: Highlights potential partisan divides over symbolic issues like geographic naming, which could reflect broader debates on national identity or foreign policy. The resolution's introduction by a Democratic senator (Whitehouse) in a future Congress suggests it may address an executive action perceived as unilateral or provocative.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Sen. Whitehouse, Sheldon [D-RI]
Recent Actions
- 2025-08-01: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
- 2025-08-01: Introduced in Senate
Bill Versions
- Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration relating to Pipeline Safety: Editorial Change To Reflect the Name Change of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America. — issued 2025-08-01 — PDF (2 pages)