Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
This bill amends Clean Air Act section 209(e)(1) to clarify and expand federal preemption over state standards for emissions from certain nonroad engines and, specifically, from locomotives and engines used in locomotives that are engaged in commerce. It adds a provision defining covered locomotives as those providing common carrier railroad transportation for compensation under 49 U.S.C. §10102, and adjusts language for small nonroad construction and farm engines under 175 horsepower.
Liberals emphasize lost state authority and public-health harms.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly focused statutory preemption implemented as an amendment to 42 U.S.C. 7543(e)(1).
This bill amends Clean Air Act section 209(e)(1) to clarify and expand federal preemption over state standards for emissions from certain nonroad engines and, specifically, from locomotives and engines used in locomotives that are engaged in commerce.
It adds a provision defining covered locomotives as those providing common carrier railroad transportation for compensation under 49 U.S.C. §10102, and adjusts language for small nonroad construction and farm engines under 175 horsepower.
The text prohibits states from adopting their own emissions controls for the covered locomotives and engines.
Narrow text helps—but high federalism controversy, active stakeholder opposition, and lack of compromise features lower lawmaking prospects.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly focused statutory preemption implemented as an amendment to 42 U.S.C. 7543(e)(1). It clearly identifies the targeted source category and integrates with existing law by direct amendment and cross-reference. The drafting is adequate to effect the stated legal change but is sparse on implementation specifics, fiscal effects, and handling of edge cases.
Liberals emphasize lost state authority and public-health harms.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Liberals emphasize lost state authority and public-health harms.
This persona would likely view the bill negatively because it removes state authority to impose stricter locomotive emission controls, risking public health and environmental justice protections.
They would be concerned about weaker overall emissions control if the federal government does not promptly fill the regulatory gap.
A pragmatic centrist would appreciate reduced interstate regulatory complexity for rail carriers but worry the bill simply removes a state tool without guaranteeing federal replacements.
They would look for assurances of timely federal standards and resources to mitigate pollution where needed.
This persona would likely support the bill as restoring uniform federal control and preventing a costly patchwork of state regulations that hinder interstate commerce and increase compliance complexity for rail companies.
They would emphasize commerce and regulatory predictability.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Narrow text helps—but high federalism controversy, active stakeholder opposition, and lack of compromise features lower lawmaking prospects.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Liberals emphasize lost state authority and public-health harms.
Narrow text helps—but high federalism controversy, active stakeholder opposition, and lack of compromise features lower lawmaking prospects.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly focused statutory preemption implemented as an amendment to 42 U.S.C. 7543(e)(1). It clearly identifies the targeted source category and integrates with…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.