The measure targets federal authorization for the rules. For fishing and sportfishing operators, the immediate question is still what applies to their vessels.
A sportfishing boat heading out with a full rail of anglers and a tug moving through a busy port have different jobs. Under California’s Commercial Harbor Craft Regulation, however, both are part of a wide-ranging effort to cut emissions from working vessels. That effort now faces a challenge in Congress, adding uncertainty for operators who may already be planning costly engine work.
On Sept. 16, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 214 to 208 to pass a resolution seeking to overturn federal authorization for the California Air Resources Board’s amended regulation. The measure, H.J. Res. 213, has not become law. It still requires further action, and the House vote by itself doesn’t cancel an operator’s current compliance obligations.
The regulation covers more than the tugs and ferries often pictured in stories about port emissions. Its vessel categories include commercial fishing boats, commercial passenger fishing vessels, excursion boats, workboats, and other craft operating in California waters. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted amendments in 2022 that took effect at the beginning of 2023, adding engine standards and other requirements intended to reduce pollution from the fleet.
For a sportfishing landing, the term “commercial passenger fishing vessel” is the one to know. CARB uses it for coastal and offshore boats carrying people other than the owner or operator to fish, including day and overnight trips. A boat taking paying anglers offshore can therefore be covered even though its passengers are recreational fishermen. That doesn’t mean a private boater taking friends fishing faces the same commercial harbor craft requirements.
Why did California expand the rule? CARB says diesel exhaust from vessels contributes to air pollution in coastal and port communities, including places where residents and maritime workers are exposed to emissions from many sources. When it approved the amendments, the agency projected substantial reductions in diesel soot and nitrogen oxides by 2035. It also estimated more than $5 billion in health benefits from the changes. Those figures are CARB’s projections, not measured results from the amended rule.
The costs and practical challenges fall on vessel operators. A repower can mean buying engines, changing a vessel’s systems and taking a working boat out of service while the job is done. For some craft, the amended standards also raise questions about diesel particulate filters. The filters capture soot from exhaust and periodically use heat to burn off the buildup. Tug operators have raised concerns about fitting and operating that equipment safely in engine rooms where space is limited, according to The Maritime Executive. The technology, its availability and the expense of installation have all become part of the debate.
The requirements aren’t identical for every boat. CARB’s commercial passenger fishing vessel fact sheet describes standards involving Tier 4 engines with diesel particulate filters, or Tier 3 engines with filters where a qualifying Tier 4 engine below 600 kilowatts is unavailable. It also lists compliance dates based on the tier and model year of the engine that was aboard the vessel at the end of 2022. Some operators may qualify for extensions under specified circumstances. An owner can’t determine the applicable deadline from the vessel’s occupation alone.
The sportfishing industry’s concerns were part of CARB’s rulemaking. In announcing the amendments, the agency said it had added a one-time, 10-year extension option for certain commercial passenger fishing vessels equipped with Tier 3 engines by the end of 2024. CARB also committed to continued work with the industry and a review of technology available for sportfishing vessels by 2028. Its category-specific fact sheet sets out the extension conditions and application deadlines, along with other requirements involving fuel, labeling and opacity testing.
The fight in Washington centers on the federal approval California received for its rules. In January 2025, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency authorized California to enforce most elements of the 2022 Commercial Harbor Craft amendments. EPA did not act on two portions involving certain in-use vessels and engines. CARB later withdrew its request for those portions and says it is not enforcing requirements that did not receive federal authorization.
That partial approval matters because the unapproved portions should not be described as though they apply across the entire fleet. One involves standards that would take effect after a particular feasibility extension expires for certain in-use engines and vessels, excluding commercial fishing vessels. CARB also treats commercial passenger fishing vessels as their own category. Fishing businesses weighing an upgrade need to identify the provision and deadline that actually apply to their craft.
In July, EPA took a further step. It sent the harbor craft authorization to Congress under the Congressional Review Act, along with a separate authorization involving emissions from ocean-going ships while at berth. EPA argues these authorization decisions count as rules that Congress can review and disapprove. California disagrees, saying that decisions allowing the state to enforce its own emissions standards have historically been treated differently from federal agency rules.
The at-berth rule and the harbor craft regulation address different vessels. The first concerns ocean-going ships while they are docked. The second reaches smaller working boats, including categories found at commercial fishing ports and sportfishing landings. They are being discussed together because EPA sent both authorizations to Congress through the same process.
California also took the dispute to court. Attorney General Rob Bonta, Gov. Gavin Newsom and CARB challenged EPA’s decision to reclassify California’s authorizations for congressional review. On Sept. 2, a federal judge granted a preliminary injunction. According to the Attorney General’s Office, the order directs EPA to withdraw or correct the challenged reclassifications and refrain from giving them effect while the case proceeds. A preliminary injunction is an interim order; the larger legal dispute has not been finally resolved.
Congress moved ahead later that month. The House passed a resolution targeting the at-berth authorization on Sept. 15, then approved the harbor craft resolution on Sept. 16. In the harbor craft vote, 210 Republicans, three Democrats and one independent voted in favor, according to the House clerk. Those votes mark a significant political challenge to California’s marine-emissions program, but House passage alone does not settle the court case or repeal the state rule.
There are now several moving pieces: a state regulation with requirements that vary by vessel, a federal authorization that covers most but not all of the amended provisions, a court fight over EPA’s actions and a congressional resolution seeking to overturn the authorization. It’s understandable that an operator looking at an engine deadline would want one clear answer. At present, the answer depends on the boat and on which part of the rule is in question.
CARB continues to list the federally authorized portions of its Commercial Harbor Craft Regulation as applicable. For owners planning an engine replacement or other major work, the practical starting point is the vessel’s category, engine tier and model year, followed by the relevant compliance date and any available extension. The House vote is important news for the industry, but it isn’t a substitute for checking those details before making a business decision. CARB posts the regulation, fact sheets, and contact information on its Commercial Harbor Craft program page.
