Dubya's Snowmobile Policy Rejected by Court...

[JoseCuervo]

Washington DC-- A federal appeals court has ordered EPA to review and clarify regulations that would allow thousands of new snowmobiles to be sold with outdated, inadequate pollution controls, even after new EPA rules take full effect in 2012.

“Over and over, EPA has argued that its 2002 emissions standards for snowmobiles are as protective as they can possibly be,” said Earthjustice attorney Jim Pew, who represented Bluewater Network and Environmental Defense. “The court has disagreed, and sent EPA back to the drawing board.”


The conservation groups went to court to challenge EPA’s inadequate national emissions standards for snowmobiles powered by inefficient, dirty engines that dump 25-30 percent of their fuel unburned out their tailpipes. Snowmobiles produce so much dangerous air pollution that during the busiest winter seasons, rangers in Yellowstone National Park have been forced to wear respirators to protect themselves.

“The federal court of appeals has given EPA its marching orders: to put in place tough standards that will protect public health and the environment from snowmobiles,” said Environmental Defense senior attorney Vickie Patton. “The court’s decision shows that there is no place for these high-polluting engines when cost-effective clean air solutions are at hand.”

The Clean Air Act requires EPA to set standards reflecting the greatest degree of emission reductions achievable through technology that will be available. Yet the agency's 2002 snowmobile standards—which will not be fully implemented until 2012—do not even require manufacturers to use technology that is already available. In fact, the standards allow nearly one-third of the snowmobiles manufactured in 2012 to be almost as dirty and noisy as those being made today.

EPA’s own economic analysis shows that the net increase in the cost of a cleaner engine is more than offset by the significant fuel savings realized during the life of the engine’s use.

“Today’s precedent setting ruling makes clear that the Bush administration’s snowmobile pollution rules were arbitrary and capricious and appeared to be focused on protecting industry’s bottom line rather than our national parks and wilderness areas,” said Sean Smith, Bluewater Network’s public lands director and a former park ranger. “It’s time for the EPA to do its job and require the snowmobile industry to clean up its act.”

Today’s decision could have ramifications for the national debate over pollution from snowmobiles in ecologically sensitive areas, including ongoing lawsuits over the use of the noisy, dirty machines in Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks.

The case, Bluewater Network v. EPA, D.C. Cir. Nos. 03-1003 and consolidated cases, was decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

 

[Bambistew]

I love going to jellystone in the winter... nothing like having to chew my air before I can breath it. Who really likes going there anyway? The trails suck, there's too many people, and not many animals to see...

EPA’s own economic analysis shows that the net increase in the cost of a cleaner engine is more than offset by the significant fuel savings realized during the life of the engine’s use.

I thought that two stroke engines were more efficent at getting more power out of less fuel? So to achieve the same glotonous level of horsepower wouldn't you need a monster of a fourstroke thus consuming more fuel? We all know that for americans that bigger is better.

Like their analysts would see it any other way... It seems to me like they have a hard enough time with environmental issues let alone large corportatoin monatary dynamics... We all know the gobrment lies about money anyway

 

[Hangar18]

Remember to cite your sources EG.

Click here for Link to Gunner's article from the Blew-water Network

A less biased account from the Las Vegas Sun

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nat-gen/2004/jun/01/060108025.html

June 01, 2004

Court Upholds Snowmobile Pollution Rule
By H. JOSEF HEBERT
ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON (AP) - Federal appeals court judges upheld tougher pollution controls on snowmobiles Tuesday but asked why the Environmental Protection Agency rule would exempt almost a third of newly built snowmobiles.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia rejected claims by the snowmobile industry that the EPA had no authority to require new snowmobiles to have cleaner burning engines to reduce air pollution.

The ruling came in a lawsuit filed by two environmental groups who argued that the 2002 EPA rule that required new snowmobiles to have on average a 50 percent reduction in tailpipe emissions by 2012 was too lenient.

The EPA acknowledged it had written the regulation in such a way that manufacturers would not have to equip about 30 percent of their snowmobiles with cleaner engines. The industry said to require 100 percent compliance would be too costly and force manufacturers to stop making certain models.

While letting the regulation stand, the three-judge panel said Tuesday the EPA must clarify its analysis and say why it concluded that some of the snowmobiles could not be equipped with the advanced control technology to curtail pollution or why some models could not be simply discontinued.

James Pew, an attorney for the environmentalists, said the ruling means the court "found EPA's rationale didn't make sense," and it would have to produce a compelling case for letting manufacturers avoid the new requirements on many of their machines.

"The EPA claims this is the best they can do. The court said you need a better explanation," said Pew. "Snowmobiles are the dirtiest vehicles on the road or off the road. They emit as much pollution in a single hour of operation as a car emits over 24,000 miles of driving."

Pew said that if the EPA doesn't tighten the rules to cover all machines, environmentalists, including the Environmental Defense and the Bluewater Network, which filed the last lawsuit, will sue again.

"For the most part, the court upheld EPA's decisions in our effort to regulate emissions from snowmobiles," EPA spokeswoman Cynthia Bergman said in a statement. "We will provide the court with additional information on when technology will be available to achieve significant emission reductions from snowmobiles."

The agency issued its requirements for snowmobile manufacturers in the fall of 2002, allowing them 10 years to produce the cleaner machines. Manufacturers said they would have to replace the dirty, carburetor-driven two-stroke engines with four-stroke engines or direct-injection two-stroke engines to meet the tougher emission rules.

Even with some models exempt from the rule, the changes were predicted to cost the industry $900 per snowmobile, according to EPA and industry estimates.

The EPA in its rule agreed with industry that it would be too costly to apply the technology to all varieties of snowmobile models on the market.

Tuesday's court decision was written by Judge Harry T. Edward. The other panel members were Judges David B. Sentelle and David S. Tatel.

From the bloo-water wackos:

“Today’s precedent setting ruling makes clear that the Bush administration’s snowmobile pollution rules were arbitrary and capricious and appeared to be focused on protecting industry’s bottom line rather than our national parks and wilderness areas,” said Sean Smith, Bluewater Network’s public lands director and a former park ranger. “It’s time for the EPA to do its job and require the snowmobile industry to clean up its act.”

Today’s decision could have ramifications for the national debate over pollution from snowmobiles in ecologically sensitive areas, including ongoing lawsuits over the use of the noisy, dirty machines in Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks.

I am guessing I am the only one on this site that cares, but I'll put in the time anyway.

EG - What's your point? As we discussed before (last fall) and as you can read, this has nothing to do with Yellowstone, as they have their own standards that must be met. I notice the blow-water network tries to make some correlation between YNP and this ruling in their editorial. And snowmobiles have NEVER been allowed in Wilderness areas.

I think what the EPA was saying (didn't see Dubya's name anywhere in them thar standards) is they are giving the manufacturers a chance to develop sleds with better emissions for mass-market appeal, instead of using government regulations to force them all under. This is where the glue-waters and other enviro-wacko groups piss me off. They have no regard for people. What would have happened to Detroit if emissions standards weren't phased in?


Bambistew - This ruling isn't about Jellystone like the blow-water wackos would like you to believe.

I am by no means an expert on the operations of a 2-stroke and a 4-stroke. With a 2-stroke, the power/weight ratio plus the amount of power you can get out of them make them the ideal engine for off-trail snowmobiling, as the technology exists today. Right now, the high-performance 4-strokes being put out by Yamaha have serious weight issues. That is changing, however slowly. A stock 1000 cc 4-stroke gets about the same performance and over double the mileage as a 600 cc 2-stroke. A lot of guys really like the 4-strokes for hillclimbing, because with a turbo they can flat fly. The lifespan of a 4-stroke engine is much greater than that of a 2-stroke, and it gets much better gas mileage. My stock 700 cc 2-stroke gets around 5-7 mpg on a typical day of riding. For trail riding, where about 90% of sleds in the US & Canada see their time, a 4-stroke is perfect. For mountain riding, the 2-stroke is and will be the king until the weight issues are worked out.


And now, back to filling the freezers.

 

[Hangar18]

From the ISMA, via an email (no link yet) This tells a much different story the editorial from the blown-wayer network.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Ed Klim, ISMA
(517) 339-7788


US Circuit Court of Appeals Supports EPA Snowmobile Emissions Rule


HASLETT, MI (June 3, 2004) The DC Circuit Court of Appeals recently issued its decision supporting the published EPA snowmobile emission rule, which was challenged by the Bluewater Network, in Bluewater Network v. EPA.

The decision upheld the original emission standards set in November of 2002. The International Snowmobile Manufacturers Association (ISMA) worked with the EPA in the development of reasonable and technically feasible emission standards. Phase I was developed for the 2006 model year, Phase II was developed for the 2010 model year, and Phase III was developed for the 2012 model year.

The Court accepted ISMA's position that the Clean Air Act contains certain statutory limits on the Agency's authority to regulate snowmobile emissions.

The Court also found that the EPA was permitted under the Clean Air Act to: "rely on costs and other statutory standards to set standards." The Court stated that it did "not view the standards adopted as facially unreasonable, and found no evidence in the record contradicting the Agency's ultimate decision."

The Court did find the EPA owed a more detailed explanation of how it arrived at the final Phase III standards when applying the Clean Air Act's statutory criteria.

The Court strongly rejected Bluewater Network's statutory challenges to the EPA standards, finding the EPA is NOT required to: (1) issue standards based solely on a determination that a particular technology will be available, (2) "set standards at a level of stringency that would require discontinuation of all vehicles other than those satisfying ''basic demand," or (3) issue standards requiring catalysts.

ISMA will provide any data requested by the EPA that is required by the court to explain the challenges in meeting the Phase III (2012 model year) standards. The industry clearly supports the Agency in its effort to obtain all necessary information needed to fully explain the basis for the final Phase III standards.

The snowmobile manufacturers are now building EPA-certified sleds and are preparing to meet the initial phase of the EPA standard, which begins with model year 2006. The snowmobile manufacturers have proven to be good stewards of the land and are sensitive to important environmental issues put forth by the EPA and others.

The manufacturers are pleased that the fringe positions put forth by the Bluewater Network were properly defined and dismissed by the DC Court.

 

[Hangar18]

Now for the actual ruling.

Quite impressive on the spin by the blew-wafer network.

And by Gunner

Link requires Adobe Acrobat Reader
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/dc/031003a.pdf

The ruling

EDWARDS, Circuit Judge: In November 2002, the Environmental Protection Agency (‘‘EPA’’ or ‘‘Agency’’) issued a final rule establishing emissions standards for snowmobiles and certain other ‘‘nonroad’’ vehicles. See Control of Emissions From Nonroad Large Spark–Ignition Engines, and Recreational Engines (Marine and Land–Based), 67 Fed. Reg. 68,242 (Nov. 8, 2002). The snowmobile standards at issue in this case – promulgated under § 213 of the Clean Air Act (‘‘CAA’’ or ‘‘Act’’), 42 U.S.C. § 7547 (2000) – regulate emissions of three pollutants: carbon monoxide (‘‘CO’’), hydrocarbons (‘‘HC’’), and oxides of nitrogen (‘‘NOx’’).

The CO standard was adopted under § 213(a)(3). Under this provision, EPA must regulate CO and certain ozoneprecursor emissions from a category of engines if, and only if, the Agency finds that such emissions ‘‘cause, or contribute to’’ CO or ozone concentrations in more than one area that has failed to attain the relevant national ambient air quality standard (‘‘NAAQS’’). Where the Agency makes such a finding – as it did for snowmobiles with respect to CO 3 emissions – it must adopt standards reflecting ‘‘the greatest degree of emission reduction achievable’’ through the application of technology that ‘‘will be available,’’ taking cost and other factors into account.

EPA regulated HC and NOx emissions under § 213(a)(4), which is directed at pollution problems other than CO and ozone. This provision authorizes EPA – upon making certain findings – to adopt such standards as the Agency ‘‘deems appropriate,’’ again based on technology that will be available and taking cost and other factors into account. Of crucial importance for this case, § 213(a)(4) only permits regulation of ‘‘emissions not referred to in’’ § 213(a)(2), which expressly mentions emissions of CO, volatile organic compounds, and NOx.

The Agency based its standards on the expected application of two ‘‘advanced’’ technologies to snowmobiles: direct injection two-stroke engines and four-stroke engines. EPA estimated that compliance with the final phase of its standards – effective in 2012 – would require the use of these engines in 70% of all new snowmobiles. The Agency found that broader application would not be possible by 2012, because of resource constraints on manufacturers and the magnitude of the investment required to apply the technologies to the wide variety of snowmobile models on the market.

Petitioner International Snowmobile Manufacturers Association (‘‘ISMA’’) challenges EPA’s authority to promulgate the standards. ISMA argues that EPA lacks authority to issue the CO standard, because the Agency’s finding that snowmobiles contribute to CO pollution in more than one area that has failed to attain the NAAQS is based on an impermissible interpretation of the statute and is arbitrary and capricious.

ISMA claims, in addition, that the statute bars EPA from regulating HC and NOx emissions under § 213(a)(4), because those emissions are ‘‘referred to’’ in § 213(a)(2). Petitioners Bluewater Network and Environmental Defense (collectively ‘‘Bluewater’’) challenge what they consider to be the excessive leniency of the standards. Bluewater’s principal claim is that EPA’s determination that advanced 4 technologies cannot be applied to all new snowmobiles by 2012 is premised on an impermissible interpretation of the statute and is arbitrary and capricious. Bluewater also raises a host of other challenges to the regulation, including the claim that EPA improperly refused to base its standards on the application of catalyst technology.

We grant in part and deny in part each of the two petitions for review. First, we hold that EPA acted within its statutory authority in promulgating the CO and HC standards under § 213(a)(3) and (a)(4), respectively. Accordingly, we reject ISMA’s challenges to those standards. However, we agree with ISMA that EPA lacks authority to regulate NOx emissions under § 213(a)(4), because such emissions are ‘‘referred to’’ in § 213(a)(2). We therefore vacate the NOx standard.

In response to Bluewater’s petition, we remand the CO and HC standards for EPA to clarify the analysis and evidence upon which the standards are based. Specifically, we direct EPA to clarify (1) the statutory and evidentiary basis of the Agency’s assumption that the standards must be sufficiently lenient to permit the continued production of all existing snowmobile models, and (2) the analysis and evidence underlying the Agency’s conclusion that advanced technologies can be applied to no more than 70% of new snowmobiles by 2012. We reject Bluewater’s remaining claims.

There is some excellent information in the background section. I would encourage those that might be interested to read it.

In comparison with fourstroke engines, carbureted two-stroke engines generally are simpler in design and have lower manufacturing costs. They also burn an air-fuel mixture that is comparatively rich in fuel. This makes them less fuel-efficient than four-stroke engines, but gives them a higher power-to-weight ratio, allows them to start more easily in cold weather, and permits them to run at cooler temperatures (which reduces engine wear) – all important advantages for snowmobiles.

 

[Ithaca 37]

Hangar, You're doin' a great job of keepin' this topic goin'! Keep up the good work.

 

[Hangar18]

LMAO!! (back to the top)