Interpreting California State Regulations Re Outboard Engine Use Restrictions due to Emission or Pollution

A conversation among Whalers
jimh
Posts: 6642
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Interpreting California State Regulations Re Outboard Engine Use Restrictions due to Emission or Pollution

Postby jimh » Tue May 30, 2017 11:19 am

In another thread on another topic, the topic of use restrictions imposed in the State of California on certain bodies of water was introduced as a corollary topic. The main topic was related to choosing an appropriate engine for use in re-powering a classic Boston Whaler boat. During the discussion the E-TEC engine was mentioned and disqualified as a possible choice, on the basis that there were bodies of water in California where there was a ban on using two-stroke-power-cycle outboard engines EVEN IF the engines were qualified for the California Air Resources Board (CARB) rating of THREE STARS.

The topic was introduced as follows:

There are a number of waterways that prohibit two stroke motors compeletely [sic], including 3 star rated ETEC models.


I then remarked as follows:

Thanks for the anecdotal report that California has banned the E-TEC Three-Star engines. I will forward that to Evinrude, as I am sure they will be concerned.

Mr T
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2017 12:03 pm

Re: 1983 15-footer Maximum Transom Weight

Postby Mr T » Tue May 30, 2017 12:12 pm

I did not state that the state of California has banned ETEC 3 star rated motors, I stated that some individual jurisdictions have done so.

jimh
Posts: 6642
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: 1983 15-footer Maximum Transom Weight

Postby jimh » Tue May 30, 2017 1:27 pm

So it is not the State of California by whose authority the E-TEC has been banned from the water there. Thanks for that clarification.

I didn't realize that governmental regulation of exhaust emissions of engines used on the water had so many tiers of authority in California. Who is the authority that banned the E-TEC?

Does that authority also ban four-stroke-power-cycle engines, too?

Do you have direct, first-hand knowledge about the banning of the E-TEC?

There seems to be a lot of misinformation being passed around, and so much misinformation that the State of California even has a web page dedicated to dispelling the misinformation. See

http://dbw.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=28770

The information on the State of California's webpage seems to DIRECTLY CONTRADICT your assertion of the ban. It says:

Direct injection two-stroke engines, made since 1999, are considered clean emission engines and can be used on every water body in California, with some exceptions not related to emission limits.


Maybe there are lakes that ban all outboard engines. I am just trying to understand exactly where in California there is a ban on the E-TEC but permits other gasoline engines to be used.

Also, if the E-TEC is banned, I would assume a 1983 Mercury carburetor two-stroke-power-cycle outboard would be, too.

Mr T
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2017 12:03 pm

Re: 1983 15-footer Maximum Transom Weight

Postby Mr T » Tue May 30, 2017 4:15 pm

I dont want to derail the original subject, but here is a link to the state regulations.


http://dbw.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=28770


There are local agencies that ban 1,2 and in some cases 3 star engines- I believe the E-TEC is a 3 star rated engine.

jimh
Posts: 6642
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: 1983 15-footer Maximum Transom Weight

Postby jimh » Tue May 30, 2017 4:54 pm

I don't want to go on and on, either, but you seem to have linked to the same page I referred to earlier, the one from which I quoted the statement that there is no ban.

If you want to use that same page as evidence of a ban, it would be a lot clearer to me if you could actually cite some text on that page that announces the ban, explains in detail the regulations, and links to them.

As I mentioned earlier, there is always the possibility that, on some lakes, some outboard engines might be banned, but the referenced page makes clear that such bans are not related to exhaust gas emission levels or compliance with them. There might be a lake than limits outboard engines to 10-HP. Since there is no E-TEC 10-HP engine, one could say "The E-TEC is banned." But that is quite misleading. The E-TEC is not banned, just engines of more than 10-HP.

I am truly interested to learn where in California there is a body of water that permits other gasoline outboard engines to be used but bans only the E-TEC. Please explain.

Your suggestion that a lake could ban all engines rated lower than Four-Star is quite reasonable, but it is not a prohibition against the E-TEC engine, just against any engine that is not a Four-Star rated engine. Are there CARB Four-Star rated outboard engines in the 50-HP to 75-HP range?

Mr T
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2017 12:03 pm

Re: 1983 15-footer Maximum Transom Weight

Postby Mr T » Tue May 30, 2017 5:22 pm

These are the first listings in the link referenced above. Formatting is awkward, but what it states is that 3 star CARB certified 2 stroke motors are not allowed.

The E-TEC engine is a 3 star CARB engine, therefore I read that as a banned engine.

They do not name the E-TEC engine by name.

I do not understand your assertion that the text you cite directly contradicts my statements. A full reading of the documents reveals the waters and authorities making the ruling. It lists the banned motor types, which one can extrapolate to define the motors that are allowed, which I would interpret as four stroke gasoline motors.




Agency/Waterway Type Effective Date
Anderson and Calero Reservoirs, Santa Clara Valley Water District - Allow PWCs that meet CA Air Resources Board 2001 standards. May implement further restrictions if any gas-related chemical contamination detected in periodic water sampling. 3 July 2004
Anderson Reservoir -170 watercraft per day allowed. Calero Reservoir - 60 to 70 watercraft per day allowed. Coyote Reservoir -1 watercraft per six surface acres (Santa Clara Valley Water District Reservoirs) 3 Aug. 2004

jimh
Posts: 6642
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: 1983 15-footer Maximum Transom Weight

Postby jimh » Tue May 30, 2017 11:50 pm

Mr T wrote:These are the first listings in the link referenced above. ...
Agency/Waterway Type Effective Date
Anderson and Calero Reservoirs, Santa Clara Valley Water District - Allow PWCs that meet CA Air Resources Board 2001 standards. May implement further restrictions if any gas-related chemical contamination detected in periodic water sampling. 3 July 2004
Anderson Reservoir -170 watercraft per day allowed. Calero Reservoir - 60 to 70 watercraft per day allowed. Coyote Reservoir -1 watercraft per six surface acres (Santa Clara Valley Water District Reservoirs) 3 Aug. 2004


What I see on the website on that URL is this text, which you mention above:

Anderson and Calero Reservoirs, Santa Clara Valley Water District - Allow PWCs that meet CA Air Resources Board 2001 standards. May implement further restrictions if any gas-related chemical contamination detected in periodic water sampling.


and also this text you mention:

Anderson Reservoir -170 watercraft per day allowed. Calero Reservoir - 60 to 70 watercraft per day allowed. Coyote Reservoir -1 watercraft per six surface acres (Santa Clara Valley Water District Reservoirs)


So, yes, indeed I see that text. But you assert that this really is supposed to be saying something different than what the text says, which makes no sense to me. You say:

...it [the webpage we are talking about] states...that 3 star CARB certified 2 stroke motors are not allowed.


I just see nothing there that says anything like that. Could you please just directly quote some text on the page you are citing that actually says that?

Also, you state:

I do not understand your assertion that the text you cite directly contradicts my statements.


Well, I already quoted the text from your webpage, but here it is again:

Direct injection two-stroke engines, made since 1999, are considered clean emission engines and can be used on every water body in California, with some exceptions not related to emission limits.


The above is a direct quote from the California state government webpage. It clearly says that a direct-injection two-stroke engine made after 1999 can be used on every water body in California, with some exceptions not related to emission. You keep reading the same page and coming up with the opposite opinion, that the E-TEC is banned on some lakes. Now, as I explained, it is possible that an E-TEC might not be allowed on some lakes, but not because of its exhaust emission rating.

I'd like you to just quote something on the webpage that supports you claim. Not what you think it says, but something actually on the website that says anything close to what you are claiming, that is, that you decided against buying an E-TEC because you couldn't use it on certain lakes in California but presumably there is some other gasoline engine that can be used on those lakes that you could buy. We are going around in circles here. Please straighten out this misunderstanding between you, me, and the State of California.

Mr T
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2017 12:03 pm

Re: 1983 15-footer Maximum Transom Weight

Postby Mr T » Thu Jun 01, 2017 5:31 pm

My experience is based on a conversation I had about four years ago at [C]alero [R]eservoir when I was turned away because I was launching a boat with a 2001 [Y]amaha 150 HPDI engine. The attendant provided me a hard copy of the website linked above, and refused me entry. His rationale was that the column labeled type denoted the number of (CARB) stars assigned to the motor. As the motor was not labeled with any stars, it was refused, despite my assertion that the motor qualified because of its HPDI (High Pressure Direct Injection) designation.

I am still of the opinion that the refusal was unwarranted, but it did not matter since we did not get on that reservoir either way.

Also, I have never called out the E-TEC motor directly, all of my statements have referred to two stroke engines, not any single model or maker, I would like to consider an E-TEC, but the pricing is prohibitive.

I'm done going round and round in circles here, I came to ask opinions on a weight question and it morphed into this.

I simply related what I was given as a reference document- what you choose to accept or not is your decision.

jimh
Posts: 6642
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: 1983 15-footer Maximum Transom Weight

Postby jimh » Thu Jun 01, 2017 11:04 pm

Wow. I am stunned by the information you just passed on.

If I read your last remarks correctly, the claim you made here that the E-TEC was banned from some lakes in California was based on one anecdotal incident in which some person in authority told you that on the webpage we have been talking about the numbers "1", "2", and "3" were referring to CARB Star ratings.

On that website the tabular information in the column marked "type" and having values of 1, 2, or 3, is actually referring to the type of use-restriction that is being made on the particular body of water. See the text that precedes the table, which says:

Local Restrictions on Personal Watercraft and/or Two Stroke Engines

State law allows local public agencies to regulate boating in certain categories: Three of those apply here and are listed below:

1. Speed Zone

2. Special-use Areas

3. Sanitation and Pollution Control


When a "3" appears in the table under the column listed as "Type", the meaning of "3" is in reference to the nature of the use restriction, that is, the use restriction is based on "Sanitation or Pollution Control." There is no mention of CARB Star-rating categories, and to make an inference that the column headed as "Type" refers to CARB-rating in number of "stars" is not an accurate interpretation of the information contained in the table. That someone in a position of authority to stop a boater from accessing a waterway would be so badly misinformed is rather alarming.

The topic of how the E-TEC engine was not legal to use on certain lakes in California was not introduced in this by me--you introduced it. You said:

There are a number of waterways that prohibit two stroke motors compeletely [sic], including 3 star rated ETEC models.


I don't think you can now reasonably expect me to accept your assertion:

I have never called out the E-TEC motor directly, all of my statements have referred to two stroke engines, not any single model or maker


I am glad to get this resolved, and by resolved I mean that the actual facts are there are no lakes or other waters in California where the E-TEC engine is prohibited on the basis that it does not meet emission or pollution standards but other gasoline outboard engines do and are allowed.

The topic of how an E-TEC was not permitted to be used in California on certain lakes was introduced to this discussion by you, and the only reason we have been going round and round on that topic is because I could not find ANY BASIS to support your statements. And, as far as I can tell, the reason that there is no basis to support your statements is that there actually is no basis for them but for some very bad interpretation of a webpage.

Mr T
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2017 12:03 pm

Re: 1983 15-footer Maximum Transom Weight

Postby Mr T » Fri Jun 02, 2017 1:40 am

OK it's my fault- all of it. Please delete my account at your earliest convenience.

jimh
Posts: 6642
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: 1983 15-footer Maximum Transom Weight

Postby jimh » Fri Jun 02, 2017 2:11 pm

The goal of the website has always been to collect and organize accurate information about the various topics it pursues, so you will have to understand that when you posted information informing that the E-TEC engine was banned from various lakes in California, this was certainly going to have to be verified in some way. If you like reading completely unverified information presented as facts, you will have to go somewhere else to get it. CONTINUOUSWAVE and its forum has always had a goal of collecting and organizing information, and, of course, information that is accurate. That you posted inaccurate information is unfortunate, but please do not feel like you have to end participation here because of it. I would never think of forcing you to leave because of this discussion. So it will never be convenient for me to delete your account. I would consider that completely unnecessary.

porthole
Posts: 599
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2015 9:57 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: 1983 15-footer Maximum Transom Weight

Postby porthole » Tue Jun 06, 2017 11:42 am

Shouldn't CARB concerns be a separate thread and not muddling up the transom weight query?
Last edited by porthole on Mon Jun 12, 2017 10:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Thanks,
Duane
1999 Outrage 21
1999 Yamaha SW Series II 200

jimh
Posts: 6642
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: 1983 15-footer Maximum Transom Weight

Postby jimh » Tue Jun 06, 2017 2:42 pm

I would normally start a new thread about the restrictions in California, but the information presented was mostly all wrong. I'll be more likely to just delete all the misinformation. The fellow that started the thread introduced the topic because he had incorrectly drawn an inference that he could not use an E-TEC because someone prevented him from using a Yamaha HPDI engine. The most informative part of the discussion is to learn not to believe what you read or hear about regulations; stick to the regulations themselves and not what someone tells you they say.

To be completely fair to all participants, I just decided to preserve all these comments and separate them from the discussion on engine transom weight.