A Summary of Progress

Executive Summary:

In 1996 with passage of the EPA’s “Final Rule” regulating outboard motor and Personal Water Craft (PWC) emissions, there has been much discussion related to how well this rule addresses the issue of outboard and PWC emissions and subsequent retirement of non-compliant carbureted two stroke engines.

This report has worked to compile the most relevant and compelling issues regarding this federal rule, and endeavors to accurately and fairly summarize the position and direction of the U.S. marine industry in meeting these regulations.

The most forceful elements of this discussion and report are:

• The EPA’s Final Rule calls for a 75% reduction in hydrocarbon (HC) emissions nationally by 2025.

• The U.S. marine industry (outboard motor and Personal Water Craft manufacturers) is ahead of schedule in complying with the federal rule and has taken additional and aggressive steps to accelerate the phase-in of cleaner engine technologies.

• Though outboard and PWC emissions are often characterized as a “water issue”, they are regulated by the Clean Air Act. Several studies by water districts and environmental quality departments do not support the view that outboard and PWC emissions pose a substantive harm to water quality.

• This report identifies and summarizes the most widely cited studies related to outboard and PWC emissions. The most recent studies do not support the view that outboard and PWC use significantly contribute to water pollution. In fact, even marginal contributions are not supported by studies conducted in “representative environments”.

• Outboard and PWCs contribution to the national HC inventory was 3% in 1990 and is expected to be 2% by 2005, 1.5% by 2010 and .75% by 2025. These are conservative estimates. Based on current phase-in trends, the national marine industry believes it will substantially exceed these goals.

• Retirement of non-compliant engines has been accelerated through the aggressive phase-out of carbureted 2-stroke engines. Additionally, manufacturers are further supporting the phase-in of compliant engines through better warranty programs and dealer purchasing programs that provide greater rewards to the dealer and with it, meaningful incentives to target these engines for sale.

• Studies and industry experience do not support the view that rebate programs, emission level stickers, or coupons will accelerate the phase-out of carbureted two stroke marine engines.

• Several States in cooperation with their local marine industries have signed a Memorandum of Understanding calling for the accelerated phase-in of compliant 4-Stroke and direct fuel injected engines.

• The national marine industry is continuing its efforts and investment to innovate even cleaner technologies for the next generation of boaters.

Significant detail is given to each of these areas in the body of this report.

Marine Outboard Motors & Personal Water Craft Emissions:

A Summary of Progress

Introduction:

Since marine outboard motors and personal watercraft were included as regulated “vehicles” in the Clean Air Act there has been much discussion related to their impact on air and water quality as well as the federal rule governing their regulation. This report seeks to provide the necessary updates, address the core issues, and review the progress made by the marine industry to address what has been the most costly and strident regulations ever imposed on the American marine industry.

In 1990 a provision was added to the Clean Air Act (CAA) authorizing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate “non-road vehicles”. Marine outboard motors and personal water craft (PWC) were included in this category. In 1996, the EPA Final Rule was written for New Gasoline Spark-Ignition Marine Engines, regulating marine outboard engines and PWC’s. “The Final Rule is promulgated pursuant to EPA’s authority under Section 213(a)(3) of the Clean Air Act.”¹ The rule later recognizes, “In selecting emission standards for new non-road engines, section 213(a)(3) directs EPA to establish the greatest degree of emission reduction achievable through the application of technology, giving appropriate consideration to the cost of applying such technology within the period of time available to manufacturers.”²

The “Final Rule” mandates a hydrocarbon emission reduction of 75% by 2006 on all new outboards and PWC’s.

The marine industry is currently exceeding these standards and accelerating the development and introduction of low emissions engines.

The EPA expects, through the Final Rule, to achieve the following “Projected Inventory Hydrocarbon (HC) Reductions (nationally): 4% in 2000; 26% in 2005; 52% in 2010; 68% in 2015; 73% in 2020; and 75% in 2025. From there, the EPA’s modeling shows a constant 75% reduction from 1999 levels in HC emissions through 2050 (Figure 1).

Figure 1. As a result of the EPA’s Final Rule, the reduction in outboard/PWC related hydrocarbon emissions is profound and immediate. Right now, the marine industry is ahead of schedule in meeting these reduction goals. Figure 1. As a result of the EPA’s Final Rule, the reduction in outboard/PWC related hydrocarbon emissions is profound and immediate. Right now, the marine industry is ahead of schedule in meeting these reduction goals.
Again, it appears the marine industry will exceed these projected reductions in HC emissions.

The issue of whether or not the Final Rule adequately addresses outboard and PWC exhaust emissions is sometimes in question. This paper will address the background, significant issues and progress made by the marine industry to address the EPA’s Final Rule and effectively reduce emissions from outboard engines and PWC’s.

Background

Like the auto industry, the national marine industry was required to reduce hydrocarbon emissions to meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act. Unlike the auto industry, which had 25 years to comply, outboard and PWC builders were given 10 years to achieve the same standard.

In cooperation with manufacturers and national trade associations the marine industry and EPA worked together to produce a rule that was aggressive and achievable. Two documents, the EPA’s “Final Rule” and the “Regulatory Impact Analysis of the Final Rule” illuminate the depth and detail that was given to the issue of outboard/PWC hydrocarbon emission reductions. These documents reflect the exhaustive analysis that was conducted to reach these stated standards.

For example, the standard of a 75% reduction was set as a result of intense economic analysis compiled by National Economics Research Associates and several industry and stakeholder meetings. That evaluation indicated the technology did not exist and would be cost prohibitive to gain reductions greater than 75%. “Beyond this 75 percent level costs dramatically rise disproportionately in relation to further reductions. The marginal cost effectiveness curve (Figure 2) is practically vertical at the 90 percent HC reduction level. The EPA believes that a 75 percent reduction level, at this time, is the appropriate level of reductions based on all the criteria found in CAA section 213(a)(3).”³

Figure 2. Given a relative cost scale juxtaposed to specific emission reduction plateaus, the EPA went as far as it could (75%) in setting an aggressive emission reduction schedule. Any greater reductions were deemed cost-prohibitive. The EPA recognized that the technology did not, for the most part, exist, and created a 9-year phase-in program (1998 to 2006) that allowed the manufacturers to average their emissions across their entire product line. “The corporate average emission standard structure helps to make the standard technologically achievable by offering manufacturers flexibility in achieving the HC reductions required. Further, the structure minimizes cost by allowing the manufacturers and the market to determine the best way to achieve the targeted reductions over time….This flexibility is essential because the emission standard will require revolutionary technology that does not currently exist across the product line, the lead time for implementation is short, and the targeted reductions across the phase-in are large…Averaging means that an engine family in a manufacturers product line could be certified to an emissions level in excess of the applicable emission standard, so long as its excess emissions are offset by an engine family that is certified to an emissions level below the applicable emission standard. In other words, any emissions in excess of the average emission standard must be balanced by emissions lower than the average emission standard.”⁴

This flexibility has allowed manufacturers to accelerate the introduction of new technology outboards and PWCs, and not lose valuable sales that fund product development and manufacturers’ marketing efforts necessary in bringing new technology to market.

The rule also recognizes that, “…This action is designed to provide manufacturers with the utmost flexibility to find the lowest cost solutions to meeting the emission reduction targets…EPA expects that average costs for OB/PWC engines will increase modestly, approximately 10 - 15% or approximately $700 on the average output engine. These modest increases would potentially be much larger if the EPA had not structured the emission standard and administrative program provisions with the broadest market flexibilities possible.”⁵

In short, the EPA went as far as it could considering cost impacts and availability of technology.

With complete phase-in of the rule in 2006, all outboard/PWC manufacturers will likely drop carbureted two stroke engines from their model lines. In fact, by 2004, the testing standards for non-compliant engines is so stringent and costly, manufacturers are compelled by virtue of potential business impacts to further accelerate the introduction of low emission engines.

It’s important to punctuate the fact that with these regulations in place, on new outboard and PWCs, using conservative methodologies and modeling, the EPA has determined that the hydrocarbon emission reductions will be significant and immediate, with a full 52% reduction by 2010, 68% by 2015, 73% by 2020 and 75% by 2025. These figures assume a 75% emission output reduction when, in fact, several engines already exceed that standard. It is responsible forecasting to project that given these other features, the stated reductions will occur sooner than scheduled and therefore achieve even more significant emissions reductions.

The EPA concludes in the federal rule, “The engine technology changes resulting from this regulation will be profound…First, and most important for the environment, the new generation of OB/PWC engines will be much cleaner. However, the engines will also be easier to start, have improved performance, faster acceleration, and less noise. Boaters will realize hundreds of dollars of fuel savings due to significant fuel economy improvements. With the new fuel systems and engine designs, the hassle of mixing fuel and oil will be gone. As an added benefit to the boat owner, the emissions performance of the new generation of marine engines will be guaranteed by a three year or 200 hour warranty (whichever comes first).”⁶

In retrospect, this statement may be overly optimistic given unanticipated market issues that occurred after the rule was written, but for the most part the stated goals have been exceeded.
Because of the subjective nature in anticipating market backlash and market response to these changes, it was difficult to forecast the market’s reaction. For the most part it has been quite positive, however during the four years immediately following the implementation of the rule (1996 - 2000), market misinformation and erroneous assumptions initiated by a variety of groups and media proved quite damaging, creating, in some cases, severe impacts to state and regional marine industries.

Since 2000, the national marine industry, having taken the appropriate time, consideration and diligence to effectively evaluate the broad range of concerns that surfaced related to outboard / PWC emissions, can now accurately answer the spectrum of issues related to low emission marine engines.

Significant Issues

Water Quality

A common misunderstanding related to the use of outboard/PWCs is the impact to water resources. The fact is, these non-road vehicles are regulated by the Clean Air Act, and for good reason, in reviewing several studies it’s clear that the evidence is far from conclusive. In truth, upon closer examination it cannot be determined, as fact, that marine outboards and PWC’s had any documented and substantive negative impact on water quality. As indicated below, several prominent and frequently cited studies aimed at water quality impacts were either inconclusive or “showed no trace of fuel” in the water following the study.⁷

The idea that marine outboard / PWC emissions is a water quality issue has been propagated as a kind of scare tactic to shock the public into believing the worst. In fact, some groups have gone as far as to assert that millions of gallons of raw fuel are being discharged into the nation’s waterways and draw parallels with events like the Exxon Valdez oil spill. There is no basis of fact in these representations. Some have referred to this as “junk science,” but that assumes that there’s some science associated with these statements. The fact is, there is no documented scientific evidence of any kind supporting these statements. That is, there is no study or representative example that can point to a body of water in support of these claims.

Often times these statements are, in fact, gross extrapolations taken from studies conducted in non-representative environments and promulgated as the truth. That is, if you take “x” outboard in “y” test tank and multiply that with the perceived number of outboards in use then you get “z” result.

Again, there’s absolutely no basis of fact in these representations, which have been initiated to sensationalize a “feature” of outboard emissions and PWCs, which simply does not exist.

The fact is the studies whose conclusion show impacts to water quality either were conducted in non-representative environments or could not be replicated and thus fall short of scientific verification. The most widely cited studies have relied on test tanks to create their findings. The results of test tank related studies, inaccurately depicts representative environments where the water volume is such to allow the immediate evaporation of fuel related elements. In tests conducted in representative environments the results are contrary to those tests conducted in enclosed tanks. In other words, tests conducted in enclosed tanks, typically show high concentrations of volatile organic compounds (VOC) or BTEX compounds, while similar tests conducted in open water environments fail to replicate the findings of enclosed tank studies. Several independent studies conducted by water quality districts, environmental quality departments and other groups paint a definite and contrary picture which indicates that outboard / PWC use has no definable impact on water quality.

The following list represents the most widely cited
water quality studies and their conclusions:

• Study: Keuka Lake Water Quality Testing Program (2000). The results showed that “Even in the most crowded boating areas during the holiday weekends, non-detectable levels of hydrocarbons were found.” ⁸

• Study: Water Test: Donner Lake California (1999). The tests were conducted on July 6th, after the July 4th weekend, traditionally the busiest boating weekend of the year. The test showed no trace fuel components.⁹

• Study: Water Test: Anaheim California (1997). In August 1997, the International Jet Sports Boating Association held a three-day PWC race on an artificial lake constructed in Anaheim, CA. The man-made lake was filled with 14 million gallons of Orange County drinking water. In order to use the water, a $250,000 bond was placed to guarantee that the water would be returned unspoiled. After an intense regimen of water testing, showing no trace of fuel, all the water was returned to the drinking water supply and the bond money was refunded in full.¹⁰

• In extensive water studies conducted around Oregon, a State known for clean watersheds with average levels of boating use (26th in nation in boat registrations), has never shown any degraded water or air as a result of outboard or PWC use.¹¹

• Study: Interim Report on the Lake Tahoe Motorized Watercraft Study. Using an unspecified “enclosure” the study sought to compare “four-cycle inboard/outboard and the Ficht technology two-cycle outboard” against “carbureted two-cycle PWC engine”. While the conclusion of the study found “the concentration of each of the constituents was much higher in the enclosure following operation of the personal watercraft.”, it went on to admit that these “concentrations did not violate state drinking water standards (some of the most stringent in the country)…(and noted) that these calculations are extrapolations and there is some uncertainty associated with the values.”¹² It’s clear this study has several flaws. First it was conducted in a non-representative environment, a test tank. Second, while the study felt there was some degradation to the water they were not able to substantively document that effect. Third, the research team admits that the figures are extrapolations with uncertain results.

• Study: Effect of outboard motor emissions on early development of the killifish Oryzias latipes. March 9, 1998. This study concludes that there were “numerous adverse developmental effects in killifish exposed to outboard motor emission water.” The initial abstract admits that “application of these results to a hypothetical lake suggest significant risks to fish.” Furthermore, this study was conducted in a test tank which is a non-representative environment. “The outboard engine was operated at medium throttle in a polyethylene tank containing 129 litres of lake water for 30 minutes…” ¹³ There are no studies, conducted in a representative environment, that indicate any deleterious effects to fish species from outboard or PWC use.

• Study: The Effect of Powerboat Emissions on the Water Quality of Loch Lomond. The “Interim Conclusion” of the Loch Lomond study suggest, that “this study has clearly shown that detectable levels of powerboat hydrocarbon pollutants may occur in Loch Lomond, during times of peak powerboating activity. The safe levels so far calculated should be interpreted with some caution however, as they are only estimates based on the results of limited toxicity data.” This study was conducted in a test tank, which is a non-representative environment. “In the first stage of this study, the scale of powerboat pollution was assessed by estimating the total annual discharge of hydrocarbons from powerboat emissions in Loch Lomond….To identify and quantify hydrocarbon pollutant compounds entering water from outboard engines, it was first necessary to produce water subject to a controlled pollution discharge from an outboard motor. This was done by running a 10 h.p. outboard motor, fueled by a 50:1 mixture of petrol and lubricant oil, for one hour in a 510 litre experimental tank.” Again, what the Loch Lomond example tries to do is extrapolate the results of an enclosed, and relatively small test tank to an open body of water. It’s misleading to say this was done in Loch Lomond when, in fact, it was conducted in a test tank.¹⁴

• Study: Hydrocarbon Testing on Canandaigua Lake, May 21-26, 1999. The conclusion of the Canandaigua Lake study showed an increase in fuel components in the water during a race, but in testing three days later at the identical sites showed a “dramatic decline” in those components. This study was conducted during a 100 participant race with unknown fuel requirements, engine modifications, etc. which is certainly a non-representative environment. Furthermore, the results of this test were in question because of results, which were admittedly unexplainable. Citing from the study’s observations, “There was an anomaly for site 10…Possible explanations include…”. Last, citing more of the study’s observations, “Samples taken from the City Water Treatment Plant prior to treatment showed concentrations of Toluene and Xylene at or below (not detected in most cases) the ambient standards. Subsequent tests conducted by the City show no detectable concentrations in either the raw or treated water.” ¹⁵

• Study: Emissions of Two- And Four-Stroke Outboard Engines - I. Quantification of Gases And VOC (March 1994). This study concludes that “The emissions of outboard engines mainly affect the water quality by introducing large amounts of aromatic compounds in the water body.” This study was conducted in a test tank in a non-representative environment which does not accurately replicate open water conditions. “Abstract - The effects of outboard engines on water quality were analyzed (sic) under the controlled conditions of a test stand equipped with an 800:1 water basin.” ¹⁶

• Study: Emissions of Two- And Four-Stroke Outboard Engines. II. Impact on Water Quality. Same non-representative methodology as previous study. Authored by the same team that produced, “Emissions Of Two And Four-Stroke Outboard Engines R¹¹; 1. Quantification of Gases and VOC, the study was conducted in a non-representative environment and then extrapolated to open water applications. This study concludes that “both the bacterial bioluminescence and Daphnia acute toxicity tests proved to be suitable for the assessment of toxicity of outboard motor emissions. Since the toxicity evaluated by these methods coincided with the amount of VOC, strong evidence is given that the analyzed (sic) VOC are major contributors to the acute toxicity. This assumption is further supported by laboratory experiments in which synthetic mixtures of VOC, which imitated the observed concentrations in the test stand water, were equally effective.”¹⁷ Again, loading an enclosed test tank with volatile organic compounds (VOC) and extrapolating the findings to open bodies of water as conclusive findings is not supported by tests that have been conducted in open bodies of water, which show contrary results.

• Study: Santa Clara Valley Water District. One of the most frequently cited studies, the Santa Clara Valley Water District Study in 1996 found “low levels of a gasoline additive known as MTBE in Anderson, Coyote and Calero reservoirs.” The study went on to indicate that “it is believed that MTBE is finding its way into the reservoirs primarily from gasoline-powered watercraft, as well as from stormwater and rainfall runoff.” Subsequent studies were not able to replicate the Santa Clara Valley Water District’s findings, and in fact found that underground fuel tank leaks, stormwater run-off and auto emissions were the chief contributor to MTBE ground water contamination.¹⁸ MTBE has been banned as a fuel additive in California and boating has been allowed on Santa Clara Valley Water District water supplies.

Air Quality

Early EPA studies indicate impacts to air quality, chiefly from hydrocarbon (HC) emissions. The percentage of HC contribution to the national air index from outboard / PWC’s at the time of those studies (early 90’s) was roughly 3%. Because of the difficulty associated with quantifying the impacts to air quality in a representative environment these numbers serve only as “baseline”¹⁹ figures from which to develop specific objectives. Though the specific figure of 3% does not appear in the regulation or impact analysis, it is the most commonly used figure relating to overall HC contribution. Given the stated reduction plateaus as defined by the EPA, and the 3% baseline figure, by 2005 the HC contribution is expected to be approximately 2%, by 2010, 1.5%, and by 2025, .75% nationally. This again assumes a 75% reduction in HC emissions, and with many engines exceeding that standard already it is prudent to extrapolate even greater gains over shorter periods of time.

Engine Retirement

In some circles this appears to be the most contentious issue involved in marine outboard/PWC HC reductions, with some asserting that the retirement won’t be fast enough given a “time horizon for complete fleet turnover (that will take) up to 50 years for some engines.”²⁰

This statement acknowledges a worst-case scenario and conservative estimate of “fleet turnover,” that is, trying to identify the last of the non-compliant engines still in some kind of use.

The effective retirement threshold of 5%, that is, when only 5% of the engines in use are non-compliant, is estimated to be 2025.²¹ Given several other features described below it is very likely this estimate will be shortened even further.

For the purposes of the rule, the EPA identified useful life parameters that are considerably shorter than the 50-year fleet turnover. “The useful life for PWC engines is a period of 350 hours of operation or 5 years of use, whichever first occurs. The useful life for outboard marine spark ignition engines is a period of 350 hours of operation or 10 years of use, whichever occurs first.”²²

It is again important to note that the major reductions that draw the marine industry closer to the 75% reduction figure occur over a relatively short period of time. This reduction figure recognizes sales / unit increases and market growth in boating participation.

Add to these observations the fact that manufacturers are accelerating the introduction and market acceptance of low emissions engines through a variety of promotions and public relations efforts, and the retirement of non-compliant technology should be well ahead of the stated “fleet turnover” timeline.

The federal rule authorized specific warranty extension periods for low emission engines²³, which today are reflected in 3-year warranty protection coverage for these engines over the shorter-term warranties of non-compliant engines
offered by the manufacturers. In a very real sense, the marine industry is rewarding purchasers for buying low emission engines while reducing the incentive to purchase higher-emission engines. In fact, many manufacturers have added as special in-season promotions additional warranty coverage, consumer rebate programs and dealer incentive programs on low emissions engines to further accelerate their market acceptance.

Next, the stringent 2004 testing requirements for non-compliant engines identified earlier in this report (page 5) are expected to further accelerate the retirement of older technologies as the introduction of low emission engines is hastened in response to the more stringent and expensive testing standard.

A study conducted by Oregon Department of Environmental Quality and the Oregon State Marine Board in 2001 sought to identify other vehicles that might expedite retirement of non-compliant engines. The study found, that for consumers, given a range of retirement incentives (i.e. rebates, discounts, buy back options, gas coupon, or some kind of environmental sticker), the most influential incentive would be a buy back program, which more than doubled the influence of the next closest incentive of rebate programs.²⁴ However, buy back programs have been evaluated by national industry associations, manufacturers and states and have been found cost prohibitive with no real assurance of effectiveness in reducing HC inventories.

On balance, any measure to expedite marine outboard/PWC retirement should also provide reliable and documented assurances of effectiveness. That is, modifications of the EPA’s federal rule will result in some quantifiable reduction of HC inventories.

Additionally, several states (Connecticut, Florida, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin and Oregon) have signed compelling Memorandum of Understandings with their State’s marine industry to “accelerate the phase-in of low emission marine engines” (Figure 3), which should further expedite the retirement of non-compliant engines.

It is in the best business and environmental interests of the marine industry to accelerate this fleet turnover which they’ve seized through broad-based public relations efforts ranging from informational advertising efforts, nationwide and state-based Internet campaigns, incentive programs, and editorial efforts aimed at accurately stating the conditions of the federal rule and encouraging the purchase of new compliant products.

Conclusion

The national marine industry, supported by its trade associations, manufacturers, dealers and suppliers, has been exemplary in addressing the requirements of the Clean Air Act through the federal rule, and have, every step of the way, worked to expedite its stated emissions reductions.

This rule has been the single biggest challenge the industry has ever faced. The U.S. marine industry has met these challenges head-on, exceeding the stated standards.

It is important to recognize the essential role that the marine industry plays in effectively policing itself by participating in a variety of clean water initiatives, fishery issues, habitat enhancement, legislative advocacy and boater safety.

Given the statistic that 70% of all boats sold nationally are used primarily for fishing, it behooves the marine industry to work on behalf of clean water and enhanced habitat.

The EPA’s Final Rule in many ways reflects the industry’s genuine commitment to sound environmental stewardship. Having worked closely with the EPA to draft a rule that went well beyond available technology, the industry took it upon itself to deliver as yet undeveloped technologies when the rule was written. To have achieved so much over so short a period of time further punctuates this commitment and the efforts that have enabled the industry to exceed already aggressive goals.

Figure 4. The EPA in drafting the “Final Rule” reviewed a range of technologies to determine where they could achieve the greatest emissions reductions. Catalytic converters on two-stroke outboard motors has not yet been developed, though the greatest gains appear to have been made in the technologies that are currently being produced, 4-stroke and 2-stroke direct fuel injection.

Figure 5. Not only will there be immediate benefits to air quality as a result of the EPA’s Final Rule regulating outboard engines and PWCs but fuel consumption is expected to drop dramatically. Other associated benefits found in the new compliant technologies include: quieter operation, smoother running, increased reliability and better warranty protection.

Memorandum of understanding

Among the Oregon State Marine Board (OSMB), Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), Portland Marine Dealers Association (PMDA), National Marine Manufacturers Association (NMMA), and Marine Retailers Association of America (MRAA) Regarding Low Emission Marine Engines

The undersigned leadership of the Oregon State Marine Board, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Portland Marine Dealers Association, NMMA and MRAA hereby establish a voluntary agreement to encourage the purchase and use of low emission marine engines, such as direct fuel-injected 2-stroke and 4-stroke outboard and personal watercraft marine engines, by the boating public.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established that by 2006 new outboard and personal watercraft marine engines must meet new air quality emission standards that significantly reduce the release of pollutants into the marine environment and atmosphere. The parties have entered into this Memorandum of Understanding in an effort to accelerate the phase-in of these low emission marine engines in Oregon and inspire other states to follow this direction.

This memorandum of Understanding assumes that sufficient quantities of low emission marine engines will be available for purchase by boaters and that these engines will be available from marine manufacturers whose production and delivery capacities will be able to support this agreement. The undersigned members of the NMMA and MRAA will use their best efforts to encourage the production, distribution, and sale of new technology outboard and personal watercraft marine engines from the manufacturers of these engines.

The OSMB, DEQ, PMDA, NMMA, and MRAA agree to promote the purchase and use of low emission marine engines by the boating public. The parties to this agreement will work cooperatively to develop public educational materials such as fact sheets, a web page and public service announcements. In addition, dealers and manufacturers of marine engines may offer financial incentives, such as rebates, to encourage the purchase of low emission marine engines. Further, the NMMA and MRAA will work with other states to accelerate the purchase and use of low pollution marine engines.

This agreement has been executed by the Oregon State Marine Board, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Portland Marine Dealers Association, NMMA and the MRAA and by each of the undersigned.

Bibliography

¹ EPA Regulatory Impact Analysis. Control of Air Pollution Emission Standards for New Nonroad Spark-Ignition Marine Engines. June 1996. Introduction.
² EPA 40 CFR Parts 89, 90, and 91. Air Pollution Control; Gasoline Spark-Ignition Marine Engines; New Nonroad Compression-Ignition and Spark Ignition Engines, Exemptions; Rule. October 4, 1996. Hereafter referred to as “The Final Rule”. “Discussion of Issues.”
³ The Final Rule. “Discussion of Issues.”
⁴ The Final Rule. “Corporate Averaging Standard.”
⁵ The Final Rule. “Regulatory Impact Analysis.”
⁶ The Final Rule. “”Requirements of the Final Rule --- Overview.”
⁷ Water Test: Donner Lake, California (1999), Deloro Water Co./Donner Lake Division. Study conclusion.
⁸ Keuka Lake Water Quality Testing Program (2000). Peter Landre and Amy Barkley, Keuka Lake Association, Hammondsport, NY
⁹ Water Test: Donner Lake, California (1999). Deloro Water Co./Donner Lake Division.
¹⁰ Water Test: Anaheim California (1997). Orange County Water District.
¹¹ Oregon’s 2000 Water Quality Status Assessment Report, Section 305(b) Report, State of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.
Oregon Water Quality Index Summary Report - Water Years 1992 - 2001, Curtis Cude, Oregon DEQ, Laboratory Division, Water Quality Monitoring Section.
“Final 2002 303(d) Database Search Choices Page,” DEQ Online, 2002 Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. 25 Jan 2003
¹² Interim Report on the Lake Tahoe Motorized Watercraft Study. Department of Environmental and Resource Sciences, University of Nevada, Reno. November 1998.
¹³ Effect of Outboard Motor Emissions On Early Development of the Killifish Oryzias latipes. March 9, 1998.
¹⁴ The Effects Of Powerboat Emissions On The Water Quality of Loch Lomond, Fourth Year Postgraduate Annual Report, Mark Bannan. March 3rd 1997.
¹⁵ Canandaigua Lake Pure Waters, LTD. Preliminary Results of Hydrocarbon Testing on Canadaigua Lake, May 21-26, 1999.
¹⁶ Emissions of Two- And Four-Stroke Outboard Engines R¹¹; 1. Quantification Of Gases And VOC. Friedrich Juttner. November 1994.
¹⁷ Emissions of Two- And Four-Stroke Outboard Engines R¹¹; II. Impact on Water Quality. Friedrich Juttner. November 1994.
¹⁸ Wilkes University Center for Environmental Quality. MTBE Fact Sheet. http://wilkes1.wilkes.edu/~eqc/mtbe.htm. Santa Clara Valley Water District. “MTBE And Boating”. http://www.valleywater.org/Water/Water_Quality/Protecting your…/MTBE_and_boating.sht.
¹⁹ Regulatory Impact Analysis. “Air Quality Benefits.”
²⁰ The Final Rule. “Regulatory Impact Analysis.”
²¹ John McKnight. National Marine Manufacturers Association. Director, Environmental & Safety Compliance. Memo. October 29, 2002.
²² The Final Rule. “Useful life period, recall, and warranty periods.”
²³ The Final Rule. “Useful life period, recall, and warranty periods.”
²⁴ Summary Report For The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality and the Oregon State Marine Board. Oregon Motorized Boat Survey R¹¹; 2001. Oregon State University, Survey Research Center, August 2001.