Boat's engine model is not EPA compliant.

[Jimbo2010]

What does this really mean?

Is it something that I can do to meet the requirements or walk away from the boat.

[Chotu]

No one is inspecting boat engines for emissions

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by Jimbo2010

What does this really mean?

Is it something that I can do to meet the requirements or walk away from the boat.

Are you talking about a 2-stroke outboard? If so it isn't EPA allowed to be sold in the USA. If you bring one in and use it that will be ok

[capt jgw]

The EPA rules are just for building new engines. Nobody cares about older ones.

[S/V Illusion]

What engine are you writing about?
Small 2 strokes are not sold in the US anymore. So-called CI ( ignition engines) above 800 HP require remanufacture to be in compliance but these are old (pre 1972 as I recall) and likely not what you have. Contemporary Diesel engines require certification by the manufacturer for sale. Importing non-compliant engines requires certification prior to use although enforcement is non-existent in use.

None of these regs prohibit anyone from using one.

[Jimbo2010]

2014 Yanmar 4JH5E 54hp

[HeywoodJ]

If the boat is not a boat in the US, and you intend to import it into the US, the one thing the CBP inspection will care about (from personal experience, twice) is that EPA emissions sticker on any engine(s).

There are really not many regulations about bringing a boat to the US, but that is one of them. And beware, a sticker can be cancelled. Just because it is on the engine does not mean it is valid. Witness the Volvo D1/D2 emissions scandal of a few years back. Those engines were recalled and replaced in the US, and the EPA de-certified the engines built prior to the recall date. So if the CBP person knows that, or just wants to be a pain and checks.... YMMV.

https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emis...ne-compression

https://www.epa.gov/importing-vehicl...es-and-engines

https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P10081IS.pdf

The actual form you will need to complete to import https://19january2021snapshot.epa.go...ed-enabled.pdf

[HeywoodJ]

Originally Posted by Jimbo2010

2014 Yanmar 4JH5E 54hp

I would start here. There is a list of certified engines. It is a downloadable Excel file so I am not posting a direct link because I think you should get that kind of thing from a trusted source. Scroll down to Marine Compression-Ignition Engines, grab the file, and scan for the engine.

Yanmar says the 4JH5E meets EPA Tier 3, but, while they usually do not sell multiple models because of cost, there is no guarantee (without talking with Yanmar) that all engines of that model are compliant. But, if you can get Yanmar to say they are, or you can wade through the EPA data path to serial numbers, then the sticker itself is no big deal, as long as you can demonstrate the path between your engine serial number and the EPA database.

If you have to go to that level of effort make sure the boat is worth it (to you).

[dfelsent]

Originally Posted by HeywoodJ

If the boat is not a boat in the US, and you intend to import it into the US, the one thing the CBP inspection will care about (from personal experience, twice) is that EPA emissions sticker on any engine(s).

There are really not many regulations about bringing a boat to the US, but that is one of them. And beware, a sticker can be cancelled. Just because it is on the engine does not mean it is valid. Witness the Volvo D1/D2 emissions scandal of a few years back. Those engines were recalled and replaced in the US, and the EPA de-certified the engines built prior to the recall date. So if the CBP person knows that, or just wants to be a pain and checks.... YMMV.

https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emis...ne-compression

https://www.epa.gov/importing-vehicl...es-and-engines

https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P10081IS.pdf

The actual form you will need to complete to import https://19january2021snapshot.epa.go...ed-enabled.pdf

Customs and EPA degree of concern depends on the port of entry. Some ports check every time and some don’t check.
That said, I would not import a boat with an engine that did not meet requirements. It’s a risk with big consequences.
I did import a boat. It did meet requirements. It was not inspected but would have passed.
Requirements are not just meeting emissions but include appropriate labeling.

[Jimbo2010]

I think I'll pass, keep looking for the right boat


Thanks for feedback

[jamhass]

If the boat is US documented or US state registered, even if located in a foreign country (Say Mexico?) you will not likely be "importing" it when you bring it back.

[Dawnpatrol]

Hello
Has anyone delt with EPA non compliant issues on 2015, 16 17 Jenneau and Beneteau?

I’m told there are certain models that new that can not be brought into the states.

[GordMay]

Soon it may not matter, if Donald Trump gets his way.

Acting under Trump’s Day One Unleashing American Energy executive order, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin now plans to strike at the government’s foundational scientific finding [1] that carbon dioxide, methane, and other climate-changing pollutants are dangerous to our health and well-being.

Issued by the EPA, in 2009, this endangerment finding [1] is the scientific and legal foundation for 15 years of Clean Air Act standards to cut climate pollution from cars and trucks, power plants, oil and gas drilling, and other industries. If it is repealed, those standards could all be dead, while those industries would be free to spew climate-harming pollution again without limit.

The scientific basis for the endangerment finding has only strengthened, since 2009. A Denali-size mountain of evidence in 2009, has only grown to Mount Everest–size since then.

Trump's executive order effectively directed the EPA and other agencies to consider whether climate change is a “hoax,” as the president has often claimed. Section 6(f) of the order says:
"Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Administrator of the EPA, in collaboration with the heads of any other relevant agencies, shall submit joint recommendations to the Director of OMB on the legality and continuing applicability of the Administrator’s findings, 'Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act,' [1] Final Rule, 74 FR 66496 (December 15, 2009)."

The Trump team has apparently decided to go for outright climate change denial. It appears, the lunatics are running the asylum.

[1]"Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act" ~ Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]
➥ https://www.epa.gov/climate-change/e...r-section-202a

Originally Posted by EPA

“...
- Endangerment Finding: The Administrator finds that the current and projected concentrations of the six key well-mixed greenhouse gases—carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)—in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations.
- Cause or Contribute Finding: The Administrator finds that the combined emissions of these well-mixed greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the greenhouse gas pollution that threatens public health and welfare.

These findings do not themselves impose any requirements on industry or other entities. However, this action was a prerequisite for implementing greenhouse gas emissions standards for vehicles and other sectors.
... ”

“EPA’S ENDANGERMENT FINDING” ~ Natural Resources Defense Council [NRDC]
THE LEGAL AND SCIENTIFIC FOUNDATION FOR CLIMATE ACTION
➥ https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/f...finding-fs.pdf

[Lepke]

If a boat's engine model is not EPA compliant I would consider that a positive indication of reliability.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by GordMay

”Soon it may not matter [if an engine is EPA compliant], if Donald Trump gets his way.
Acting under Trump’s Day One Unleashing American Energy executive order, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin now plans to strike at the government’s foundational scientific finding [*] that carbon dioxide, methane, and other climate-changing pollutants are dangerous to our health and well-being. ...”

“US disbands controversial climate panel” ~ by Jeff Tollefson
➥ https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-02942-8

Faced with a lawsuit, the administration of US President Donald Trump has disbanded a panel [Climate Working Group] of five well-known critics of climate science, who reject the consensus view of global warming [John Christy, Ph.D. Judith Curry, Ph.D. Steven Koonin, Ph.D. Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. Roy Spencer, Ph.D.], who issued a controversial draft report [1], that casts doubt on the evidence, underlying global warming.

The document serves as the scientific basis of the Trump administration’s efforts to repeal a landmark 2009 finding*, that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare — which could ultimately prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating those emissions.
It justified regulations for various sources, including new vehicle and engine emissions standards, and more.

* “EPA Finds Greenhouse Gases Pose Threat to Public Health, Welfare / Proposed Finding Comes in Response to 2007 Supreme Court Ruling” ~ EPA Press Release [04/17/2009]
➥ https://www.epa.gov/archive/epapages...b00566924.html

* “Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act” ~ EPA
➥ https://www.epa.gov/climate-change/e...r-section-202a

Leading climate scientists have crafted a formal response [2], arguing that the DOE’s report makes a mockery of science by misrepresenting, cherry-picking, or outright ignoring evidence, compiled by scientists, around the world, over the past several decades.

Ultimately, the United States, and the world, will emerge the poorer for it.
The Trump administration’s attempts to undermine efforts to curb greenhouse-gas emissions will ultimately leave us all worse off, argues a Nature editorial. [3]

[1]“A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate” ~ by the Climate Working Group, United States Department of Energy [July 23, 2025]
➥ https://www.energy.gov/sites/default...e_July_2025.pd

[2] “Climate Experts’ Review of the DOE Climate Working Group Report” ~ by Dr. Andrew Dessler et al [over 85 climate experts]
“Climate impacts are real — denying this is self-defeating” ~ ‘Nature’ Editorial
➥ https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-02868-1
And ➥ https://drive.google.com/file/d/1r3-...oKrSc3nxV/view

[3] “Climate impacts are real — denying this is self-defeating” ~ ‘Nature’ Editorial
➥ https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-02868-1

“Outrage over Trump team’s climate report spurs researchers to fight back” ~ by Jeff Tollefson
➥ https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-02505-x

“Contrarian climate assessment from U.S. government draws swift pushback” ~ by Paul Voosen, for ‘Science’ magaine
➥ https://www.science.org/content/arti...swift-pushback