SJRES 11: A joint resolution 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".

SJRES 11 in plain English: This resolution cancels a 2024 federal rule that required oil and gas companies to automatically submit archaeological reports alongside any exploration or development plan on the Outer Continental Shelf. By nullifying the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management rule, it restores the previous standard under which such reports were only required if a regional director had specific reason to believe an archaeological resource might be present in the lease area.

Stated purpose

This resolution disapproves and nullifies a federal rule that required oil and gas companies to submit archaeological reports with every exploration or development plan on the Outer Continental Shelf, returning oversight to the prior standard.

Key points

• Nullifies BOEM's September 3, 2024 rule on Protection of Marine Archaeological Resources
• Removes automatic requirement for oil and gas operators to include archaeological reports with exploration or development plans
• Restores prior rules allowing BOEM to require archaeological reports only when a regional director has reason to believe a resource may be present
• Archaeological resources are defined as material remains of human life or activities at least 50 years old

Arguments supporters make

• Requiring an archaeological report for every single plan was a blanket rule that added cost and delay even when there was no real reason to expect any archaeological site was present, so the old case-by-case approach was more sensible.
• The previous standard already protected marine archaeological resources by allowing BOEM to require a report whenever there was actual reason to believe something was there, making the new rule an unnecessary extra burden.
• Removing this across-the-board requirement reduces regulatory costs for domestic energy production without eliminating archaeological protections entirely.

Arguments opponents make

• Underwater archaeological sites can be unknown and undiscovered precisely because no one has looked — requiring a report only when officials already suspect something may cause irreversible damage to sites that were never identified in the first place.
• Shifting the trigger from a standard requirement to a regional director's judgment introduces inconsistency and may mean some lease areas never get reviewed even when risk is high.
• Marine archaeological resources, once disturbed by drilling or construction, cannot be restored, so critics argue the automatic reporting rule was a reasonable precaution worth the added paperwork.

Tradeoffs

Eliminating the blanket reporting requirement reduces costs and regulatory burden on energy operators, but trades away a systematic safeguard that could have caught unknown archaeological sites before they were disturbed; the tension is between streamlining energy development and maintaining consistent protection for non-renewable cultural resources.

Current status in Congress: Became law.

NewsClear — neutral news & congressional tracking · Bill of the Week