The passenger vessel industry has always been a good-faith partner in protecting America’s waterways. We invest in cleaner fuels and electrification, upgrade our engines, embrace voluntary safety and environmental programs such as PVA’s Green WATERS program, and support sensible federal oversight.
“We invest in cleaner fuels and electrification, upgrade our engines, embrace voluntary safety and environmental programs such as PVA’s Green WATERS program, and support sensible federal oversight.”
PVA is receptive to rational and reasoned technological advancements and ideas that promote environmental responsibility. Our organization has long taken a leadership role in this area and continues to expand its activities to embrace emerging technologies which reduce emissions and pollution. The PVA Decarbonization Forum is an example of our national leadership in this area. The forum involves passenger vessel operators, and transportation experts, who come together regularly to discuss and analyze emerging technologies aimed at reducing engine emissions. These individuals are highly committed and work diligently to promote industry progress in the decarbonization arena.
While progress is being made throughout the U.S. passenger vessel industry in reducing engine emissions, California passenger vessel operators are faced with regulations that will require onerous engine emission reductions by 2035. The Commercial Harbor Craft (CHC) rule, enforced by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) will force the costly replacement of vessels, engines, and the use of technology that in many cases does not exist.
In 2022, CARB toughened its already-strict harbor craft emissions rules to require EPA Tier 3 and Tier 4 engines fitted with diesel particulate filters (DPFs) on passenger vessels operating in California waters. On Jan. 6, 2025—in one of its final acts—the outgoing EPA administration granted California a Clean Air Act waiver to begin enforcing these amendments. The compliance clock is now ticking.
A key problem with the regulation is that much of the technology CARB is mandating does not exist commercially for passenger vessel operators. For example, required diesel particulate filters (DPF) for marine applications are not yet available for CARB compliant marine engines. You cannot comply with a regulation that requires equipment you cannot buy.
In addition, the U.S. Coast Guard has formally advised California that it has serious safety and fire concerns about DPF installation aboard vessels. The Coast Guard’s 11th District Commander, Admiral Sugimoto, sent a letter directly to CARB expressing concern about the fire risk associated with DPF technology on marine vessels. This is not a footnote; it is a direct safety warning from the federal agency responsible for the lives of the passengers and crews aboard these vessels. When the Coast Guard raises concerns about fire risk associated with a mandated technology, those concerns deserve careful review and coordination before implementation moves forward.
Beyond the safety concerns, serious legal questions have been raised regarding CARB’s annual compliance fee structure tax on vessels operating on navigable waters of the United States. As someone who works at Wendella Tours & Cruises in Chicago, Ill.—which successfully challenged an illegal municipal waterway tax in court under MTSA—I can tell you firsthand that such fees can be successfully challenged.
I encourage you to reference Section 445 of the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002, codified as 33 U.S.C. § 5(b), which to me is unambiguous. It states that no taxes, tolls, operating charges, fees, or any other impositions whatsoever may be levied upon a vessel operating on navigable waters subject to the authority of the United States by any non-federal interest. CARB’s fee schedule—$486 per vessel, $396 per engine, per year, for multi-vessel fleets.
Some in the maritime industry have already filed suit. In Ryan Murray Partners, Inc. et al. v. California Air Resources Board, plaintiffs allege that CARB’s compliance fees violate the Rivers and Harbors Act and the California Constitution. As the legal challenge proceeds, I believe that our members should not be placed in the position of paying fees whose legality remains under active review.
U.S. ferries are already one of the most environmentally efficient transportation modes in existence. A single ferry can remove dozens—sometimes hundreds—of cars from congested roads and bridges. The consolidated emission footprint of one vessel moving 400 passengers is a fraction of what those same individuals would produce driving individually. Ferries don’t create traffic; they solve it. They reduce congestion, improve mobility, and support cleaner transportation networks.
The passenger vessel industry has made real, voluntary strides toward decarbonization. Members are investing in hybrid-electric systems, exploring hydrogen fuel-cell technology, and upgrading to the cleanest available engines in an environment where those investments continue to grow more expensive.
The current regulatory framework in California, however, places significant pressure on operators to comply with requirements that may not yet be safe or practically achievable. Effective environmental policy must be grounded in safety, operational reality, and available technology. Regulations that cannot be safely implemented risk undermining both environmental progress and the essential transportation services ferries provide.
California may not be the end of this story. Under the Clean Air Act waiver, California’s unique waiver authority allows it to set emissions standards stricter than federal law. If that waiver continues unabridged, it may well become a standard for other states to follow, thereby creating a patchwork of compliance obligations for operators across the county. Fourteen states, by some estimates, have historically adopted California’s vehicle emissions standards in whole or in part.
PVA is taking direct action. We have already written to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin urging him to revoke the Jan. 6, 2025, waiver for CARB’s 2022 Commercial Harbor Craft amendments. We will continue to engage directly with EPA leadership to make our case. We are also closely monitoring the legal concerns surrounding the compliance fees and evaluating additional options to protect PVA members in California.
PVA continues to urge EPA and California regulators to revisit the waiver, fully consider the Coast Guard’s safety findings, and work with our industry on standards that are achievable, safe, and grounded in available technology.
PVA members are good stewards of America’s waters. We always have been. Our industry supports cleaner operations and practical environmental progress, but these goals must be pursued through policies that are safe, lawful, and grounded in the realities of vessel operations.
Sincerely,
Andrew Sargis
PVA President, 2026
Andrew Sargis, PVA President 2026