Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 32
  1. #1
    Moderator shawn alladio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Earth, USA, California
    Posts
    2,058
    +1
    7

    EPA Tightens Marine Engine Requirements

    EPA Tightens U.S. Marine Engine RequirementsBy: Louis Gerlinger | Thursday, September 11, 2008 12:00:00 AMLast updated: Thursday, September 11, 2008 4:26:00 PMFederal standards will soon mirror existing California regulations.
    Photo by: yachtphotography.com LOG
    NEWS SERVICE
    — The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has issued new, tougher emission standards for a wide range of gasoline engines, including engines used in recreational watercraft.

    The EPA said that the new standards, which apply only to newly manufactured products, include the first national standards for boats powered by sterndrive or inboard engines and carbon monoxide standards for gasoline-powered engines used in recreational watercraft. The regulations will take effect in 2010 and 2011.

    “These standards help fight smog in our neighborhoods and waterways as we continue to improve the environmental landscape,” said EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson.

    U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., praised the final EPA rules to limit smog-forming emissions from small engines — including lawn mowers, garden equipment and recreational watercraft.

    “This is great news, and the end of a very long road,” Feinstein said. “It will require a 70 percent reduction in emissions from recreational watercraft.”

    Feinstein said the new national rules are modeled after rules put into effect in California in January 2007, after the EPA granted the state a Clean Air Act waiver in December 2006.

    “We applaud the EPA decision. This measure will assure quality products with dramatically reduced emissions,” said California Air Resources Board spokesman Dimitri Stanich.

    “I should point out that Californians need not concern themselves with these federal regulations, as we have required similar standards for new engines sold here for many years.

    “For EPA to mirror our regulations to a federal level substantiates the sound economic analysis and health-protective reasoning California takes when crafting air quality regulations,” Stanich said.

    The Associated Press reported Sept. 4 that the adoption of the regulation by the EPA had been delayed for years by opposition from Sen. Christopher “Kit” Bond, R-Mo., who took up the cause of small engine manufacture Briggs & Stratton Corp., which builds many of its engines in Missouri. The final rule Sept. 4 was issued more than a year after the draft rule came out in April 2007.

    Bond and fellow Appropriations Committee member Feinstein spent years sparring over the issue, after California sought EPA permission to implement its own small engine controls in 2003, the AP said.

    Bond tried to insert language in a spending bill to keep California from doing so, but backed off under pressure from Feinstein -- and California began implementing its rules last year. Bond did succeed in blocking other states from being able to copy California’s rule, something that the Clean Air Act normally allows, the AP reported. Instead Bond required EPA to write the national standard that was issued Sept. 4.

    The EPA estimates that the social costs of the new engines and equipment control programs to be about $459 million in 2030 with consumers of these products expected to bear about 86 percent of these costs.

    When California adopted its new emission standards it was estimated that the cost of a compliant marine engine was between $600 and $1,800 more than the cost of a comparable non-compliant engine.

    A report from The Associated Press was used in this story.

    This article first appeared in the September 2008 issue of The Log Newspaper. All or parts of the information contained in this article might be outdated.

    http://www.thelog.com/news/logNewsArticle.aspx?x=8286


  2. #2
    amharms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lewisville, Texoma, Lavon
    Posts
    144
    Quote Originally Posted by shawn alladio View Post
    “We applaud the EPA decision. This measure will assure quality products with dramatically reduced emissions and performance, and increased cost,” said California Air Resources Board spokesman Dimitri Stanich.
    There, fixed that...

  3. #3
    DAGO RACING CREW 97GPSLEEPER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Orange, TX
    Posts
    4,228
    +1
    169
    Sad, so sad. It will only get worse if a Democrat is elected. I do not want to turn this into a political thread, so mods, delete this if you want to, but I had to speak out because it is the truth!

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Rotterdam,NY & Moneta, VA
    Posts
    1,617
    +1
    1
    i think its a good think i dont want to wreck the lakes and water ways i ride in. lets face it we dump a ton of pollution into them with current boats and pwc.

  5. #5
    PhilnEdee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Union Grove, Alabama
    Posts
    477
    My Hondas are good...love that increased cost factor passed on to the consumers...I mean, since they started giving gas away lately, I really need else something to spend my money on

  6. #6
    DAGO RACING CREW 97GPSLEEPER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Orange, TX
    Posts
    4,228
    +1
    169
    Quote Originally Posted by stingray152003 View Post
    i think its a good think i dont want to wreck the lakes and water ways i ride in. lets face it we dump a ton of pollution into them with current boats and pwc.
    Maybe kayaking is your true passion. No pollution there, just make sure that paddle is made from environmentally safe material.

  7. #7
    The ski's have taken a "backseat" to the Corvette DarthAWM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Odessa, TX
    Posts
    5,364
    Quote Originally Posted by stingray152003 View Post
    i think its a good think i dont want to wreck the lakes and water ways i ride in. lets face it we dump a ton of pollution into them with current boats and pwc.
    If you believed the hype then Havasau would have had a layer of flamable liquid and inch deep on it in 1996(that would be BWN's statistic on 2 stroke motors) we all know that didn't happen

  8. #8
    Moderator shawn alladio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Earth, USA, California
    Posts
    2,058
    +1
    7
    Keep the sense of community folks.....stick together...


    ...the true issue about water quality management has more to do with urban runoff than vessel activities. The nearshore habitats and marine life are being impacted from this, but each activity must be addressed to show a cause for an effect, so that the flag can be waved. For instance at Lake Perris in Socal, a very high level of E-coli bacteria has been a recurring problem. The signs say no diapers allowed on children in the water. You used to see them littering the shore, (still do) this is also a health issue, but can be remedied. Through harsh enforcement measures. If an issue is identified, measures will be taken.

    I am not a big fan of more government. In fact I think that is a problem with government and its true failing, always creating more layers to justify a position. I think that government should address 'management' of policies and rules instead of creating so many that overlap and fail because of poor management.

    Yes nature is getting stressed, but through ALL human activity, not just boating per se, but politicians and government employees of the largest corporaton n in the world the US government must continue to justify their job or what? Dare say they would have to run it like a real business and show good stewardship and results that rest on their own (group) merits...LOL

    So, nothing will be as it was, everything will continue to follow this vein...like it or not. Until we the people pull the plug, but we are too comfortable, we waste our voice on forums and not in the public political scene, so we are also a part of the problem.

    So, here we go with yet another ruling...


    Now how about them garden pesticides? LOL
    Last edited by shawn alladio; 09-17-2008 at 02:03 PM. Reason: typos! and more typos

  9. #9
    Being dragged kicking and screaming into 1997 afcblink's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Kansas City, MO
    Posts
    457
    Quote Originally Posted by shawn alladio View Post
    Yes nature is getting stressed, but through ALL human activity, not just boating per se, but politicians and government employees of the largest coporataion in the world the US government must continue to justify their job or what? Dare say they would have to run it like a real business and show good stewardship and results that rest on their own (group) merits...LOL
    I am anti-government because all governments are inherently bureaucratic. As Cyril Northcote Parkinson's "Coefficient of Inefficiency" demonstrates, the optimum number of people to run anything is between 3 and 20. Any committee or body of more than 22 is "manifestly inefficient." Any bureaucratic body of more than 1000 becomes self-perpetuating, no longer needing to justify it's existence with any sort of meaningful output, and having no need for any input from the outside world. Beyond that number, bureaucracies are no longer under human control, they are self-governing, self-replicating organisms. They use the ever-increasing resources they consume only to ensure their survival, grow, and procreate additional baby bereaucracies (committees, agencies, boards, advisory panels, cabinets, and ministries), ad infinitum.

  10. #10
    Moderator shawn alladio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Earth, USA, California
    Posts
    2,058
    +1
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by afcblink View Post
    I am anti-government because all governments are inherently bureaucratic. As Cyril Northcote Parkinson's "Coefficient of Inefficiency" demonstrates, the optimum number of people to run anything is between 3 and 20. Any committee or body of more than 22 is "manifestly inefficient." Any bureaucratic body of more than 1000 becomes self-perpetuating, no longer needing to justify it's existence with any sort of meaningful output, and having no need for any input from the outside world. Beyond that number, bureaucracies are no longer under human control, they are self-governing, self-replicating organisms. They use the ever-increasing resources they consume only to ensure their survival, grow, and procreate additional baby bereaucracies (committees, agencies, boards, advisory panels, cabinets, and ministries), ad infinitum.


    I agree, it is so obvious about self replication. Imagine if we didn't pass any new laws for an entire year across the States, but instead took those human resources, monies and timelines and put them back into the infrastructure, such as repairing our roadways....LOL Naw, never gonna happen.....LOL Not to say that all government is bad, it isn't, it is necessary as well, but to become balanced? LOL

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Yamaha Earns NMMA Innovation Award For ’16 TR-1 Marine Engine
    By Rustymuscle in forum The Watercraft Journal
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-15-2016, 12:10 AM
  2. Engine requirments for 9200 rpm?
    By cjo632racing in forum 4-Tec Performance
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 11-11-2012, 03:28 PM
  3. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 07-19-2011, 10:04 PM
  4. max CFM required by engine
    By born riding in forum Kawasaki PWC Performance (4-stroke)
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 07-26-2007, 10:01 AM
  5. EPA may require catalytic converters!
    By MikeTrin in forum Sea Doo Open Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-18-2006, 10:58 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •