State of California  
Air Resources Board  
Addendum to the Final Statement of Reasons 
for Rulemaking  
Public Hearing to Consider the Proposed Amendments to the 
Commercial Harbor Craft Regulation  
Public Hearing Date s: November 19, 2021, and Ma rch 24, 202 2 
Agenda Item No s.: 21-12-6 and 22-5-1 
Addendum Prepared: November 14, 202 2 
Addendum Updated: December 30 , 2022  
I. General Discussion  
This addendum to the Final Statement of Reasons (FSOR) for the rulemaking action entitled 
“Public Hearing to Consider the Proposed Amendments to the Commercial Harbor Craft 
Regulation ” updates the FSOR that the California Air Resources  Board (CARB) submitted to 
the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) on July  21, 2022.   
On September 1, 2022, OAL i ssued a “Notice of Disapproval of Regulatory Action” for the 
Proposed Amendments for failure to comply with the "Clarity" standard of the Administrative Procedure Act. (Gov. Code, §. 11349(c)), which was further explained in OAL’s “Decision of Disapproval of Regulatory Action” issued on September 8, 2022.  On 
October  10, 2022, a Second Notice of Public Availability of Modified Text and Availability of 
Additional Documents and Information (Second 15- Day Notice) and Proposed Second 15-
Day Modifications to the Proposed Regulation Order were posted for a public review and 
comment period through October 25, 2022. The proposed Second 15- Day Modifications 
addressed the concerns noted by OAL in its Decision of Disapproval of Regulatory Action and provided greater clarity and enforceability to the Proposed Amendments .  
This addendum describes modifications made to the regulatory language per  the 15 -day 
changes released on October 10, 2022,  as well as non- substantial modifications made to the 
regula tory language subsequent to those 15 -day changes,  and provides CARB’s responses to 
public comments received during the 15- day comment period that ended October 25, 2022.  2 II.Modifications Made to the Original Proposal  Subsequent to
OAL’s Disapproval
A. Modificat ions made in the Second Notice of Public Availability of
Modified Text and Availability of Additional Documents an d
I
nformation
Subsequent to OAL’s “Decision of Disapproval of Regulatory Action ,” modifications to the 
original proposal were made to address the clarity concerns OAL raised . CARB staff released 
a Second 15-Day Notice on October  10, 2022, which notified the public of additional 
documents added into the regulatory record and presented additional modifications to the 
regulatory text.  
The followin g is a broad summary of the changes that were made to the initial proposal and 
were made available for a  second  15-day comment period. Staff proposed modifications to 
the 2022 Amendments to section 2299.5, title 13, division 3, chapter 5.1 of the California 
Code of Regulations (CCR) and section 93118.5, title 17, chapter 1, subchapter 7.5, CCR.  For 
further details on all the modifications, see the “Second Notice of Public Availability of 
Modified Text and Avai lability of Addition al Documents and Information ” posted on  
October 10,  2022, available online at 
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2021/chc2021/2nd15daynotice.pdf . 
•In section 931 18.5(d), staff added and/or modified definitions as necessary to improve
clarity.
•In section 931 18.5(e), staff modified subsection (2) to clarify requirements for the hour
meter.
•In section 931 18.5(e), staff added /replaced language to clarify subsection (8)
regarding new and newly ac quired engines, including incorporating two parts of the
Code of Federal Regulations regarding emissions test data.
•In section 931 18.5(e), staff added/replaced language to clarify subsection (9)
regarding new and newly acquired in -use harbor craft, including refining the language
describing the standards which engines in such harbor craft must meet.
•In section 931 18.5(e), staff updated Tables 11, 12, 13, and 15 to either add  or replace
columns, symbols, notes, or other language as necessary to improve clarity.
•In section 931 18.5(e), staff added/replaced language to clarify subsection (11)
regarding Zero Emission and Advanced Technology ( ZEAT) credits for early or surplus
deployments, including to clarify the length of the ZEAT credit and  that additional
compliance time may not extend  past December 31, 2034.
•In section 931 18(e), staff added/replaced language to clarify subsection (12)  regarding
in-use engines and vessels performance standards, including removing unnecessary
language from subsection (B)1. and (C)1., modifying subsection (C)2. and (C)3. to
clarify the applicable engine standards, adding clarifying language to  subsection (D )2.,
adding language to ( E)3.b.vi. to clarify the list of actions taken to comply with the
regulation, modifying language in ( E)3.d. regarding documenta tion for extensions for3 commercial  passenger  fishing vessels, and modifying subsection (E)5.c. to make the  
one-year extension renewable . 
• In section 931 18(e), staff added/replaced language to clarify subsection (13) regarding 
engine requirements on commercial fishing vessels, including clarifying that Pre -Tier 1 
or Tier 1 engines may also be offered for sale, leased, rented or imported  (in addition 
to bein g sold or purchased) prior to the compliance dates.  
• In section 931 18(e), staff deleted  language in subsection (1 4)(C)2.c. for consistency 
with existing language regarding  low-use exceptions for newly acquired vessels. 
• In section 931 18.5(f), staff added lan guage to clarify requirements of the Alternative 
Control of Emissions  (ACE)  provisions, referring to additional subsections (e)(3), (e)(4), 
and (e)(5) in subsection (f)(1)(A), modifying language in subsection (1)(E)6. regarding 
ZEAT credits, moving previou s subsection (1)(K) to new subsection (1)(F)5. r egarding 
ACE plan application requirements, and added language clarifying in subsection (1)(I) 
that the ACE Plan may not use emission reductions already attributed to grant funding 
programs . 
• In section 931 18.5(g), staff modified the language to add clarity, including moving the 
date for when the unique vessel identifier requirement would be effective to the 
beginning of the subsection, removed subsection (2)(A), renumbered following 
subsections accordingly, an d added “the owner or operator” in two locations to clarify 
who is subject to the respective provision.  
• In section 931 18.5(h), staff  modified the language in this section to provide clarity to 
the provisions regarding idling, including specifying under what circumstances a vessel may idle for up to  30 consecutive minutes.  
• In section 931 18.5(i), staff added  clarifying language for vessel owners/operators and 
facilities regarding shore power provisions.  
• In section 931 18.5(j), staff added language to clarify that the list of vessel tenants is 
due every year by July 1 and replaced language to clarify requirements for facilities that do not provide shore power.  
• In section 931 18.5(k), staff added clarifying language regarding opacity testing, 
requirements for its record keeping and transmittal, and reporting for any subsequent repairs as a result of testing.  
• In section 931 18.5(l), staff removed ambiguous language regarding refunds and 
replaced language to clarify when fees are due.  
• In section 931 18.5(m), staff added /replaced language to  clarify requirements for 
logging activity data, its  reporting , and record keeping. Staff also added 
subsection (21)(C)  regarding an option for logging commercial passenger fishing 
activity and added language to s ubsection (21)(D)  to clarify how to calculate trip 
lengths.  
• In section 931 18.5(o), staff made edits to the header to clarify who the subsection is 
applicable to, added language to clarify applicability and requirements for submittals, and added/replaced la nguage to improve grammar. 
• In section 931 18.5(u), staff made edits to improve readability and clarify that submittal 
instructions apply to documentation and reports only, not fees, and updated language to remove ambiguity.  4 B. Non-Substantial Modifications  
The non-substantial modifications described below clarify and do not materially alter the 
requirements, rights, responsibilities, conditions, or prescriptions contained in the Proposed 
Amendments, as approved for adoption by CARB. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit.  1, § 40).  
After the July 21, 2022 , submittal to OAL, the following non -substantial modifications were 
made to the Final Regulation Order:  
• Throughout sections 2299.5 and 93118.5, staff made the following non- substantive 
changes to improve grammar, syntax, consistency and readability . Note that where 
specific changes provided below this bullet list state that edits were made to improve 
grammar, syntax, consistency or readability, it is referring back to one or more items in 
this list of non- substantive changes  
o Add, remove, or replace punctuation with more applicable punctuation (i.e.,  
add a comma,  replace semi colon with comma , add section symbol  (§), etc. ).  
o Add or remove capitalization  (e.g., change “Title” to “title”)  or spaces . 
o Rearrange lists to be in numerical order (e.g., in a list of subsections, (e)(10) would be listed before (e)(12) (D)).  
o Replace “shall” with “must” where applicable and where doing so adds clarity 
but does not  alter requirements , since the way “shall” was used meant “must .” 
o Add, remove, or replace pronouns where applicable (i.e., “that” and “which”) .  
o Add, remove, or replace  the word s “herein,” “as,” “their,”  “those, ” “that,” 
“the,” “to,” “and,” “any,” “all”, “ or,” “of,” “on,”  “in,” “by,”  “be,”  “is,” “are,” 
“for,”  “an,”  “its,”  and “ a” where applicable . 
o Add or remove  hyphens where applicable  (including such as when creating a 
portmanteau – e.g., “sport -fishing” to “sportfishing”) , or replace “through” 
with a hyphen where applicable . 
o Change the word “subsection” and “regulation” to the more appropriate 
“section” when pointing to another section (i.e., 93118.5, 93117, etc.)  for 
proper formatting and citation consistent with language in the CCR.  
o Replace terms with acronyms where applicable (i.e., replace Regulated California Waters with RCW) . 
o Remove unnecessary text  or replace it with more specific text when referencing 
CCR text (e.g., removing the title number and CCR when pointing to other sections within the regulation) .  
o Change singular words to plural or change plural to singular , if needed.  
o Change the tense of words (i.e., past tense to present tense) , if needed.  
o Change the part of speech of a word (i.e., noun to adjective, such as “distribution ” to “distributed ” or “implement” to “implementing” ). 5 o Move modifying words or phrases to before or after the word it is  modifying 
(i.e., “combustion engines onboard vessels” changed to “onboard combustion 
engines”).  
o Add quotation marks to signify a term defined in subsection 93118.5(d) . 
o Replace numerical  numbers with written out numbers (i.e., change 6 to “six”) . 
o Replace “ complying by” with “complying under. ”  
o Replace “a demonstration” with “documentation demonstrating .” 
o Replace “paragraph” with “provision” where applicable . 
• In section 2299.5, staff added subsection headings (a) and (b) to improve formatting.  
• In section 2299.5 (b), staff updated the syntax of the sentence to move the title 13 
section after the title 17 section.  
• In Authority and Reference citations of section 2299.5, staff made updates to improve the punctuation.  
• In section 93118.5(a), staff removed  the sentence “For purposes of this regulation, 
‘this section’ refers to ‘Section 93118.5’ in its entirety” as surplusage and unnecessary.  
• In section 93118.5(b), staff underlined the “(6)”  as this was a change made in the 45-
day regulation order that was not marked correctly.  
• In sections 93118.5(b)(2)  and 93118.5(b)(4), staff made edits to improve punctuation, 
syntax, and readability , without altering any requirement.  
• In section 93118.5(c)(5), staff made minor edit s to the language to improve readability 
and consistency  without changing the meaning or intent of the provision. 
• In section 931 18.5(c)(11), staff moved the sentence “This subsection is only applicable 
until December 31, 2022,” to directly after the heading for imp roved grammar and 
formatting.  
• In section 931 18.5(c)(13), staff deleted  “set forth” since it is surplusage and 
unnecessary , and its removal improves readability.  
• In section 93118.5(d), staff reordered some definitions to ensure correct alphabetical 
order.  
• In section 93118.5(d), in the definition of “Berth,” staff deleted “the” and made “purpose” plural so the sentence that in part read, “For the purpose of this section…” now reads, “For purposes of this sec tion…” to improve readability.  
• In section 93118.5(d), in the definition of “Call Sign Number,” staff updated the sentence that in part read, “means a unique identifier to a vessel containing…” to now 
read, “means a vessel’s unique identifier containing…”  to improve readability.  
• In section 93118.5(d) , in the definition of “CARB Approved Emission Control System 
(CAECS),” staff made edits to improve consistency of citation in referencing other CCR 
sections.  
• In section 93118.5(d), in the definition of “Category 3 Engine,” staff updated the sentence that in part read, “with a displacement at or above 30 liters per cylinder,” to 6 now read, “with a displacement of 30 liters per cylinder or greater”  to improve 
readability.  
• In section 93118.5(d), in the definition of “CHC Reporting System,” staff replaced 
“CHC” with “CARB” to improve consistency with how this term is used in the other 
subsections.  
• In section 93118.5(d), in the definition of “Commercial Passenger Fishing,” staff added 
the word “Vessel” to the defini tion and other terms sharing this definition, as the 
definition describes vessels, not activities.  
• In section 93118.5(d), in the definition of “Compliance Date,” staff removed “or the 
extension set forth in (e)(12)(E) ” and added “The Compliance Date may be extended 
pursuant to subsection (e)(12)(E) ” for readability and clarity.  
• In section 93118.5(d), in the definition of “Dedicated Emergency Use Vessel,” staff added the word “implement ing” between “to enforce provisions of the California Fish 
and Game Code or” and “regulations are not dedicated…”  to improve readability and 
clarity.  
• In section 93118.5(d), in the definition of “Diesel Fuel,” staff removed “including any 
mixture of primarily liquid hydrocarbon (HC) – organ ic compounds consisting 
exclusively of the elements of carbon and hydro gen –“ as the definition makes clear 
already that it includes any mixture of primarily liquid HC , so it is surplusage language . 
Staff also moved  the second half of the sentence to the d efinition of “Hydrocarbon” 
where it belongs.   
• In section 93118.5(d), in the definition of “ Distributed Generation,” staff replaced 
“generator” with “engine” for consistency with terminology in section 93115 (a)(29), 
which is referenced in the definition. Subsection (a)(29) was added for further 
specificity for ease of reference to the reader. Section 93139.5(c) was similarly added to make it clear to readers where the emission standards originated, but no changes 
were made to the emission standards.  Staff deleted the bullets (A) through (D) as 
those are already included in the cross reference to title 17, CCR, subsection 93139(c) 
and are therefore  surplusage. This removes redundancy .  
• In section 93118.5(d), in the definition of “Emergency O peration,” staff added 
“onboard” between “or use of” and “combustion engines” to improve clarity. This 
does not change the definition because it remains  the only tenable interpretation that 
this definition would be relevant only to onboard engines . 
• In section 93118.5(d), in the definition of “Escort Tugboats,” staff changed the term to 
“Escort Tugboat,” to remove the plural “s,” deleted the hyphen from “in- route” to 
read, “in route,” added “departing” before, “from docks and terminals,” and added a plural “ s” to “products”  to improve readability and consistency.  
• In section 93118.5(d), in the definition of “Facility Owner,” staff deleted the sentence beginning with “In some cases…” because it is unnecessary and generally understood 
by the industry.  7 • In section 93118.5(d), in the definition of “Ferry,” staff updated the sentence that 
read, “on -demand basis, which is not for pleasure,” to now read as, “on- demand 
basis, for purposes other than pleasure”  to improve readability.  Staff also added a 
reference to CCR Title 20, Division 1, Chapter 1 to be consistent with the information 
provided in the ISOR on Page I -26.  
• In section 93118.5(d), in the definition of “Fishing Vessel ,” staff made edits to 
rearrange information to improve readability and punctuation without adding or 
removing content or changing the interpretation of the definition.  
• In section 93118.5(d), in the definition of “Hydrocarbon (HC),”  staff added “organic 
compounds consisting exclusively of the elements of carbon and hydro gen that falls 
into . . .” This change moved already existing language to the appropriate definition.   
• In section 93118.5(d), in the definition of “Hydrogen Fueling Infrastructure,” staff 
deleted the word “necessary” to improve readability.  
• In section 931 18.5(d), in the definition of “ International Maritime Organization (IMO) 
Number,” staff deleted unnecessary information that does not  alter the interpretation 
of the definition  and replaced the deleted language with “vessels .” 
• In section 93118.5(d), in the definition of “Low -Use,” staff replaced “except” with 
“other than” after “in -use vessels,” moved “Table 22” to before “in subsection 
(e)(14)” where it was previously after it, and made other minor edits to grammar/syntax in line with the above -mentioned broad/blanket edits  to improve 
readability. 
• In section 93118.5(d), in the definition of “Military Tactical Support,” staff added the word “Vessel” to the definition and reworded the last sentence, since the definition is 
referring to vessels, rather than the operators .  
• In section 93118.5(d), in the definition of “Newly Acquired Harbor Craft,” staff made edits to clarify the intent as provided in the ISOR , page IV- 28. The regulation applies 
only to harbor craft operating within Regulated California Waters , which the added 
language clarifies, and is the only tenable reading . 
• In section 93118.5(d), in the definition of “Ocean- going Tugboats and Towboats,” 
staff c hanged the term to “Ocean- going Tugboats or Towboats” to be consistent with 
how the term is  used throughout  section 93118.5. Other minor language edits were 
made to improve readability consistent with the blanket changes mentioned at the top 
of this section of the Addendum .  
• In subsection 93118.5(d), in the definition of “Opacity,” staff made minor language changes to improve consistency and readability and added a date to the reference to 
SAE J1667. Because the February 1996 document is incorporated by reference 
already, adding the date in the text  here provides clarity while not altering the 
interpretation of the definition . 
• In section 93118.5(d), in the definition of “Physical Constraint,” staff edited the 
language to provide clarity and increased readability without altering the 8 interpretation of the definition , including replacing “to provide ” with “that prevents 
the terminal from providing.”  
• In section 93118.5(d), in the definition of “Pilot Vessel,” staff edited the sentence that 
in part read, “designed for and utilized for,” to now read as, “designed and utilized 
for” to improve readability.  
• In section 93118.5(d), in the definition of “Propulsion Engine,” staff moved the 
quotation marks to encompass “engine” so the end of the definition now reads, “Main 
engine”  for improved punctuation.  
• In section 93118.5(d), in the definition of “Regulated California Waters,” staff moved 
the abbreviation to inside the term and added parenthesis so it now reads, “Regulated 
California Waters (RCW) ” to improve consistency of formatting with other definitions.  
• In section 93118.5(d), in the definition of “Re newable Diesel,” staff bifurcated 
mentions of R100 and R99 so R100 is now mentioned first and R99 is mentioned 
second (and separately)  to improve readability. 
• In section 93118.5(d), in the definition of “Research Vessel,” staff added the date “(October 1, 2012)” to make clear the version of the 46 CFR, Chapter 1, Subchapter U  
that was used. This edit identifies the version of the CFR that is incorporated into the 
regulation, which has already been included in the record.  
• In section 93118.5(d),  in the definition of “Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR),” staff 
made minor language edits to improve syntax and readability, including adding “such as ammonia or urea,” between “nitrogen- containing compounds,” and “into the 
exhaust stream.” This edit helps provide the reader  with two common examples for 
ease of reference without actually changing the definition.  
• In section 93118.5(d), in the definition of “Short -Run Ferry,” staff updated definition in 
line with other non- substantive  changes as mentioned in the broad/blanket statements  
above (i.e., “provide” changed to “providing,” “straight line” to “straight- line,” etc.) 
as well as moving “apart” to after “distance” from its previous location following “nautical miles”  to improve readability.  
• In section 93118.5(d), in the definition of “Total Hydrocarbons (THC),”  staff removed 
the words “or Hydrocarbons (HC)” to remove surplusage language as HC is already 
defined.  
• In section 93118.5(d), in the definition of “Vessel Tenant,” staff added the word “specifi c” before facility, to provide clarity without altering the interpretation of the 
definition. 
• In section 93118.5(d), in the definition of “U.S. Coast Guard Documentation Number 
(USCG Number ),” staff added the word “that” and removed “Documentation” to 
improve flow and readability of the definition.  
• In section 93118.5(d), in the definition of “ Water Taxi,” staff added two commas (after 
“ferry,” and “for hire”), changed “less” to “fewer,” and changed “vessels that carry” to “vessels carrying”  to improve grammar/syntax and readability.  Also, staff changed 
“or” to “and” so the provision in part now reads “passengers for hire and U.S. Coast 9 Guard inspected passenger vessels.” The change from “or” to “and” was made to 
ensure that either  definition can be applicab le. 
• In section 93118.5(d), in the definition of “Zero -Emission,”  staff moved the language 
“or vessel utilizing a zero -emission propulsion and auxiliary power system to the end 
and added language that “This includes” to signify what is included. It also cha nged 
the word “has” to “generates” for accuracy.  
• In section 93118.5(e)( 7)(A), staff removed “Renewable Diesel” as unnecessary 
surplusage language since the abbreviation (R100) was already there.  
• In section 93118.5(e) (8), staff replaced the word “action” with “acquisition” and 
“criteria” with “subsections” to improve clarity without altering the requirement,  and 
made other non- substantive edits in line with the grouped edits mentioned above in 
the blanket statements.  
• In section 93118.5(e)(8) (A)3., staff replaced “ the demonstration” with “demonstrating 
compliance with this provision” to further clarify what the “demonstration” is actually 
referring to.  
• In section 93118.5(e)(8)(B), staff removed “as set forth in this paragraph” since the 
language is unnecessary, replaced “of this subsection” with “above,” and made other 
non-substantive edits in line with the grouped edits mentioned above in the blanket 
statements . 
• In section 93118.5(e)(8)(C), staff moved “engine replacement exemption” to be in 
front of, “ provisions of 40 CFR § 1042.615,” and made other non- substantive edits in 
line with the grouped edits mentioned above in the blanket statements to improve 
readability. 
• In section 93118.5(e)(9)(A) 4., to improve readability, staff reworded part of the 
provision that read as, “that date such vessels are acquired that are applicable” to 
now read as, “the date of vessel acquisition that are applicable,” and changed “if such 
vessels are acquired” to “if the vessel is acquired.”  
• In section 93118.5(e) (9)(A)5., staff replaced “not meeting this standard” with “use 
under this subsection” and replaced “and not” with “instead” to im prove clarity 
without altering the requirements.  
• In section 93118.5(e)(10)(A), staff replaced “the following” with a more specific 
subsection reference to improve clarity without altering the requirements.  
• In section 93118.5(e)( 10)(B), staff added language to add clarity to the meaning of the 
word “all”  by adding “on vessels subject to subsection (e)(10)” after “combustion 
engines.”  
• In section 93118.5(e)(10)(B)1., staff deleted “at minimum” as unnecessary language, to 
improve readability.  
• In section s 93118.5(e)(10)( C)1. and 93118.5(e)(11)(C)1. , staff de leted “a minimum of” 
as unnecessary language, to improve readability.  10 • In section 93118.5(e)(10) (C)2.a., staff added the word “indicating” to improve the 
grammar and syntax of the sentence.  
• In section 93118.5(e)(11)(A), staff updated the paragraph after Table 15 to delete, 
“consider the scenario in which,” deleted commas after “subsection (e)(10)” and 
“2027,” and changed “that” to “this” to now read as “In this scenario…” to remove 
unnecessary language and improve grammar and syntax within the provision.  
• In section 93118.5(e)(11)(C) 1.c., staff added the word “credit” to improve the grammar 
and syntax of the sentence.  
• In section 93118.5(e)(11)(C) 3., staff replaced the word “application” with “credit,” 
which improves specificity without changing requirements because the meaning is 
already clear in context, and replaced the word “assure” with “ensure” to improve 
grammar.  
• In section 93118.5(e)(12) (A)2., staff deleted “(e)(12)” as unnecessary, to improve 
readability.  
• In section 93118.5(e)(12)( B)2.-7., staff made language edits to improve  grammar, 
readability and clarity, without altering the requirements.  These edits include inserting 
“marine” or “off -road” before “standards ” to clarify the standards referred to without 
changing the meaning or intent of the language, since it is already clear in context 
which standards (marine or off -road) apply.   
• In section 93118.5(e)(12)(B) 5., staff changed “maybe” to “may be” to improve 
grammar/syntax.  
• In section 93118.5(e)(12)(C), staff moved the paragraph beginning with “Regulated in-
use vessels…” at the end of (C)4. to before subsection (C)1.  and replaced the word 
“above” to “below” to improve organization and readability.  
• In section 93118.5(e)(12)(C) 1., staff moved terms “marine” and “off -road” so the 
affected part of the provision now reads, “U.S. EPA certified Tier 3 or Tier 4 marine 
engine o r Tier 4 Final off -road,” for improved syntax.  
• In section 93118.5(e)(12)(C) 2., similar to directly above, sta ff moved terms “marine” 
and “off -road” so the affected part of the provision now reads, “U.S. EPA certified 
Tier 3 or Tier 4 marine engine o r U.S. EPA or CARB certified  Tier 4 Final off -road,” for 
improved syntax.  
• In section 93118.5(e)(12)(D) 1.a., staff de leted the word “legitimate”  to remove 
unnecessary language and improve readability  without altering the requirements.  
• In section 93118.5(e)(12)(D)2., staff italicized the entirety of the heading to ensure 
proper formatting and staff  also deleted the word “ method” at the end of  the heading 
to improve consistency and readability.  
• In section 93118.5(e)(12)(D)2.c., staff removed, “Upon receipt of that information,” as it is unnecessary and its removal improves readability.  
• In subsection 93118.5(e)(12)(E), staff add ed “after the compliance date” after “eight 
years” to improve specificity and consistency of reference within the provision.   11 • In section s 93118.5(e)(12)(E) 1.c. and 93118.5(e)(12)(E)2.c. , staff added to word “prior” 
to improve cl arity of what extension is being referred to . 
• In section 93118.5(e)(12)(E) 2.a., staff deleted “or requirements” as it is unnecessary 
and its removal improve s readability.  
• In section 93118.5(e)(12)(E)2.b., staff added “applicable” and replaced “supplied” w ith 
“submitted” for improved clarity and specificity without altering the requirements.  
• In section 93188.5(e)(12)(E) 2.d.i., staff made language edits including replacing the 
word “vessel” with “vessel’s engines” to improve specificity and inserting the phrase 
“the expiration date of the”  to improve clarity, readability, and grammar. 
• In section 93118.5(e)(12)(E)2.d.ii., staff added “off -road” after “Tie r 4 Final” to 
improve specificity of what engine is being referred to.  
• In section 93118.5(e)(12)(E)3., staff added the word “ Owner” in the subsection 
heading to improve grammar and ensured entirety of heading was italicized for proper 
formatting . 
• In sectio n 93118.5(e)(12)(E) 3.b., staff added “CARB -verified” before “DPF” and 
replaced “supplied” with “submitted” to improve clarity.  
• In section 93118.5(e)(12)(E) 3.b.v., staff replaced “where applicable” with “if available” 
to improve clarity.  
• In section 93118.5( e)(12)(E)3.c., staff added the words “ prior” after “expiration of the” 
and before “extension,”  “further” before “compliance extensions” and “of this type” 
directly after, deleted “pursuant to this extension,” changed “6” to “six ,” and “has 
been” to “have been,”  to improve clarity and formatting .  
• In section 93118.5(e)(12)(E)3.c.i., staff rearranged language to improve syntax by 
changing “compliance deadline on December 31, 2024 or earlier,” to “deadline on or 
before December 31, 2024.”  
• In section 93118.5(e)(12)(E) 3.d., staff made edits to  the subheading  and to 
subsection i. to improve consistency in referencing  the subsections immediately 
following the subheading .  
• In section 93118.5(e)(12)(E)3.d.iv.,  staff changed the word “underta ke” to “take” to 
improve syntax.  
• In section 93118.5( e)(12)(E)3.d.v., staff replaced the phrase “requirements, including 
either Tier 3 or 4 + DPF as outlined ” with “performance standards set forth”  and 
replaced the phrase “as contained within” with “under” to improve clarity and 
readability without altering the requirements.  
• In section 93118.5(e)(12)(E)3.d.v i., staff changed “subdivision” to “subsection” for 
improved syntax and formatting.  
• In section 93118.5(e)(12)(E)4. c. and 5.c. , staff added “prior” before “extension” to 
reinforce which extension is being referred to.  
• In section 93118.5(e)(12)(E)4.d.i ., staff updated language in the second paragraph that 
read, “For all other regulated in -use vessel categories, except for barges…” to now 12 read, “For all regulated in -use vessels other than barges…” Staff also changed, 
“Auxiliary engines on board regulated vessel categories except for barges…” to now 
read, “Auxiliary engines onboard regulated vessels other than barges…” These edits 
improve syntax without altering the material requirements of the provision.  
• In section 93118.5(e)(12)(E) 4.d.ii., staff added “of exceeding the hourly thresholds” 
after “within 30 days” to improve clarity of what is the specific trigger of the 30 day 
timeline. 
• In sections 93118.5(e)(12)(E) 5.b.i., 93118.5(e)(12)(E)5.b.ii i., and 93118.5(e)(12)(E)5.b.iv.,  
staff replaced the phrase “that the applicant chooses to receive the extension” with 
“to which the extension(s) will apply” to improve readability.  
• In section 93118.5(e)(14) , moved up “ the ZEAT requirements in subsection (e)(10) ” 
from the end of the provision to improve the numerical ordering (now precedes 
mention of standards/requirements in subsections (e)(12) and (e)(13), respectively).  
• In section 93118.5(e)( 14)(B)1., staff added the word “eligibility” and “purposes of” 
between “For” and “this subsection,” to improve grammar and syntax.  
• In section 93118.5(e)(14)(B)2., staff replaced the word “the” with “ all” and inserted the 
section number 93118.5 to improve specificity.  
• In section 93118.5(e)(14)(B)4., in Table 22, to improve readability and grammar, updated the heading to remove the plural from “Hours” and added a “d” at the end of “Disadvantaged.”  
• In sectio n 93118.5(e)(14)(C)2. , staff moved, “must contain” to follow directly after 
“application package”  to improve syntax.  
• In section 93118.5(e)(14)( C)2.c., staff changed “engine has not operated” to “engine 
was not operated” for improved syntax/grammar and dele ted “of demonstration” as it 
is unnecessary and its deletion improve s readability.  
• In section 93118.5(e)(14)(C)2. e., staff changed, “such as personal pleasure, such hours 
do not count,” to “such as for personal pleasure, those operating hours do not count ,” 
for improved syntax.  
• In section 93118.5(e)(14)(C)2.f., staff inserted the phrase “in that fleet”  to improve 
clarity.  
• In section 93118.5(f)(1)(E) 7., language previously in subsection 8. shifted up to 
subsection 7 to improve readability. S taff changed subheadings i. and ii. to a. and b., 
respectively, for formatting consistency. Staff also added “applicable” in subsection b. to improve clarity without altering the requirements.  
• In section 93118.5( f)(1)(E)8., language shifted up to subsection 7.  
• In section 93118.5(f)(1)( F), staff moved the “and” to properly follow before the last 
provision (which would be “5.” with these amendments) from it’s original location 
preceding subsection 4.  
• In section 93118.5(f)(1)(I) , staff replaced “use” with “include”  to improve grammar and 
syntax.  13 • In section 93118.5(f)(2) (C), staff added the word “indicating” to improve readability.  
• In section 93118.5(g)(1), staff spelled out “California Air Resources Board”  and added 
abbreviation to UVI abbreviation  to improve readab ility. 
• In section 93118.5(g)(2) (A), staff added a space between “subsection” and “(o)” for 
improved punctuation, added a plural “s” to “UVIs” and deleted “numbers” that 
proceeded “UVI” since it was no longer necessary now that UVI was made plural.  
• In secti on 93118.5(g)(2)(B) 3., staff replaced “letters and numbers” with “CARB UVI 
characters” and updated/moved the language that originally read “surface shall be 
lime green with decimal code (R,G,B) – (0 ,255,0) on which the letters and numbers are 
placed,” and  now reads, “surface on which the characters are placed shall be lime 
green with decimal code (R,G,B) – (0,255,0).” Staff has also deleted the last sentence 
because it is redundant to existing language in subsection (g)(2)(B) . Staff has made 
these edits to make the language consistent and increase readability.  
• In section 93118.5(g)(2)(B)5., staff updated this provision to improve punctuation, 
grammar, formatting, and overall readability. The provision  formerly read, “Marking 
shall be kept maintained  in a manner that retains the legibility required by the 
subsections (C)(1- 4) immediately above,” to now read “Marking shall be maintained in 
a manner that retains the legibility required by subsections 1. -4. Immediately above.”  
• In section 93118.5( g)(2)(C), staff updated the provision to improve the readability and 
fix an erroneous numbering error. The end of the provision formerly read, “the specifications in (C)1., 2., 4., and 5. described above,” and now reads “the specifications in subsections (g)(2)(B) 1., 2., 4., and 5.”  
• In section 93118.5(h)(1)(C), to improve readability staff updated this provision that 
formerly read, “Idling or operation that meets the definition of emergency operation,” to “Idling or operation during emergency operations as defined  in subsection (d).”  
• In section 93118.5(h)(1)(E), to improve readability, staff updated this provision that had 
started with, “Idling or operation for up to 30 consecutive minutes is permitted for the 
initial start -up,” to “Idling or operation of up to 30 consecutive minutes for the initial 
start- up.”  
• In section 93118.5( i)(1)(A)2., in addition to other minor edits to remove a “the,” add a 
plural “s” to “purposes,” change numerical numbers with written out numbers , staff 
also removed the sentence at the end  “For example, 50 different vessels operating 
two hours each, or a single vessel operating consecutively for 50 days, would each equal 50 visits for a given facility” as this text was a non- regulatory example.  
• In section 93118.5(i)(1)(A) 3., staff deleted “of this section” at the end of the provision 
as the language is unnecessary and its deletion improves readability.  
• In section 93118.5(i) (1)(A)3.a., staff inserted the word “a” to improve grammar and 
replaced the phrase “from the E.O., following the procedures outlined in”  with 
“pursuant to” to improve readability. Staff also corrected the reference citation at the end of the provision for proper formatting.  14 • In section 93118.5( i)(1)(D), staff added “the owner or operator of” before “a facility” 
to improve grammar and syntax.  
• In section 93118.5(i)(2), to improve readability and remove unnecessary language, staff 
updated the provision that read, “to any facility where ZEAT vessels dock or moor at 
its location” to now read, “to any facility at which ZEAT vessels dock or moor.”  
• In section 93118.5(i)(2) (A), to be consistent with the edit made above, staff  deleted 
“where” and replaced it with “at which.”  
• In section 93118.5(i)( 2)(B), staff replaced “effectively operate” with “power” to 
improve clarity.  
• In section 93118.5(j)(1) , staff deleted “subject to this subsection” to improve clarity.  
Staff also added, “if the facility is” and deleted “for” before “a marine oil terminal,” and deleted instances of “must” since it  is unnecessary.  
• In section 93118.5(j)(1)(A)5., staff added “name” to improve clarity.  
• In section 93118.5(j)(3), staff deleted “retain and” after “this subsection shall” and 
added “must” before “contain the following” to improve readability.  
• In section 93118.5( k), staff inserted the word “and” and “level” to improve grammar 
and clarity.   
• In section 93118.5(k)(1)(C), staff  moved “from the California Council on Diesel 
Education and Technology (CCDET) to the end of the sentence, and removed “the 
Society of Automotive Engineers “Surface Vehicle Recommended Practice, Snap 
Acceleration Smoke Test Procedure for Heavy- Duty Power Vehicles” as well as the 
date “February 1996” as this information is already incorporated into the regulation so surplusage.  
• In section 93118.5(k)(1)(E), staff replaced “compliance method” with “method of compliance”  to improve readab ility. 
• In sections 93118.5(k)(2)(A)-(B) , staff  inserted the phrase “Exhaust from”  to improve 
clarity.  
• In section 93118.5(k)(3)(C), staff changed “meets” to “met” to improve readability.  
• In section 93118.5(k)(4)(B), staff removed “Chapter I, subchapter C” from the title of 
the document incorporated by reference since it is unnecessary. Staff also made minor 
edits to remove a “the,” fix capitalization, and add a comma.  
• In section 93118.5(l)( 5), staff replaced “the E.O.” with “CARB” to improve clarity 
without altering the requirements.  Staff also added “late fee” to the example under 
Table 23 to improve clarity without altering the requirements.  
• In section 93118.5(m), staff replaced “retained” with “maintained” to improve clarity.  
• In section 93118.5(m) (14)(C), staff replaced “Percent time” with “Percentage of time”  
to improve readability.  
• In section 93118.5(m)(16), staff inserted the word “vessel” to improve clarity and 
readability .  
• In section 93118.5(m)(17)(A), staff inserted the word “are” to improve grammar.  15 • In section 93118.5(m)(17)(B), staff inserted the word “number” after “phone” to 
improve clarity.  
• In section 93118.5(m)(19)(A), staff removed an erroneous “a” from the sentence.  
• In section 93118.5(m)(20)(B), staff removed the reference to (m)(20)  since it is 
unnecessary/superfluous. The language in the provision already makes it clear that CARB is  pointing to the subsection (A) , so staff also added “above” to make it 
abundantly clear which subsection we are pointing to.  
• In section 93118.5(m)(21), staff added “described below” before “in subsection (A)” to 
improve readability.  
• In section 93118.5(m)(21)(C), staff made edits to improve readability and clarity, such 
as replacing “fishers” with “anglers,” replacing “in military time, i.e., 06:20 hours,23:15 
hours, etc.,” with “using 24- hour notation,” adding the word “departure” before 
“date,” removing “recorded as.”  
• In section 93118.5( m)(21)(D), staff revised the language for “passenger day” from “ is 
considered a single person sportfishing for a full eight -hour day or multiple people 
sportfishing for shorter periods summing to a full eight -hour day” to “equals eigh t 
hours of fishing activity by one angler, or shorter periods of fishing activity by multiple 
anglers adding up to eight hours.” This revision was intended to improve readability. 
Staff also spelled out numbers (for example, 4 is now “four”) in various places in this 
section, switched out the word “be” to “equal”  as well as “lengths” for “d uration”  for 
accuracy (e.g., four hours and 20 minutes would “equal” 5.5 passenger -days) and also 
edited verb tense  for syntax.  
• In section 93118.5(q)(1), staff added “fuel” after “CARB diesel” to improve clarity 
without altering the requirements.  
• In sect ion 93118.5(t)(1) , section 93118.5(u)(1), and section 93118.5(u)(2)(B) staff 
changed the word from “regulation” to “section” for consistency.  
• In Authority and Reference citations of section 93118.5, staff made update s to 
improve the punctuation. 
III. Modifications to the Original Summary of Comments and Agency 
Responses in the FSOR  
CARB staff posted the Second Notice of Public Availability of Modified Text and Availability 
of Additional Documents and Information on October 10, 2022, referred to herein as the 
second 15- day notice . The following commenters submitted comments to the public docket 
during the 15- day comment period  which ran from October 10 , 2022 , through October 25, 
2022. The full comments can be found in the appendix to this FSOR addendum . 
  16 Comment #  Name Affiliation 
3461  Russ Hodel  Individual 
3462  Jed Hendrickson  Individual 
3463  Joshua Kehoe  Individual 
3464.1 – 3464.2  Greg Hurner  Sportfishing Association of 
California (SAC)  & Golden Gate 
Fishermen’s Association (GGFA)  
3465  Tim Hanners  Water Emergency Transit Authority 
(WETA)  
3466  Tim Hanners  WETA  
3467  Tim Hanners  WETA  
3468.1 – 3468.3  Jessica Palmer  Department of Defense  (DoD)  
3469.1 – 3469.5  Leah Harnish  American Waterways Operators 
(AWO)  
3470.1 – 3470.2  Ray Carpenter  R.E. Staite Engineering , Inc.  
The following comments and agency responses are additions or modifications to the FSOR.  
a) Irrelevant Comments  
 
(3461) (3462) (3465)  
 
Response 3461 et al. : CARB staff thank s all commenters that submitted comments to the 
docket during the second 15- day comment period. The comments listed in this category 
were not specifically directed  to the modifications  described  in the second 15- day notice  or 
to the procedures followed by C ARB in proposing or adopting such modifications , and 
therefore do not re quire a staff response.   
 
b) Proposed Change #25 in the Second 15-Day Notice  
 
Comment 3470.1:  “RES objects  to locking or disabling any marine  vessel  to prevent  
operation.  Unlike land equipment,  a marine  vessel  cannot  be "parked"  somewhere and 
remain  safe.  A marine  vessel  must  be constantly maintained,  operating  or not. Unless the 
vessel  is hauled  out of the water at great cost,  any vessel  that does  not meet  the 
performance  standards  will be docked  at a wharf  or similar structure.  There  are many reasons 
a vessel  may need  to be moved  quickly other  than for regular  operation,  such as for storm  
protection,  regular  maintenance or accessibility to an area where it is berthed.  If an engine  is 
disabled it may affect  the safety  of people  and property adjacent  to it. RES suggests that 
rather than be required  to disable  a vessel  that an Owner  be required  to submit  a signed  
statement  that the vessel  will not be operated  unless it is for safety,  main tenance or 
accessibility.”  
 
Response 3470.1:  The proposed second 15 -day changes to subsection 93118.5 (e)(12)(B)6. 
were limited to the replacement of the word “locking” with “disabling ” to clarify the original 17 intent of the language  to address concerns raised to CARB staff by OAL during their review . 
Therefore, t his comment is not specifically directed to the proposed modification of section 
93118.5 (e)(12)(B)6  or to the procedures followed by CARB in proposing or adopting the 
propos ed modification , and therefore does not require a response. Notwithstanding that 
response, any operation of a CHC engine in California that is not exempted from the CHC 
regulation, does not meet applicable performance standards and has not been granted  a 
compliance extension , low use exception, ZEAT credit, or is allowed to continue operating  
under  an approved  ACE plan would be noncompliant  under the Proposed Amendments . It is 
critical that the Proposed Amendments include this provision to ensure that non- compliant 
engines are not operated in California. Please see Page IV -69 of the ISOR for additional 
rationale for this provision.  
 
c) Proposed Change #34 in the Second 15- Day Notice  
 
Comment 3469.1:  “AWO recognizes the benefit that CARB’s proposed amendment 
provides by offering examples of what types of actions an applicant can take. However, we 
still believe that requiring this information puts an undue and unworkable burden on companies to prove that compliance will harm their business. It is impossible for companies to determine whether various business models will prevent this loss. The application package 
already requires three years  of profit and loss statements, three years of federal and state 
income tax documents, and technical reports to prove eligibility. Subsection (e)(12)(E)3.b.vi is 
onerous and unnecessary and AWO asks CARB to strike it from the proposed CHC rule. ” 
 
Response 3469.1:  The proposed second 15 -day changes to subsection (e)(12)(E)3.b.vi. 
provide specificity as requested by OAL, and do not substantively change the originally 
proposed requirements, therefore this comment is not specifically directed to the proposed 
changes to subsection (e)(12)(E) 3.b.vi . or to the procedures followed by CARB in proposing 
or adopting such changes and accordingly does not require a response. Notwithstanding 
that response, CARB staff  note that t he portion  of subsection (e)(12)(E)3.b.vi quoted by AWO 
in their comment letter was  originally proposed with the 45- day notice. CARB did not receive 
comments on this provision during the 45- day public comment period.  As stated in the ISOR 
on page IV- 82, this subsection is necessary for vessel owners/operators to demonstrate to 
CARB that they have tried to comply with the Proposed Amendments . Applications must 
include information regarding the owner/ operator’s attempts  at compliance to ensure tha t 
there has been a good faith effort to achieve compliance and that  extensions are only  
granted when circumstances outside of the  vessel owner/operator’s control prevent 
compliance  by the nominal deadline.   
 Comment 3470.2: “ The American  Waterways  Operators  (AWO)  submitted  an objection  in 
their letter to Staff on September  14, 2022 related  to this section.  Their  concern,  taken  from  
their September  14th letter states:  
"vi. A list of actions  that the applicant  has taken  to comply or in anticipation  to comply with 
the regulation  at the earliest compliance  date and supporting  documentation  to demonstrate  
that these actions  have  been  taken.  AWO is extremely concerned  about  this reporting  
requirement.  The language  puts an undue and unworkable  burden  on companies  to prove  18 that compliance  will harm  their business.  It is impossible for companies  to determine whether  
various  business models  will prevent  this loss.  The application package  already  requires three 
years  of profit  and loss statements,  three  years  of federal  and state  income  tax documents,  
and technical  reports  to prove  eligibility. Proposed  Subsection (e)(12)(E)3.b.vi  is onerous  and 
unnecessary  and AWO asks CARB  to strike  it from  the proposed  CHC rule."  CARB  staff has 
revised  this section  in the 2nd Notice  to expand  upon  the list of items  necessary  to prove  
eligibility in addition  to three  years  of profit  and loss statements,  three years  of federal  and 
state  income  tax documents,  and technical  reports.  It is r equested  that this section  be 
omitted  as it is unnecessary  and onerous  as originally detailed above  by AWO.”  
 
Response 3470.2:  See Response 3469.1.  
 
d) Comments in Support  
 
Comment 3464.1 : This comment indicated that the Sportfishing Association of California 
(SAC) and the Golden Gate Fishermen’s Association (GGFA) are supportive of the 
modifications made to the data reporting requirements .  
 
Comment 3469.3:  “AWO appreciates that CARB incorporated recommendations from our 
previous comments into their proposal, especially the expansion of the (E)(5) Scheduling 
Extension. The goal of this extension is to make sure owners and operators who are working in good faith are not be penalized for noncompliance if there are project delays outside of their control. Allowing applicants to renew this extension and use it for any equipment, 
installation or inspection delays will create new flexibility in the CHC regulation that will 
promote long -term complia nce. We would also like to thank CARB for reiterating that any 
technology an owner or operator is required to install must be approved by the U.S. Coast Guard. ” 
 Response 3469.3 : CARB staff thanks SAC, GGFA, and AWO for their support and their 
participation and input during the regulatory process and development of the amendments.  
 
e) Repower Definition  
 
Comment 3466:  “Is the intension that this definition [of “repower”]  would require the 
operator to repower the vessel to the most current engine emission Tier should their existing 
engine suffer a failure that required replacement of the engine block? Repowering to Tier 4 is orders of magnitude more expensive than an engine rebuild including a block. As an example, replacement of the block on a 32L Tier 2 engine was approximately $50,000 in extra material expense. Recently, repowering that vessel with Tier 4 engines was 
approximately $750,000 per engine including 2- 3 months in the shipyard. How can operators 
stay in business not knowing if their maintenance costs could include an extremely costly 
repower that would require extensive engineering, shipyard time and modifications to complete?”  19 Response 3466:  As stated in t he second 15- day notice, the 15- day changes to the definition 
of “repower” in section 93118.5(d) were limited to changes to improve clarity without 
changing the meaning or intent of the definition. Therefore, this comment is not specifically 
directed to the proposed changes to the definition of “repower” in subsection ( d) or to the 
procedures followed by CARB in prop osing or adopting such changes and does not require a 
response. Notwithstanding that response,  staff have communicated extensively with WETA 
throughout the regulation development process and  remain available to WETA and all 
stakeholders respond to specific  questions regarding implementation.  Staff would also note 
that subsection (e)(8)(C) sets forth requirements for replacing a n engine that is non-
functioning due to equipment failure.  These provisions  are necessary be cause lower tier 
engines are significantly higher -polluting than engines that meet the current emission 
standards, and it is critical to reduce emissions from commercial harbor craft by requiring 
cleaner engines to be installed rather than rebuilding older, hig her-polluting engines.  
 
f) Extension E5 Renewal  
 
Comment 3467:  “In subsection 93118.5(e)(12)(E)5., staff added a subsection (c)  stating 
‘Renewal: The applicant may apply for an additional  one-year extension no later than 9 
months and no earlier than 12 months before the expiration of the extension’ to specify 
when renewals of the E5 extension must be submitted.  Does this statement mean that after 
receiving the one- year extension the operator has 3 months to determine if that extension 
was long enough? ” 
 
Response 3467:  The renewal application period for extension E5 is consistent with the 
renewal application periods for other one -year extensions such as E1. A period of 9 to 12 
months is necessary to ensure adequate staff time to review and issue decisions for 
applicants.  
 
g) Renewable Diesel  
 Comment 3463:  The commenter discussed the benefits of using 80/20 biodiesel blends and 
raised concerns that not allowing its use will not benefit California.  
 Response 3463:  This comment is not specifically directed to any of the proposed changes 
contained in the second 15 -day notice or to the procedures followed by CARB in proposing 
or adopting such changes and does not require a response. Notwithstanding this re sponse, 
please see the responses in the FSOR under section (t) Renewable diesel and biodiesel for 
more information on the decision to require the use of renewable diesel instead of biodiesel 
blends.  
 
h) Gasoline Engines  
 
Comment 3468.1:  “…it remains unclear as to what thresholds these alter native fueled 
craft/engines are included/regulated, and thus what requirements become applicable to 
them (“alternative -fuel/s” is written 6 times and “gasoline” is written 1 time, including 20 revisions).  This lack of clarity is exacerbated by the majority i nclusion of diesel technical 
standards and testing for regulated crafts/engines. For example, new language was added to 
section (q)(1) on page 123 of 124 that reads, “When conducting testing procedures, engines 
may be fueled using CARB diesel, or U.S. EPA nonroad diesel fuel ….” Recommend revising 
the proposed regulation in a way that brings clarity to the applicability of alternatively- fueled 
harbor craft and engines (inboard and outboard); specifically address gasoline- powered 
harbor craft and engines based on their prevalence in small craft.”  
 
Response 3468.1:  This comment is not specifically directed to any of the proposed changes 
contained in the second 15- day notice or to the procedures followed by CARB in proposing 
or adopting such changes and does not require a response. Notwithstanding this response,  
please see the responses in the FSOR under section (j) Sportfishing for more information on 
the requirements and rationale for alternative fueled vessels and page 16 of the Notice of 
Public Availabilit y of Modified Text and Availability of Additional Documents and Information 
posted on May 19, 2022 that discusses the necessity and rationale for the additions to 
subsection (q)(1).  https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2021/chc2021/15daynotice.pdf  
 
i) Exemptions 
 
Comment 3468.2:  The commenter states that section 93118.5(c)( 5) conflates the exemptions 
for recreational vessels and alternatively -fueled CHC. The commenter suggests splitting the 
exemption into two separate exemptions, one specific to recreational vessels and one 
specific to alternatively- fueled CHC to better clarif y the details of the exemption and to 
ensure that both stakeholder groups are equally likely to see the exemption applicable to 
them.  
 
Response 3468.2: This comment is not specifically directed to any of the proposed changes 
contained in the second 15- day notice or to the procedures followed by CARB in proposing 
or adopting such changes and does not require a response.  Notwithstanding this response,  
please see pages 3 and 4 of the Notice of Public Availability of Modified Text and Availability 
of Additiona l Documents and Information posted on May 19, 2022 that discusses the 
necessity and rationale for the proposed modifications to subsection ( c)(5).  
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2021/chc2021/15daynotice.pdf  
 
j) Facility Definition  
 
Comment 3468.3:  The commenter suggests replacing “commercial harbor craft” with 
“vessels subject to this regulation” in the definition of “facility” to further improve clarity.  
 Response 3468.3: This comment is not specifically directed to any of the proposed changes 
contained in the second 15- day notice or to the procedures followed by CARB in proposing 
or adopting such changes and does not require a response.  Notwithstanding this response, 
please see page 5 of the Notice of Public Availability of Modified Text and Avail ability of 
Additional Documents and Information posted on May 19, 2022, that discusses the necessity 21 and rationale for the proposed modifications to the definition of “facility” in subsection ( d).  
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2021/chc2021/15daynotice.pdf  
Staff would also point out that the de finition of  “harbor craft,” which is synonymous with  
“commercial harbor craft,” provides a clear description of which vessels are considered 
commercial harbor craft under the regulation.  
 
k) Opacity Testing  
 
Comment 3469.2:  “Subsection (k)(1)(C) requires training  for individuals conducting  opacity  
tests.  OAL rejected  this subsection,  stating  that the proposed  regulation  implies that training  
courses and certifications  for opacity- test procedures  are available,  but the Initial Statement  
of Reason (ISOR)  indicates they are not. AWO agrees with OAL’s  determination  and 
underscores the need  for flexibility in this process.  Therefore,  we recommend  changing  the 
ISOR  language  to the following:  
“If, during  implementation  of the Amended  Commercial  Harbor Craft  Regulation,  
there  are challenges associated  with the consistent  application of the proposed  CHC 
opacity testing  methodology,  then an operator  may submit  an alternative  strategy for 
testing  that achieves  equivalent  results  as those  required  within  this subsection or 
submit  an alternate  proof  of compliance  as required  by a federal  enforcement  
agency.”   
While standardized  testing  because of uniform  training  is important,  certain  vessels’  
operational  profiles do not fit into the propose d testing  procedures.  This change will allow 
operators  to determine  the best way to report opacity for their vessel.  Additionally, AWO 
urges CARB to clarify which opacity method they want operators to use. Subsection (k)(1) 
states that “Opacity testing sha ll be performed…using Society of Automotive Engineers 
‘Surface Vehicle Recommended Practice, Snap Acceleration Smoke Test Procedure for 
Heavy- Duty Powered Vehicles.’” However, Subsection (k)(4)(B) requires the opacity of 
exhaust from auxiliary engines to be measured using the test Method 9 - Visual 
Determination of the Opacity of Emissions from Stationary Sources as described in 40 CFR, Chapter I, subchapter C, Part 60 Appendix A -4. AWO asks CARB to work with industry to 
identify a reasonable, reliable, and  consistent opacity testing method. ” 
 Response 3469.2:  No change was made in response to this comment. As a threshold matter, 
the commenter requests that CARB modify language in the ISOR describing subsection 
(k)(1)(C); this response assumes the commenter instead requests that CARB modify 
subsection (k)(1)(C) to incorporate the suggested text. The modified text is not acceptable 
because CARB is not aware of any other standardized test method for dete rmining opacity of 
exhaust from  commercial harbor craft engines , and the proposed text would therefore only  
introduce uncertainty associated with test procedures that have not been developed or been 
as widely used as the two test methods specified in subsections (k)(1) and (k)(4)(B), respectively.  
 
In response to the commenter’s question regarding which  opacity method applies,  
subsection (k)(1) states that opacity testing must be measured and evaluated using Society of 
Automotive Engineers “Surface Vehicle Recommended Practice, Snap Acceleration Smoke 22 Test Procedure for Heavy- Duty Powered Vehicles” (SAE J1667, February 1996) .  Subsection 
(k)(4)(B) specifies that opacity of exhaust from auxiliary engines must be measured using the 
test Method 9 – Visual Determination of the Opacity of Emissions from Stationary Sources as 
described in 40 CFR, Chapter I, subchapter C, Part  60 Appendix A -4 as it existed on 
September 26, 2022.  The specification of different test methods for propulsion and auxiliary 
engines is needed because  there is no single opacity testing method that will effectively and 
efficiently test all CHC main propulsion and auxiliary engines. The transient SAE J1667 test 
method adapted by CARB staff to CHC main propulsion engines may not b e easily a pplicable 
to auxiliary engines that cannot be easily snap tested without use of additional equipment 
necessary to provide transient engine loads. Example s of such equipment could include a 
load bank for transient loading of generator engines or a truck loa d of k -rails or weights for a 
crane to hoist . In lieu of requiring all manner of methods that could be utilized to apply 
transient loads to the many possible auxiliary engine applications, t he Method 9 test can be 
applied to auxiliary engines on vessels at dock where the exhaust stacks are stationary while 
the auxiliary engines are operated in their applicable voca tion without requiring delivery of 
any additional test equipment for applying transient loads.  
 
l) ACE Plan  
 
Comment 3469.4:  “It is essential  that CARB  continue to engage with stakeholders as they 
build out their implementation  procedures.  AWO appreciates  having  the Alternative  Control  
Emissions (ACE)  program  as a way for operators  to create  their own plan for meeting  CARB’s  
emission- reduction  goals.  As part of the application,  operators  must  demonstrate  that their 
mitigation  measures meet  or exceed  the regulatory requirements.  CARB  has stated  that they 
would  like to create  a standard  method  for calculating emissions reductions  to ensure 
consistency  and uniformity in reporting.  AWO supports  this and requests that CARB  work  
with industry  during  the development  process,  publish  the draft procedure,  and hold a 
formal  comment period  before  finalizing the methodology.  it is necessary  that every vessel  
class  under  the CHC rule use the ACE emissions calculation.  The current program requires 
operators  to report  a vessel’s emissions profile  in its homebase and operational  area.  In order  
to modify  an ACE,  an operator  needs to recalculate  their projected  emissions  and show  that 
they will not exceed  the compliance  baseline or increase/transfer  emissions into any 
disadvantaged communities  (DACs)  prior  to making any operational  changes.  However,  
tugboats  and barges  move  their homebase  depending  on where  they work.  These operators  
need  the flexibility to move  their vessels in a timely manner.  AWO believes that if an 
operator  has demonstrated  that their vessel  will continue to meet  its emissions reductions  
obligations in additional  air basins  and the geographic  change will not impact DACs,  they 
should  be able to do so without  delay.  Therefore,  we ask CARB  to include a grace  period  
that allows owners and operators  to continue using  their ACE plan vessels while  the E.O. 
reviews  the plan modifications.  AWO also requests that CARB  amend  Subsection (f)(1)(B) to 
allow an ACE application  to include multiple air basins:  “An applicant  wishing  to participate  
in an ACE may include one or more  air basins  and/or  one or more  harbor  craft in the ACE…”   
AWO recogniz es that the ACE application covers  a single air basin  to ensure DACs  are not 
disproportionately impacted  by emissions.  This amendment  would  not change that burden  of 
proof.  However,  allowing an entire  fleet spanning  multiple air basins  to be included  in a 23 single ACE will streamline  the application process  and decrease the number  of future  
modifications  to approved -ACE plans.”  
 
Response 3469.4:  This comment is not specifically directed to any of the proposed changes 
contained in the second 15- day notice appl icable to subsection s (f)(1)(A), (f)(1)(E)6 , (f)(1)(F), or 
(f)(1)(l) or to the procedures followed by CARB in proposing or adopting such changes  and 
does not require a response.  Notwithstanding that response, CARB rejects the commenter’s 
proposal to adopt a “grace period” to allow vessels to operate while the Executive Officer 
reviews proposed modifications to an ACE plan because that proposal  arguably creates a risk 
that CHC could emit harmful air pollutants in exc ess of allowable limits . For instance, if the 
Executive Officer subsequently determines a proposed ACE plan does not meet the 
applicable criteria for an ACE plan, that subsequent determination cannot adequately 
remediate the air pollutants and the associated environmental harms emitted from CHC 
operating under the proposed grace period.  CARB also rejects the commenter’s proposal to amend the language to specifically allow an ACE application to include multiple air basins. The existing language in subsection ( f)(1)(G) allows  for an ACE to include emissions from 
harbor craft within an applicant’s fleet that operate within “another defined geographic area approved by the E.O.”  Therefore, the E.O. could approve an ACE application spanning 
multip le air basins if the applicant demonstrated that the ACE would not result in a higher 
emissions burden to DACs as required by subsection (f)(1)(F)5.  
 Please see chapter IV, section H of the ISOR for more details on the rationale for each section 
of the ACE provision.  
 
Comment 3469.5:  “Additionally, AWO would like CARB to remove the phrase “under the 
person’s direct control” from Subsection (f)(1)(B), allowing a vessel or operator to apply for 
an ACE.”  
 
Response 3469.5:  This comment is not specifically directed to any of the proposed changes 
contained in the second 15- day notice applicable to subsection s (f)(1)(A), (f)(1)(E)6, (f)(1)(F) , or 
(f)(1)(l) or to the proce dures followed by CARB in proposing or adopting such changes  and 
does not require a response.  Notwithstanding this response, CARB notes that subsection 
(f)(1)(B) reflects the text from the preexisting regulation that was not altered in either the 45-
day or subsequent 15- day modifications  for these amendments. 
 
m) Data Reporting  
 Comment 3464.2:  “SAC and GGFA strongly support the collaboration between CARB and 
CDFW to upgrade the current electronic logs and share data relevant to CARB’s mandate 
and mission while maintaining data confidentiality. This collaboration will also improve data accuracy and uniformity and will reduce the burden on reporting entities if the data can be 
transmitted from CDFW directly to CARB. ” 
 
Response 3464 .2: This comment is not specifically directed to any of the proposed changes 
contained in the second 15- day notice applicable to subsection (m) or to the procedures 24 followed by CARB in proposing or adopting such changes,  and does not require a response. 
Staff would , however,  like to clarify that the vessel owner or operator is responsible for 
submitting the commercial passenger activity data in the correct .xlsx or .csv format as 
specified in subsection (m)(21)(C), whether that format is obtained directly from CDFW or 
compile d from paper or pdf logs by the vessel owner/operator. At this time, CARB does not 
have a CPFV activity data sharing agreement with CDFW, nor do CARB staff intend to enter into a data sharing agreement with CDFW  for the purpose of obtaining CPFV activity d ata in 
lieu of receiving  the CPFV activity data reports directly from CPFV owners/operators.